EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)

[EEVblog]

Some people have been suggesting that the UL report could be BS, but I'm pretty sure it's not.
Why?, because it's one thing to sprout marketing BS and exaggerate your products claims, duck and weave, and do cleverly deceptive videos etc, that's not really punishable by anyone. Media, forum people, and all and sundry can punch holes in that ship all they like, and it will still float.
But faking a UL report would be hugely fraudulent, with potentially harsh punishment, and they would know that. If they did it their company would be history, and potentially much worse.
They are not that silly, these are smart industry players. So I'm pretty sure the UL report is real in some way shape or form. But what they have shown is clearly not the entire report, not even a full page.

[EEVblog]

Every performance claim by Batteroo has now been completely destroyed. Care to start making some retractions there Bob?

Nope, he's got a UL report that trumps everything, and they'll ride that show pony all the way into town.

I bet they are now done and won't release any more videos or reply to any more technical claims. They'll keep mum until the dust settles.
They still haven't responded to my video about the paid dislikes, not a peep.

[Galenbo]

And can anyone here understand French as it's all Greek to me.

to your service. 5:28 --> 9:13

Quotes, lies, strange things:

5:34 ...I'm talking to parent who put batteries in toys or persons who put batteries in objects....
6:30 ...They multiplicate autonomy by 8x in AVERAGE...
6:38 ...I don't know if it's true...
6:40 ...In an example on their site they show a bluetooth keyboard that indicates 13% and after putting the tool it goes to 100%, It's IMPRESSING... 
7:03 ...what I appreciate a lot also is that the CEO has refused all offers of big businesses like DURACELL and ENERGISER who start to panic because it's gonna take them business profit... million dollars...
7:24 ...planned obsolecency... big companies were able to develop this? Sure, now it's too late, it's patented, much hahaha
8:54 ...I know the subject very well.. in our products alkaline is used... our devices need a voltage of 1.5V... there are devices do not work on rechargable, they need 1.5V, and do not work under that voltage.
9:04 ...change your products so they work till 1.3V hahaha...right, we're working on that hahaha.

I think nobody wants to read the full text, It's stupid beyond what I heard till now.

[firewalker]

I also don't believe that there isn't a single chance for the UL thing to be a fake.

Alexander.

[AmmoJammo]

I also don't believe that there isn't a single chance for the UL thing to be a fake.

Alexander.

But it seems they didn't actually get UL approval, they just got UL to repeat their GPS test, using butterisers own test rig.

No one asked for that, and its meaningless, as its already been shown that the GPS will run for just as long, if not longer, without the butteriser...

[amyk]

Another possible theory is that the GPS they're using, and sent to UL, happens to have a defective - or deliberately disabled (and acting as a passthrough) - boost converter. 2xAA at 3V might be just enough to run something expecting 3.3V (a few GPS modules I've looked at specify 3.3V nominal and a 3-3.6V range), but not for long. Adding the Batteriser of course "fixes" this...

[firewalker]

It is like I run with another person and I lost. I can ether say:

"I lost, my opponent won."

Or I can say:

"In a race that included my opponent, I finished second and my opponent last but one."

Both statements are true. I guess something similar with the UL thing they presented.

Alexander.

[LabSpokane]

Every performance claim by Batteroo has now been completely destroyed. Care to start making some retractions there Bob?

Nope, he's got a UL report that trumps everything, and they'll ride that show pony all the way into town.

Well... we have reports of a report of sort.  If there's truly a report in-hand, then they should post the full, un-redacted PDF. I don't doubt that Batteroo did indeed contract UL to do *something*, but it appears only to have been to operate a test fixture that produces an erroneous result by design.

[EEVblog]

But it seems they didn't actually get UL approval, they just got UL to repeat their GPS test, using butterisers own test rig.
No one asked for that, and its meaningless, as its already been shown that the GPS will run for just as long, if not longer, without the butteriser...

Ah, but you see, that doesn't matter one bit. Only to technical people like us. To everyone else, including their investors, it's like being knighted.
They will trumpet this from every hill top.

[samgab]

End of the day, it doesn't matter what butteriser say, or what UL come up with, or what firmware the G3 devices are running.
The facts are:

• The G3 is designed by Garmin for golf use.
• Many users who own the device have been using it for a long time, and getting 2+ rounds of golf per Alkaline battery.
• Each round of golf lasts more than 4-5 hours.
• Golfers who bought this and are living with it are clearly getting much more than 2 hours of use out of it, not doing 2 battery changes per round.

[LabSpokane]

They will trumpet this from every hill top.

If only they knew the difference between a trumpet and a kazoo...

[AmmoJammo]

Maybe they let the monkey set up the gps test...

[PeterL]

I also don't believe that there isn't a single chance for the UL thing to be a fake.

Alexander.

But it seems they didn't actually get UL approval, they just got UL to repeat their GPS test, using butterisers own test rig.

No one asked for that, and its meaningless, as its already been shown that the GPS will run for just as long, if not longer, without the butteriser...

This 'UL test' wasn't done to convince the engineers community in any way of course.

The just wanted a statement that looks very convincing to the crowd.

So UL did a test. It doesn't matter what any more. It's says UL, so it sounds official and that enough. Sure some people are gonna dig in to that, but those people probably won't buy their crap anyway, so why bother.

[Fungus]

Well, the stupid GPS is still going, so I think I'm going to go to bed.  Hopefully the logging software doesn't have any memory leaks or anything.

In batteriser's GPS test video, they got 10:12 runtime on duracell AA's. EDIT: that's USING batteriser--it only got 1:50 or so ALLEGEDLY using batteries without batteriser 

I'm currently at 11:36 on duracell AA's.   

The voltage is still at 2.40v at this moment so I'm sure it'll go for another hour at least.   

Assume 10:12 VS 12:30...

That's a 20% decrease in run time.... you mean, making the power source 20% less efficient results in a 20% shorter run time? who would have thought! 

This fits in with the 75-80% conversion efficiency we calculated for Batteriser earlier.

We also know the GPS only uses 20% of normal batteries before "shutting down" and that it shows the message at 2.6V - this gives us the "1.3V shutdown" of their initial claims.

The whole house of cards is obviously designed around this GPS test. Their initial claims for Batterizer, the UL thingy, everything. The only mystery is why they bothered making that crappy response video with the monkey in it.

[Wytnucls]

If they managed to pull the wool over some eyes at UL Labs with their dodgy test set-up, it would reflect pretty badly on UL certification in general. I hope that the full test report will be available shortly and that the small print will exonerate the testing company of any sloppy practices.

If it transpires that they willfully endorsed a stupid product from a new company that claims their gizmo prolongs the life of spent batteries by 800%, their worldwide reputation would take a serious blow.

[Galenbo]

The just wanted a statement that looks very convincing to the crowd.
So UL did a test. It doesn't matter what any more. It's says UL, so it sounds official and that enough.

I didn't know about UL tests, but it sounds familiar to the TUV tests in Europe.
They only test security, not functionality.
I know about "deionisators', for attaching around fuel lines on cars, saves 'till 12% fuel', that turned out to be magnets in a plastic enclosure, with a TUV stamp.

This 'UL test' wasn't done to convince the engineers community in any way of course.

They never addressed the engineers community till now. They listen, choose some words, make a story around it for their own community.

[Quarlo Klobrigney]

"Making chinese machines twice as good is very easy. Open it and tighten the screws."
And remove all the Hot Snot and secure everything properly.

[Fungus]

Some people have been suggesting that the UL report could be BS, but I'm pretty sure it's not.

I'm with you on that, but why the badly photoshopped image?

[EEVblog]

Some people have been suggesting that the UL report could be BS, but I'm pretty sure it's not.

I'm with you on that, but why the badly photoshopped image?

Probably because they wanted a single compact image to use in their marketing.

[Wytnucls]

I have asked UL Labs to provide some information about test # 4787059213. I encourage you to do the same.

47173 Benicia Street
Fremont, CA 94538
U.S.A.
Tel: 510.771.1000
Email:
CustomerExperienceCenter@ul.com

[PeterL]

I didn't know about UL tests, but it sounds familiar to the TUV tests in Europe.
They only test security, not functionality.

I don't know about UL testing either, but from what I read in this thread they seem to offer more than just the certification.

It looks like they just hired some lab space for a day or so, some contract job kinda thing.

Also remember that when asked Bob was very quick saying "We don't need no stinking UL certification", and then just as quick changed it to "we will look into that". I think just there they sprouted the idea of doing a test at the UL labs, it's not about certification or performance, just renting equipment.

And according to their YT-fan they spend many thousands on lawyers. That's probably to figure out how far they can go with claims like these.

They never addressed the engineers community till now. They listen, choose some words, make a story around it for their own community.

Who do you think the "Dr. Franky explains it with snails" video was for?

[Svuppe]

As silly as it sounds, my model can't data log without a computer. I think the 70 model adds that menu option. It can measure voltage and current simultaneously, but I'm not sure if that works while data logging. I might have to try. I'm curious what the burden is on that thing

Are you sure it can measure voltage and current simultaneously? That would be very handy.
Unfortunately, I never heard of this ability. I sure could have used that feature from time to time. Guess I have to go read up on the manual now.

[Muttley Snickers]

Apparently we have a big electronics show coming up in a few days down here in Melbourne as Dave pointed out in a recent video and my fashion skills are rather ordinary, so should I go formal with a plain tee shirt or dress it down a bit and plonk some crude advertising on the front and perhaps a monkey on my back.

I expect that Dave will be wearing his shirt of invisibility which we all recently witnessed, just hope it works properly this time around.

[TheAmmoniacal]

I really think it's time for Dave to get his hands on this Approach G3 and make some comments to the technical video and their recent UL 'certification' / document!

It might be going too far to directly say the document is fake, and I wouldn't encourage Dave to say it. But let's be real, it's fake.

1. It looks nothing like an official document I've ever seen, it has spelling mistakes and awkward grammar.
2. The UL logo is missing the copyright logo.
3. It looks nothing likely any UL report/certification I can find online: http://www.multi-contact.com/AcroFiles/Zertifikate/UL/UL_E351413_CND_%28en%29.pdf or http://www.gadgetplusstore.com/sites/default/files/uploads/1274255303%26%2609.jpg
4. A company like UL would most definitely use a fixed template.
5. No technical information is listed, no signatures, dates, reference numbers, issueee, etc.
6. It's a screen capture of a Word document (JPG), not PDF.
7. Inconsistent use of language, says the test is terminated when a low battery message is displayed - while at the same time saying the GPS shuts down when the test ends (without batteriser).
etc etc.

Anyone who knows more can give more points I am sure.

The document only makes sense if this is the procedure provided by Batteroo and sent to UL for them to test. i.e. Batteroo's own findings that they want UL to replicate. But then, why the UL logo?

[Fungus]

It might be going too far to directly say the document is fake, and I wouldn't encourage Dave to say it. But let's be real, it's fake.

1. It looks nothing like an official document I've ever seen...

Obviously UL didn't issue that document, but that doesn't mean the certification itself isn't real.