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

[Godzil]

lpickup: I thinks it's hopeless. Even if you prove him in all possible way that he is wrong he will still says that he is right..

[lpickup]

You show a very good difference between 2 possible definitions, but say nothing about the other point.
Even if you choose the most loose definition, what's proof enough for you that even that thing exists?

In this case, I accept the Battero GPS video as evidence that they have SOMETHING, based on the fact that I think it would be easier for them to actually create this prototype-level device than it would be to fake all the data & waveforms, etc.  Of course I am skeptical of their claims & conclusions, but whether the device exists or not, in this case, I accept their own video.

Depending on what's at stake, my standards of proof and whether specs are met increase towards your stated criteria:

If I was spending a nominal amount of my money on such devices, I would have a higher standard of proof that there is a reasonable chance that (a) the device is even possible and (b) the seller has demonstrated the device to a 3rd party that is clearly not a paid shill of the company.

If I was investing a significant amount of money on such devices, the standard is even higher and I would want a renowned 3rd party to independently validate the actual claims being made with their own test (and not just UL repeating a contrived test).

[Godzil]

(The fact that some people at UL saw this test, even if flawed, is also a proof that some prototype exists.)

[drussell]

(The fact that some people at UL saw this test, even if flawed, is also a proof that some prototype exists.)

Yup, and the emissions testing done for the FCC, etc.  Prototypes exist.  Some people don't want to admit / believe / accept that so I suggest we not further feed the trolls....  I'm simply not going to respond and thereby needlessly increase the noise level in here.  This thread is lengthy enough as it is..

Unfortunately the forum "Ignore List" functionality doesn't seem to work as expected.  Unfortunately, I still see posts from members on my "Ignore List", they are just prefaced by "You are ignoring this user." 

Dave, can we get a setting that will allow us to actually hide posts from users on our "Ignore List" please?

[Galenbo]

lpickup: I thinks it's hopeless. Even if you prove him in all possible way that he is wrong he will still says that he is right.

You did not proove anything. Your definition of "all possible way" is very poisoned.
I do not say I am right, still looking for more info.

[timb]

lpickup: I thinks it's hopeless. Even if you prove him in all possible way that he is wrong he will still says that he is right.

You did not proove anything. Your definition of "all possible way" is very poisoned.
I do not say I am right, still looking for more info.

You talk about others twisting the facts to fit their agenda, but man, you are the king (or queen) of that!

Quit harping on about this. You have an opinion, you've stated it multiple times. We get it. You're not going to change anyone's mind about this. All you're doing is increasing the SNR of an otherwise stellar thread.

If you want to rant to an audience, start a Tumblr.

[quad]

They plan to start shipping this February.

[EEVblog]

I recommend that nobody engage Galenbo on this issue again, he will not give up and the thread will be polluted with his silly argument.

[EEVblog]

They plan to start shipping this February.

It will be interesting to see if the Energiser Trademark lawsuit is mentioned in the next update.
I'm almost 100% certain they won't be dumb enough to ship product with "Batteriser" marked on the side of it, any trademark attorney would tell them that.
So if they do actually ship in February, some sort of deal would have to be made with Energiser. And I'm pretty sure Energiser will not back down or deal, they want the name Batteriser gone, so that mean re-manufacturing the sleeves.

[onlooker]

... so that mean re-manufacturing the sleeves.

Do we know they actually started the production run of anything? If yes, I would think it is to their interest to show pictures of some half made parts/product, such as piles of PCBs or sleeves just to make the backers happy.

But, so far, there appears to be none. Their updates are always very vague. It will be no surprise if the behind-scene reality is worse than their vagueness.

[Ian.M]

Their excuses aren't even as good as: "Sir, I'm sorry, the dog ate my homework!"

[EEVblog]

... so that mean re-manufacturing the sleeves.

Do we know they actually started the production run of anything? If yes, I would think it is to their interest to show pictures of some half made parts/product, such as piles of PCBs or sleeves just to make the backers happy.

They did post photos of the production ready sleeves and cases, all with Batetriser logo 3 months ago.
You would think they would have pressed the go button at some point since then. The only thing they changed was the chip.

[Kjelt]

All you're doing is increasing the SNR of an otherwise stellar thread.

Actually since the last video of Dave there is only noise in this topic since it is all hearsay, theories in peoples mind and social media blurring. In short: just 
I really do hope they ship something physical and Dave or someone else can test it and we have something to really discuss about.

[EEVblog]

Actually since the last video of Dave there is only noise in this topic since it is all hearsay, theories in peoples mind and social media blurring. In short: just 

You must have missed some awesome engineering done by many on here, creating equivalents and testing them, proving maximum power theory, testing the Golf GPS etc.

[Kjelt]

probably must have 

[Fungus]

They did post photos of the production ready sleeves and cases, all with Batetriser logo 3 months ago.
You would think they would have pressed the go button at some point since then. The only thing they changed was the chip.

The smart-businessman thing to do would have been to ship as-is, with the 500mA chip...

... and announce "Batteriser 2" (with the new chip) the day before the shipment is sent.

That way you earn double the money by selling two units to everybody and you can string along the people who say "It doesn't work as claimed!" for a few more months by saying "Batteriser 2 is better".

The fact that they haven't done this probably means they haven't manufactured a single sausage to date. Me? I still think they'll never ship anything.

[Fungus]

I recommend that nobody engage Galenbo on this issue again, he will not give up and the thread will be polluted with his silly argument.

Sign me up for that one! 

They plan to start shipping this February.

In the middle of Chinese New Year?

Hmmmm. I wonder what the next excuse will be. 

[EEVblog]

The smart-businessman thing to do would have been to ship as-is, with the 500mA chip...

Not with a trademark lawsuit hanging over your head, only a fool would ship anything with the name on it. When you do that then you can potentially get sued for damages per unit shipped.

[PA0PBZ]

So if they do actually ship in February, some sort of deal would have to be made with Energiser. And I'm pretty sure Energiser will not back down or deal, they want the name Batteriser gone, so that mean re-manufacturing the sleeves.

Did you miss this one? It is a bit hard to see:

[EEVblog]

Did you miss this one? It is a bit hard to see:

It obviously says Batteroo on the sleeve.
When and were was this image taken?
Looks like one of the old prototypes? Because the latest sexy ones in the IGG update from a few months back have Batteriser on them.
Like this one from their original promo images:


In this image of the progression of prototypes, the third from the left has Batteroo on it. They obviously switched to Batterier after that.

[PA0PBZ]

When and were was this image taken?

It's from the video here: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/batteriser-extend-battery-life-by-up-to-8x#/
Around 0:22

[PA0PBZ]

Looks like one of the old prototypes? Because the latest sexy ones in the IGG update from a few months back have Batteriser on them.
Like this one from their original promo images:

I think I see half an "O" there after the R, certainly not an "I".

[GoneTomorrow]

Assuming customers were to ever receive their Batteroosers, I can see many of them getting stuck inside the devices with tubular battery holders (such as the Apple keyboard). I have a few devices with such holders (mainly torches) and they all mostly have about half a bee's dick of slop between battery and casing. Simply wrapping a single layer of 80gsm paper around makes the battery an interference fit.

The shape of the spine of the Batterooser also looks to be non-cylindrical, so there's got to be at least a millimeter there. I'm pretty sure that it would require some force to get into my torches, and then be impossible to remove.

[EEVblog]

Assuming customers were to ever receive their Batteroosers, I can see many of them getting stuck inside the devices with tubular battery holders (such as the Apple keyboard). I have a few devices with such holders (mainly torches) and they all mostly have about half a bee's dick of slop between battery and casing. Simply wrapping a single layer of 80gsm paper around makes the battery an interference fit.

Yep, big problem.
But not to worry, most devices have decent DC-DC converters in them anyway that extract most of the energy from a battery 

The shape of the spine of the Batterooser also looks to be non-cylindrical, so there's got to be at least a millimeter there. I'm pretty sure that it would require some force to get into my torches, and then be impossible to remove.

My torches work down to under 0.8V. No need for Batteriser.

[GoneTomorrow]

Assuming customers were to ever receive their Batteroosers, I can see many of them getting stuck inside the devices with tubular battery holders (such as the Apple keyboard). I have a few devices with such holders (mainly torches) and they all mostly have about half a bee's dick of slop between battery and casing. Simply wrapping a single layer of 80gsm paper around makes the battery an interference fit.

Yep, big problem.
But not to worry, most devices have decent DC-DC converters in them anyway that extract most of the energy from a battery 

The shape of the spine of the Batterooser also looks to be non-cylindrical, so there's got to be at least a millimeter there. I'm pretty sure that it would require some force to get into my torches, and then be impossible to remove.

My torches work down to under 0.8V. No need for Batteriser.

Of course, mine do too (I actually tested one of them on the bench PSU back when we were all doing that kinda stuff in this thread (how long ago was that again?)).

Funny thing about, I actually let the smoke out of one of my LED torches by testing its cutoff voltage. It's a 3W 2x AA torch; I started winding it down on the PSU until it got to about 0.6V, and I thought that's impressive. I then glanced up and saw it was pulling 3.5A, and before I could hit the off button, she kicked the bucket.

I assume they were relying on the ESR of the batteries to protect the DC-DC converter from extreme currents at low voltage. Not sure how I feel about that.