I'm about to hit 7 hour mark and the GPS is still going in alkaline mode and the loaded voltage is at 2.49v. They HAD to have stopped their test when the screen dimmed and called that "stopped working".
Funny thing is, you can get around that by changing battery type to nimh or lipo. The only thing that changes is it disables the screen dimming at 2.6v, and it changes the voltage where the unit tells you the battery is low. Other than that, you could use that to circumvent the screen dimming. And without the losses of the batteriser's boost converter, I'm sure you could go as long if not longer.
It takes 3 to 4 months, at the earliest, to obtain test results at UL labs, according to their site.
I know... I sent Dave a message to this effect the other day.
One of our customers, it took them 12 months to get their product through...
But don't worry, Batteriser can do anything! 3 days for UL approval? no worries!
So the key to the whole test result is in the wording where they say: "Test is terminated when... GPS unit displays a Low Battery Power message".
Personally, I dispute that that message is really a low battery power message, but that's what they're using as their loophole.
Now, on that note, I have a great idea for a new invention (because that's the sort of genius I am, just like Frankie)...
It's a device that you install in cars and it disables the fuel warning light (using amazing new wire snips that I've invented).
So I will do a test, driving the car until either it stops going or the fuel light comes on.
First I'll do the test without my new genius invention installed. I'll stop when the fuel light comes on.
Then, I'll do the test with my invention; let's call it CARRRERRISER!; installed. The test stops when the car stops going.
This test will prove that CARRRERRISER! gives many cars 8 times more travel per tank of fuel.
(NB. CARRRERRISER! does not give some cars 8 times more travel, your milage may vary. For instance, in Australia you may use Kms.)
....
PROFIT!!!!
EDIT: Hmm, now all I need to do is make some Apple-esque ad videos with smooth music in the background, and some guys sitting on stools talking about how fuel lights are such a worldwide problem, and ideally some pretty girls demonstrating my product in action! I'll be a hundred-aire in no time!
I have my test setup nearly identical to theirs (even measuring the voltage at the external battery box) and it's still going as we speak and it's at 5 hr 30 min and still at 2.46v under load. (when I tested with bench supply, the unit shut off at 2.1v so we still have another hour or two to go)
This discrepancy between your results and theirs seems to indicate a problem with their test setup. As they're measuring voltage and current, the burden voltage of their current measuring
must be the cause. They have both a Dataq and a Hantek USB device connected to the laptop, so it may be worth checking up on the burden voltage in current measurement on those, although I wouldn't put it past them either setting the current range to maximise burden voltage, or be using an external shunt to do the same. Hard to tell in that mess of wires/probes/labels, but I think the Dataq is doing the current measurement.
I'm doubting that was really tested by UL. Perhaps UL tested for something else and batteriser is doing what they do best and using smoke and mirrors tactics to associate UL's testing with their GPS findings to convince people they're legit results.
It is possible that the Roohparvar's have contacts at UL from their previous business relationships and got this done as a special favour and fast tracked. Doesn't mean it was done as an official test and that UL will put their backing behind it. It certainly appears that Batteroo provided the test jig and procedure, and all UL would have done was operate a stop watch.
But don't worry, Batteriser can do anything! 3 days for UL approval? no worries!
I know, it's not the "UL" we are thinking. They are using "Uken's Lavatory"... errr.."Laboratory". That's it!
I have my test setup nearly identical to theirs (even measuring the voltage at the external battery box) and it's still going as we speak and it's at 5 hr 30 min and still at 2.46v under load. (when I tested with bench supply, the unit shut off at 2.1v so we still have another hour or two to go)
This discrepancy between your results and theirs seems to indicate a problem with their test setup.
At this point, this unusual result would appear to be - let us call it - a *feature* of Batteroo's test setup.
So the key to the whole test result is in the wording where they say: "Test is terminated when... GPS unit displays a Low Battery Power message".
Personally, I dispute that that message is really a low battery power message, but that's what they're using as their loophole.
Yes, anything funky with their test jig or procedure (i.e. treating that backlight message as a low battery warning) would be reproduced by a test lab strictly following a customer supplied procedure. Having two different test termination modes invalidates the test procedure as you point out.
Again this test just shows how their product pretty much just disables the battery "fuel gauge" on most devices.
And yes, the set of batteries from the non-batteriser test would still have a bunch of remaining energy, but only because they aborted the test early.
I have my test setup nearly identical to theirs (even measuring the voltage at the external battery box) and it's still going as we speak and it's at 5 hr 30 min and still at 2.46v under load. (when I tested with bench supply, the unit shut off at 2.1v so we still have another hour or two to go)
This discrepancy between your results and theirs seems to indicate a problem with their test setup.
At this point, this unusual result would appear to be - let us call it - a *feature* of Batteroo's test setup.
Yes, but possibly a *feature* of their test protocol, rather than the jig.
I just read in your other posts that your auto-tapping device might have OK'd that backlight warning message - but if it did, wouldn't the backlight have been disabled at that point? In the other discussions on this Garmin device I don't recall mention of backlight dimming, just backlight on or off.
Another classic quote from our friend Bob:
I have my test setup nearly identical to theirs (even measuring the voltage at the external battery box) and it's still going as we speak and it's at 5 hr 30 min and still at 2.46v under load. (when I tested with bench supply, the unit shut off at 2.1v so we still have another hour or two to go)
This discrepancy between your results and theirs seems to indicate a problem with their test setup.
At this point, this unusual result would appear to be - let us call it - a *feature* of Batteroo's test setup.
Yes, but possibly a *feature* of their test protocol, rather than the jig.
I just read in your other posts that your auto-tapping device might have OK'd that backlight warning message - but if it did, wouldn't the backlight have been disabled at that point? In the other discussions on this Garmin device I don't recall mention of backlight dimming, just backlight on or off.
5ky is testing the Approach G3.
I previously tested an eTrex 20, and with that unit, I was able to lock the backlight on 100% for the duration of the test. My unit ran over 13 hours with everything turned on.
I wish these external battery holders were not part of the test. I understand the desire to replicate Batteroo's so-called "test", but we really need to eliminate all the extra contact and lead resistances and let the device operate normally and just monitor the battery voltage so that we can see the device shut itself off.
I just read in your other posts that your auto-tapping device might have OK'd that backlight warning message - but if it did, wouldn't the backlight have been disabled at that point?
It doesn't disable it, it just doesn't run at "full brightness".
This appears to be Batteroo's criteria for terminating the test. When they say "the screen dimmed" they don't mean it went black, it just went down a notch.
I have my test setup nearly identical to theirs (even measuring the voltage at the external battery box) and it's still going as we speak and it's at 5 hr 30 min and still at 2.46v under load. (when I tested with bench supply, the unit shut off at 2.1v so we still have another hour or two to go)
This discrepancy between your results and theirs seems to indicate a problem with their test setup.
At this point, this unusual result would appear to be - let us call it - a *feature* of Batteroo's test setup.
Yes, but possibly a *feature* of their test protocol, rather than the jig.
I just read in your other posts that your auto-tapping device might have OK'd that backlight warning message - but if it did, wouldn't the backlight have been disabled at that point? In the other discussions on this Garmin device I don't recall mention of backlight dimming, just backlight on or off.
I just turned the lights off and the display is definitely being backlit. I believe it dims it. (though in direct sunlight, it's VERY readable. it uses reflected light and looks similar to color e-ink. not sure how they pulled it off but it works great--my other garmin I use on float trips and I leave it on ALL day and it's crisp and clear in direct sunlight with no backlight)
Once it hits 2.6v it dims the backlight. Even if you're on alkalines, you could set the battery mode to lipo or nimh to get around that.
It's at 7 hr 17 min @ 2.49v. Still going strong! Means it should still have ~390 mV until cutoff voltage. It does spike a lot (in both directions) so it might dip below the theshold and shut off before it's completely down to 2.1v, but we'll find out in a couple hours.
UL does indeed test the claims of device manufacturers. It is not what they are normally known for, but it is a service UL provides.
yes
http://services.ul.com/service/energy-efficiency-testing/
http://services.ul.com/service/energy-efficiency-certification/
That's for certified compliance with contractual requirements. ie. You have a customer with a certain requirement, UL will certify that you meet that requirement.
What contractual requirements is Batteriser meeting?
I guess if the 'contract' on their web site is "devices only use 20% of their batteries" then UL
could certify that the batteries lasted 5x longer in the rigged GPS test.
Another classic quote from our friend Bob:
That is just moronic!
Well that solves it for me, Now I know what to do with all the old batteries ( correct spelling ) that I have been saving for the last few years. I have one that is 70+ years old it's a 22.5 volt and still reads 22.5 v. open circuit 0 v with any load. I have tried to recharge it
no change....
Once it hits 2.6v it dims the backlight.
Mystery solved!
We now know why they chose that particular GPS and why they say "the screen dims to dark" in the video.
(although they do say "stop functioning" as well...which is a complete lie)
So it looks like all this
is carefully planned/orchestrated from the start:
a) The GPS test gives the 5x battery life Batteroo has been claiming since day 1.
b) UL
could certify that figure for them, so long as this is the only Batteriser test that UL does.
(UL might be a bit angry when they figure out what's really going on).
It is possible that the Roohparvar's have contacts at UL from their previous business relationships and got this done as a special favour and fast tracked. Doesn't mean it was done as an official test and that UL will put their backing behind it. It certainly appears that Batteroo provided the test jig and procedure, and all UL would have done was operate a stop watch.
Why fast tracked? That GPS jig could be two years old for all we know.
But yeah, you'd think they'd have something better than a badly photoshopped image to show us.
Once it hits 2.6v it dims the backlight.
Mystery solved!
We now know why they chose that particular GPS and why they say "the screen dims to dark" in the video.
(although they do say "stop functioning" as well...which is a complete lie)
So all this is carefully planned/orchestrated:
a) The GPS test gives the 5x battery life they're been claiming since day 1.
b) UL could certify that figure for them, so long as this is the only Batteriser test that UL does.
(UL might be a bit angry when they figure out what's really going on).
you would think folks like UL would test it themselves instead of watching a video of someone test something and say "OK PUT OUR UL STAMP ON IT, THAT'LL BE $1,500,000 PLEASE N THANKS"
I'd have though that a reputable test house like UL would include more details in test reports.Like date of test, tester name, site where test was conducted.
Maybe it's on other pages (buy you'd expect pages to be numbered), in which case why only publish one page?
you would think folks like UL would test it themselves instead of watching a video of someone test something and say "OK PUT OUR UL STAMP ON IT, THAT'LL BE $1,500,000 PLEASE N THANKS"
I think UL took the money and did exactly what Batteroo told them to do. In that case, the result would have been the same, incorrect result that Batteroo has been promoting. I doubt that UL was given the latitude to design their own test. It's unfortunate that UL will now be used as a proxy to promote these ridiculous claims.
I'd have though that a reputable test house like UL would include more details in test reports.Like date of test, tester name, site where test was conducted.
Maybe it's on other pages (buy you'd expect pages to be numbered), in which case why only publish one page?
That image is very fishy.
Surely UL gives people an official certificate with signatures, rubber stamp, etc. (has anybody here done UL certification?)
...and surely Batteroo would publish that if they had it, not a badly photoshopped image of their test protocol.
I just turned the lights off and the display is definitely being backlit. I believe it dims it.
Hmmm... I wonder if Batteroo's Garmin device has old firmware that didn't do dimming. I did a bit of searching, but couldn't find a history of firmware changes (apparently you have to use their WebUpdater software to check for and get firmware updates). On the off-chance there is any Garmin staff reading this, it would be great if you could find out if this is an area that has changed/improved on the Approach G3 firmware.
Oh, I just found this firmware change history, but it is pretty old (version 2.50 as of August 5, 2011)
http://www8.garmin.com/support/download_details.jsp?id=4887@5ky can you check what firmware your unit has (when you've finished the current tests)