"In some remote cases, these guards can stop the Batteroo top spring contact to not make connection with the positive contact of the battery-operated device. As we identify these devices, we are going to have communication with their manufacturers to improve on their design parameters."
That's the funniest thing I've read all week - I wonder if it's bullshit or self-delusion?
It's political.
By making such a statement, he pushes responsibility onto the manufacturers. When the manufacturers do nothing about it, the public won't blame Batteroo - whether or not Batteroo actually approach any manufacturers.
'The manufacturers' could simply integrate Batteroo's groundbraking circuit on their own PCB, so no one has to hassle with flimsy sleeves, because it's already built in the device. How cool would that be!
And then while they are at it, the manufacturers could:
- Use just one 'batteroo chip' for a set of batteries, instead of one for each single cell,
- Taylor the circuit to the specific needs of their device,
- use better parts because they have more space,
- properly shutdown the converter when the device is off,
- Still measure the bare cell voltage for the battery gauge.
These benefits are so obvious that maybe, just maybe, manufacturers are already doing just that.
But Bob must prevent his crowd from figuring this out, so he throws op distractions like 'big battery should integrate this technology in their batteries', and 'manufacturers should modify their device to make the sleeve fit'.