I wouldn't be cheering just yet.
Certainly the result is pretty much what was expected, but there will need to be many more tests conducted by a variety of testers before a consistent profile of performance is established.
The other thing that will be necessary is to define what constitutes as success and what counts as failure.
This is one absolutely critical parameter in the whole testing process - and it is one that has NOT been agreed upon by all camps. As a result, there are going to be claims and counter-claims that will never be clarified and the battle will descend into a street brawl.
As an example:
1. Claim by Batteroo - originally "up to" 800%
Engineering assessment predicts "anywhere remotely near 800%" can never be achieved. Initial tests support this. If Batteroo have specific cases where such performance is found, then they should be forthcoming with details.
2. Claim by Batteroo - "up to" 80%
Engineering assessment again predicts this as being, at best, unlikely. If Batteroo have specific cases where such performance is found, then they should be forthcoming with details.
3. Observation by first known Australian recipient
Batteriser maintains a more consistent output over the earlier part of the life of a battery as compared to a battery without. The observed difference being little Johnny will have his train run around his track at a goodly speed until it stops dead, rather than have it start off ok and then get slower and slower until it's moving as fast as frozen treacle.
As I see it, the first two would count as "fail", because - very simply - they can be shown to not meet the manufacturer's claims. It is simply comparing numbers, which is how an objective conclusion can be made.
The third case, however, does show a tangible difference. The first point, however, is that Batteroo made no reference to such behaviour, nor promote it as a feature or benefit of their product - so claiming it as a "successful" test is still a bit inappropriate as it is outside of the claims made by Batteroo.
Having said that, however, it cannot be denied that such behaviour is significant, but the question that then arises is whether this is good or not. This now enters a subjective phase where two people might have opposite opinions - and each is valid in their own way.
Take the case of the classic flashlight with a filament bulb. With a Batteriser, it will shine more consistently but die suddenly. Without, it will gradually decrease in brightness over time, but will run for longer than the unit with the Batteriser. Which is better? - The brighter light or the longer run time? How do you choose? What criteria do you go by? If there is no specific way to define how to evaluate which is better, this argument will never be resolved.
What's even more interesting, IMHO, is that - if the engineers had been presented with the scenario of two flashlights or two trains - one with and one without a Batteroo sleeve - they would have come up with exactly the same predictions on the behaviour of these devices - as the devices have exhibited in real world testing.
These behavious are not a surprise - but they were not considered by the engineering minds, because they were not in the claims from Batteroo.
The other - rather telling - thing is that, so far, there has not been much indication that the reduction of battery use is going to be significant. This has to be the biggest fail on the part of Batteroo - as it has been their fundamental claim.
If anything, the higher output for a shorter time would seem to be the one feature of the Batteriser that may actually make it a marketable product (Bravo to our Darwin friend for that discovery), however I can see battery usage going up - not down.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
