Slashdot Mirror


Batterylife Activator Reviewed

Daniel Rutter writes "Slashdot chewed over the BatMax Battery Life Booster - a nanotechnomagical sticker that's meant to rejuvenate lithium ion batteries - a while ago. Now I've reviewed the strikingly similar Batterylife Activator, and subjected it to actual empirical testing, with automated datalogging and everything. The results confirmed my original suspicion -- that the local Batterylife branch made a serious error of judgement when they decided to send me their product."

6 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. Good job by Monkelectric · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Good job proving this. The real question is why aren't the governments in places where these are sold stomping these people to bits?

    Here in the US they just recently started looking into the "Enzyte" (penis growth stuff) people, I knew it was a scam 4 years ago when I saw the first commercial. I read the enzyte people have made 50 million dollars so far (and that was sometime last year). Would you goto jail for a couple years for 50 million dollars? I would.

    --

    Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  2. Flawed Results by kevlar · · Score: 5, Insightful


    I hate to say it, but he has flawed results that do not demonstrate that the sticker is a placebo.

    He used only one battery to do his test. He should have used two; one with the sticker and one without. By only using one battery, running 3 tests, then putting the sticker on and running a 4th test, he's introduced an additional variable into the equation. It could thereofre be argued that his graph (http://www.dansdata.com/images/batterylife/activa ted.gif) showed that the sticker IMPROVED the battery life (because it WAS an improvement over his 3rd test run).

  3. Re:Quick! Call the government! by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Ya know, while I'm not one to worship at the altar of free market and deregulation and all that crap, I really have to wonder at this statement. If people are stupid enough to pay money for something like this, maybe they deserve to loose their money."
    I used to feel the same way. When you're dealing with something that is so obviously stupid and fraudulent it's very easy to say "if people are stupid enough to buy this crap then they deserve to get ripped off".

    But what if it was something that was fraudulent but not so obvious? Should there be a difference in how they are handled? Obvious or not, fraud is fraud. These guys shouldn't be cut any slack just becasue their fraud is a little more obvious.
  4. Re:Well, at least this time... by asavage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree of course the sticker is garbage, but his testing was quite poor. His four tests used 3 different charging times. The first two trials he did an overnight charge. The third test was the official charge time. The only test with the sticker was 2 hours longer than the official charge time. If you look at his test results, The battery lasts longer with the sticker than a shorter charge but not as long as with a longer charge. He didn't really prove anything. Just that a shorter charge with the sticker isn't as good as a longer charge without the sticker.

  5. Re:Hmm.... by badasscat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DUH the test was a waste of time and everyone here already knew it was BS, but people, have you SEEN the "cow taser" page linked to from the review article?!! I think I just pissed myself from laughing so hard.

    Then it wasn't exactly a waste of time, was it?

    Part of the reason people read Dan's stuff (just in case anyone missed the main link to his site) is his entertaining writing style. I almost always learn something from his articles, even if it's got nothing to do with what the article's supposedly about. Dan is obviously fully in on the joke himself or he wouldn't even be linking to things like cow tasers in his articles. It's people like you - who think reviews have to be a "waste of time" simply because the products in question are such obvious bunk - who don't seem to quite get it.

    In a world where product reviews often offer little or not information at all, and where the strongest and most specific statement you might read is how one product or another is vaguely "generally good", writers like Dan are a refreshing change - he writes pieces that are always entertaining in and of themselves, often more informative than they need to be, and with plenty of useless but interesting trivia to keep you interested when the product in question is less than worthwhile. I only wish he'd review more stuff that I'm actually interested in buying (though I've become interested in buying a few things I would never have even known about but for his review).

    As for this particular review, I think it's worth reminding the Slashdot crowd of the dangers of pseudo-science every now and again - pseudo-scientific articles do occasionally slip through the editing process here, and are often accepted as fact.

  6. bad science against bad product by idlake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I'm fully convinced that the Battery Life Activator is nonsense, the experiments trying to prove that it is are as poorly done as those trying to prove that it works. Grabbing a random battery out of a photo bag and cycling it a few times with and without the sticker isn't a good experimental test.