EEVblog Electronics Community Forum

Electronics => Projects, Designs, and Technical Stuff => Topic started by: FrankBuss on December 17, 2016, 11:42:51 am

Title: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 17, 2016, 11:42:51 am
MOD NOTE: This is thread is ONLY to discuss Batteroo test results. If you want to discuss Batteriser/Batteroo in general, use the main thread:
http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/ (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/)


This new thread is dedicated to test procedures and results of the Batteroo sleeve. There is a spreadsheet which lists the performance gain you can get from Batteroo for different products, see here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18K9c2YAT0d0QABGYGpzItbvDcgfAQCRUtloEzzfXADU/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18K9c2YAT0d0QABGYGpzItbvDcgfAQCRUtloEzzfXADU/edit?usp=sharing)

If you have a Batteroo, please test your products with it, instructions are at the top of the spreadsheet (no test gear needed) and then send Dave the results to dave@eevblog.com and he'll add them to the spreadsheet.

Some of the results you can find in this thread:

My train test:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj6GyGVWwto (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj6GyGVWwto)

Diagram:

(http://i.imgur.com/EXNaQhZ.png)

Dave's train test:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl90m2KHbNk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl90m2KHbNk)

Diagram:

(http://i.imgur.com/Kf4SDpB.gif)

Youtube reviews by EC-Projects, he measured a quiescent current of 14.4 uA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8-7NWbZgBE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8-7NWbZgBE)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXPFvRSpEYc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXPFvRSpEYc)

Measurements by dexters_lab:

(http://i.imgur.com/js1dhNk.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/P0np6R8.png)

Closeup images of the circuit: http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/msg1107692/#msg1107692 (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/msg1107692/#msg1107692)

Output ripple measurements:

by Dave:

150ohm load (resistor box), and a 1.4V Rigol DP832 PSU input.

(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=285873;image)

And with no load @ 1.4V PSU input
(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=285867;image)

By me:

With 1 k load:

(http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/ripple-1000-ohm.png)

With 100 ohm load:

(http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/ripple-100-ohm.png)

By Ysjoelfir:

First, no load connected. The Batterizer is switching between battery voltage (~1.48V) and around ~1.64V with around 10 kHz.
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_1.png)

another one with bandwidth limitation
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_2.png)

Switched on, measured directly at the load, connected with short cables: around 200mV of "noise"
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_4.png)

Let's zoom in a bit: switching between battery voltage, which breaks down to 1.39V under load and 1.61V with a frequency of around 40 kHz.
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_5.png)

there are tiny spikes reaching up to 1.67V
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_6.png)

A bit closer to measure the frequency: 40.48 kHz.
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_7.png)

A last one without the cursors, just for curiosity. Interesting waveform with nice tiny spikes at the rising edge.
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_8.png)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: bills on December 17, 2016, 12:21:10 pm
Great will be following.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: jeroen79 on December 17, 2016, 12:31:57 pm
First thing I thought of was batteriser.
Guess what? The video on the batteroo site is about the batteriser.
Just a rebranding due to bad press?

Just an idea:
You are putting current measuring resistors in the supply and load circuits.
But the power supply and the load would have their own internal shunts.
Couldn't you measure the voltage across those and leave out the extra shunts?
That way you wouldn't have to worry about extra voltage drops.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Wytnucls on December 17, 2016, 02:02:47 pm
More data about the converter may be necessary:

Efficiency
Input voltage range
Input start-up voltage
Quiescent current (uA)
Auto PWM/PFM modes?
Operating frequency (1 or 2MHz?)
Current limit
Transient response
Thermal shutdown (TSD)?
Output voltage ripple
Inductor size and package
Output/Input cap size and type (Ceramic?)
ESD susceptibility

Industry standard graphs:
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: wraper on December 17, 2016, 02:15:32 pm
First thing I thought of was batteriser.
Guess what? The video on the batteroo site is about the batteriser.
Just a rebranding due to bad press?
They renamed themselves because Energizer was after their ass.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Cerebus on December 17, 2016, 02:41:20 pm
A snippet to share with respect to "real world testing".

One of the products that's been mentioned several times is the Apple Wireless Keyboard and also similar devices. During the discussion of this in the other thread, I was prompted to measure the current consumption of mine. I ended up having to measure the current on the mA range on my (Fluke 25) multimeter when the uA range would have been more appropriate. Why? The keyboard just wouldn't turn on with the voltage drop across the shunt on the uA range.

So the lesson to be learned from this is that current measurements on some devices are going to require very low voltage drops across any current shunts. One, because they may already be operating on quite small voltage margins they may not operate normally, or at all. Two, any additional voltage drops are going to pollute the measurements in a test setup as compared to normal usage. It might be time to break out some very low resistance shunts and some high gain instrumentation amplifiers. I've got a spare 4 wire Vishay VCS201 5 mR (yes, 5 milli-ohm) shunt or two about that I can donate if it becomes necessary.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on December 17, 2016, 03:18:25 pm
More data about the converter may be necessary:

Efficiency
Input voltage range
Input start-up voltage
Quiescent current (uA)
Auto PWM/PFM modes?
Operating frequency (1 or 2MHz?)
Current limit
Transient response
Thermal shutdown (TSD)?
Output voltage ripple
Inductor size and package
Output/Input cap size and type (Ceramic?)
ESD susceptibility

Also need:

How does Batteriser behave after shutdown: Open circuit, forward diode junction from battery, reverse diode junction across output?
If it goes open circuit, what is the maximum reverse voltage it can handle?
How down Batteriser behave with a reverse voltage across output ?
How does the Batteriser behave if the connection with battery is intermittent while under load - does it latch up?
If it does still conduct after shutdown, how much current can it handle? The losses may be much higher in this mode then when the converter is running so the current capacity may be much less.

These cases are only relevant for the situation when there are several batteries in series.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: IanB on December 17, 2016, 03:33:31 pm
One of the products that's been mentioned several times is the Apple Wireless Keyboard and also similar devices. During the discussion of this in the other thread, I was prompted to measure the current consumption of mine. I ended up having to measure the current on the mA range on my (Fluke 25) multimeter when the uA range would have been more appropriate. Why? The keyboard just wouldn't turn on with the voltage drop across the shunt on the uA range.

This is puzzling. What was the actual current?

I have measured the input resistance of the µA range on three of my meters and in each case it was 100 \$ \Omega \$. Therefore if the current was 1 mA the voltage drop would be 0.1 V. That should be well within the tolerance of the keyboard with fresh batteries.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: ataradov on December 17, 2016, 03:37:00 pm
Therefore if the current was 1 mA the voltage drop would be 0.1 V.
Wireless keyboard will consume way more than 1 mA at startup.

This is a common problem with measuring power consumption of sleeping devices. Some meters handle switch between uA and mA ranges just fines. Flukes (at least some) don't, if I remember correctly.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: djos on December 17, 2016, 04:37:27 pm
Therefore if the current was 1 mA the voltage drop would be 0.1 V.
Wireless keyboard will consume way more than 1 mA at startup.

This is a common problem with measuring power consumption of sleeping devices. Some meters handle switch between uA and mA ranges just fines. Flukes (at least some) don't, if I remember correctly.

That's cool, Dave will test with something reliable... Like a Brymen. ;)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: ez24 on December 17, 2016, 05:54:48 pm
This is the test I want to see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQWnKM2vWiA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQWnKM2vWiA)

https://www.amazon.com/Westminster-Toys-Magic-Toy-Monkey/dp/B0000V4H4O/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1481957889&sr=8-2&keywords=toy+monkey+battery (https://www.amazon.com/Westminster-Toys-Magic-Toy-Monkey/dp/B0000V4H4O/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1481957889&sr=8-2&keywords=toy+monkey+battery)

And the counts of the cymbals be put in spreadsheet and a statistical analysis be done on them.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 17, 2016, 07:15:01 pm
Industry standard graphs:
(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=278526;image)

Which chip is that from?

The efficiency vs load graph will be the first thing I do.
BTW I shot a video today on testing performance curves.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 17, 2016, 07:59:10 pm
You are putting current measuring resistors in the supply and load circuits.
But the power supply and the load would have their own internal shunts.
Couldn't you measure the voltage across those and leave out the extra shunts?
That way you wouldn't have to worry about extra voltage drops.

I don't have access to the internal shunts and don't want to solder anything in the power supply or the electronic load. But the voltage drop is no problem with the uCurrent, because up to an amp it is well below 0.1 V, and I can compensate this in my testing script and incrementally increase the output voltage in 10 mV steps, so that the max error will be 10 mV, e.g. for the efficiency vs. load graph which requires a fixed input voltage (unfortunately my power supply doesn't have extra sense inputs).

I like the efficiency vs. load current diagrams for a given input voltage, will do this, too. And the tests Wytnucls suggested are very useful, too. Output ripple would be interesting, because one application to use a battery is for low noise things like microphone amplifiers, and they might be built in a way that they expect a very clean supply.

I don't have the right equipment or knowledge to do the ESD tests, but if someone can do this, I can send the sleeves to him after my tests.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Wytnucls on December 17, 2016, 09:37:56 pm
Industry standard graphs:

Which chip is that from?

The efficiency vs load graph will be the first thing I do.
Analog Devices ADP1607
http://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/ADP1607.pdf (http://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/ADP1607.pdf)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Cerebus on December 18, 2016, 03:01:24 am
This is puzzling. What was the actual current?

The simple answer: 200 uA at idle, 3-4 mA peaks while transmitting. The more rigorous answer: the Fluke 25 has a longish integration time and a slow response (2 readings per second*) so was not possible with that setup to see the shape of the current curve as the thing was starting up. I suspect there's an interaction between an inrush current, the meter's shunt resistance (500R on uA but only 5R on mA) and undervoltage lockout on the keyboard's power supply.

If I can sum up the energy and find the time in all the Christmas preparations (including the requirement to get my scope, breadboard and bench power supply off the living room coffee table**) I'll try and rig up something to characterise what's going on. My curiosity is piqued too. Moreover, I'd quite like to characterise the Apple keyboard's battery gauge against actual in circuit voltages.

*Checking the specs, it actually does 25 readings per second on the analogue bargraph; but I wasn't watching that, just the main display.

**Add to that, it's also almost time for me to go and do the spud bashing for the Saturday evening roast (Chicken and mushroom pie, roast potatoes, roast parsnips, carrots and peas plus extra gravy, if anyone's interested). By my reckoning it'll be Tuesday before I have any time for electronics.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 18, 2016, 03:48:45 am
I'm preparing the tests, cleaning and ordering the gear on my workbench a bit. And I bought some fresh AAA batteries, from different vendors, because the typical end user test would be important as well. Here is Dave's spreadsheet for entering test results:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18K9c2YAT0d0QABGYGpzItbvDcgfAQCRUtloEzzfXADU/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18K9c2YAT0d0QABGYGpzItbvDcgfAQCRUtloEzzfXADU/edit?usp=sharing)

I'll do some of these simple tests as well, as described in the spreadsheet. But it is difficult to find gadgets which run on 1.5 V AAA batteries. Most modern devices have accus, with USB charging, and many other devices I have use AA batteries. But I found a crusty old USB/MP3 player, you can see it in the image below. I tested it with a power supply and it turns off at about 1.12 V, when you lower the voltage slowly (works fine indefinitely at 1.12 V, but turns off randomly after some time at 1.11 V). Between 1.12 and 1.14 V it says "low battery when you try to turn it on at this level. At 1.14 V it turns on normally. Sound volume at the headphones is the same at 1.5 V and 1.12 V (but I'll verify this by measuring the voltage, will solder some audio rectifier and very low low pass filter to get an average of a few minutes for an automated test). With a typical application (playing "AC/DC - Highway to Hell" with max volume in an infinite loop), it needs about 70 mA. So a battery should be drained in less than a day.

(http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/setup.jpg)

In the photo you can see the electronic load, the power supply, another power supply for -5 V (for the analog switch and if I need symmetrical voltage for op-amp circuits, like the audio rectifier), the benchtop multimeter and the Raspberry Pi, controlling it all, connected by ethernet so that I can ssh to it, and it has mounted a folder on my NAS (with RAID0 configured harddisks), to avoid wearing out the SD-card when logging for a long time. A RS232 TTL to +/-9V converter I built some time ago with a nice box connects the RS232 of the multimeter to the 3.3V TTL level pins of the first serial port on the Raspberry Pi GPIO headers. The second RS232 connection to the electronic load is implemented with a RS232 USB adapter. And finally the power supply is connected by USB, too.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: razvanme on December 18, 2016, 04:43:10 am
I'm preparing the tests, cleaning and ordering the gear on my workbench a bit. And I bought some fresh AAA batteries, from different vendors, because the typical end user test would be important as well. Here is Dave's spreadsheet for entering test results:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18K9c2YAT0d0QABGYGpzItbvDcgfAQCRUtloEzzfXADU/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18K9c2YAT0d0QABGYGpzItbvDcgfAQCRUtloEzzfXADU/edit?usp=sharing)


I think step 2 and 7 combined might mess with the results, the dead batteries regenerate (I understand they don't recharge), even 1 minute of on time with a low load (1-2ma) might give batteriser a lead. I don't think it's fair to wait for them to regenerate. You should have another step
3.1 - Run the dead batteries from step 2 with batteriser and note the "extra" time if any.

Although doing this, I don't know how you will calculate the final results ... hmmm  :-//. I think you are already taking this into account in step 8-10.

This depends on how long they will wait to be used.

PS. Regarding the current reading, and not soldering to the sleeve. You can take any 9V battery, open it up, you will have a bit of metal strips that you can use, you don't have be a mechanic, you just have to take two, isolate them and slip them between sleeve and the battery. You can even make a smal indent in one to make good contact.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Towger on December 18, 2016, 05:12:49 am
But it is difficult to find gadgets which run on 1.5 V AAA batteries.

I am sure Dave can DHL you a couple complementary EEVblog multimeters for side by side testing. One with and one without AAA size Batteroos.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: CrashO on December 18, 2016, 12:51:47 pm
It'l be interesting to see the results when they come in.. that's for sure  :o
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Mr.B on December 18, 2016, 05:52:01 pm
Very interested in the results, so, bookmarked...
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: razvanme on December 18, 2016, 07:50:38 pm
@FrankBuss

Part of the reason I'm sending in pairs, is to test them combined, I'm curios how it behaves when you have two batteries in series / parallel, do you get 3V constantly until both are dead, do they share the current in parallel.
Also you have an oscilloscope, so you can check the switching frequency. Check the standby current before you start pushing them to the limits :).

After you test them (and possibly blow one up), check the other components, I guess the big component is an inductor, what are the others and what values.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 18, 2016, 08:38:35 pm
I'm preparing the tests, cleaning and ordering the gear on my workbench a bit. And I bought some fresh AAA batteries, from different vendors, because the typical end user test would be important as well. Here is Dave's spreadsheet for entering test results:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18K9c2YAT0d0QABGYGpzItbvDcgfAQCRUtloEzzfXADU/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18K9c2YAT0d0QABGYGpzItbvDcgfAQCRUtloEzzfXADU/edit?usp=sharing)

Yes, I encourage everyone to follow that procedure for product testing (no test gear needed) and send me the results to dave@eevblog.com and I'll add them to the spreadsheet.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 19, 2016, 08:02:33 am
I'm preparing the tests, cleaning and ordering the gear on my workbench a bit. And I bought some fresh AAA batteries, from different vendors, because the typical end user test would be important as well. Here is Dave's spreadsheet for entering test results:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18K9c2YAT0d0QABGYGpzItbvDcgfAQCRUtloEzzfXADU/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18K9c2YAT0d0QABGYGpzItbvDcgfAQCRUtloEzzfXADU/edit?usp=sharing)


I think step 2 and 7 combined might mess with the results, the dead batteries regenerate (I understand they don't recharge), even 1 minute of on time with a low load (1-2ma) might give batteriser a lead. I don't think it's fair to wait for them to regenerate.

I don't think this will result in much difference. And it is always good to use best-case scenarios, because if they performs badly even then, you can be sure that Batteroo  is not good for the tested product.

To check exactly when the MP3 player I'm using for the first test stops playing, I created a simple peak detector with very slow fallback:

(http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/mp3-player-testsetup.png)

I'm not good with analog electronics, so first I forgot R5 and R6 and the voltage at the plus input was slowly running towards -5 V, but I saw this in the logging and could fix it. This is how the peak output looks like, compared to the amplified input after the first op-amp:

(http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/peak-detector.png)

This (http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/HM8012_Log.py) is the script I'm using to record the data (it is really easy with the RPi_LogNut framework), and here (http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/HM8012_Log.csv) are the first minutes of the log (both voltages are measured every 10 seconds precisely). As you can see, the peak level slowly faded away, until I hot-fixed it by adding the two resistors :) But looks good so far:

(http://i.imgur.com/zEhYEVK.png)

The battery voltage is measured with two wires in the battery compartment, between the battery and the contacts. This should not influence Batteroo later in any way. Thanks Dave for your latest video, I might need to replace the ADG608 with an ADG609, so that I can switch two signals. In this setup the battery minus is directly connected to the multimeter minus, but later when I switch to the shunt for the characteristics curve etc., I need to switch both multimeter inputs, to avoid the voltage drop on the wires for higher currents.

I hope logging works for hours, never tried this before. When it is done, the battery will have some time until the Batteroo arrives to regenerate.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: ez24 on December 19, 2016, 10:17:46 am
FrankBuss can you post a picture of your MP3 player, it looks like it could be different than 

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/High-Quality-8GB-USB-2-0-Flash-Drive-LCD-Mini-MP3-Music-Player-with-FM-Radio/32644511571.html?spm=2114.01010208.3.1.ulkwFJ&ws_ab_test=searchweb0_0,searchweb201602_2_10065_10068_10084_10083_10080_10082_10081_10060_10061_10062_10056_10055_10054_10033_10059_10032_10099_10078_10079_10077_427_10103_10073_10102_10096_10052_10050_10051-10033_10077,searchweb201603_3&btsid=46859591-b34f-4d2a-9a43-551af6a52f12 (https://www.aliexpress.com/item/High-Quality-8GB-USB-2-0-Flash-Drive-LCD-Mini-MP3-Music-Player-with-FM-Radio/32644511571.html?spm=2114.01010208.3.1.ulkwFJ&ws_ab_test=searchweb0_0,searchweb201602_2_10065_10068_10084_10083_10080_10082_10081_10060_10061_10062_10056_10055_10054_10033_10059_10032_10099_10078_10079_10077_427_10103_10073_10102_10096_10052_10050_10051-10033_10077,searchweb201603_3&btsid=46859591-b34f-4d2a-9a43-551af6a52f12)

I have used these for years and have collected a dozen so far.  It was the first thing I thought of when I learned about the Bat

(sorry about the link, I do not know how to shorten it)

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 19, 2016, 11:19:10 am
FrankBuss can you post a picture of your MP3 player
It is a really old one, from 2004, didn't use it anymore since the iPhone came out. I think it is this:

http://www.ciao.de/Pro2_Mp3_Player_256_MB__1205082 (http://www.ciao.de/Pro2_Mp3_Player_256_MB__1205082)

But not the first picture, the other 3 pictures. Can't remember the price, but some people in the comments wrote that it was 80 EUR, with 256 MB flash and not so good sound quality, but this was normal for this time.

I think there is a firmware message for a short time when I turn it on, will try to take a picture when the battery is empty.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 19, 2016, 06:03:42 pm
Yes, I encourage everyone to follow that procedure for product testing (no test gear needed) and send me the results to dave@eevblog.com and I'll add them to the spreadsheet.
How do I determine when the product dies for a flashlight, without internal boost converter, and it just gets dimmer and dimmer? I don't have a flashlight with AAA cells (only a heavy old Maglite with 3 type D batteries and an incandescent bulb), but ordered one from eBay (5 EUR shipped and from Germany, batteries included, they don't make much money with this), for 2 AAA batteries, to test both Batteroo sleeves.

I have this (http://massmarkt.de/YH-Digital-Lux-meter-YH-611/en) lux meter. I think a valid procedure would be to wait until I think it is too dim to be useful anymore, then measure the light intensity (might be tricky, have to shield it from other light) and then do the other tests, where the time the product died can be verified with the lux meter. But maybe the modern flashlight has a boost converter, then it will die fast and this is no problem.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 19, 2016, 06:10:17 pm
maybe the modern flashlight has a boost converter, then it will die fast and this is no problem.

2xAA is only about 2.5V in reality which isn't enough for a white LED. So...yes, it has a boost convertor.

The lux meter will be needed to make sure it outputs the same amount of light with/without batteroo. In Waynes famous test I think his flashlights weren't running the same brightness at the start of the test.

(or maybe he was just lying about the lifetimes)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 19, 2016, 10:54:30 pm
The lux meter will be needed to make sure it outputs the same amount of light with/without batteroo. In Waynes famous test I think his flashlights weren't running the same brightness at the start of the test.
Good point, will test this.

Meanwhile the first step is done, the MP3 player turned off.This (http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/mp3-player-without-batteroo.csv) is the full logging. As you can see, without Batteroo it ran 13:35 hours, pretty long. Loudness was the same all the time, as you can see in the peak value column. Cut off voltage was 1.117 V, after this the battery regenerated a bit.

High-res photos of the player with the message when I turn it on (using a different battery, I'll glued a post-it on the empty battery for the step with the Batteroo sleeve), the about dialog in the menu and screenshot how it looks like when connected to the PC with the test song:

(http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/mp3-player.jpg)

(http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/mp3-player-about.jpg)

(http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/mp3-file.png)

So this is the start of the test:

Product descrption and model: PRO2 WMA MP3 digital music player, firmware version 1.007, 256 MB flash, bought around 2004
Contributor Name: Frank Buss
Battery Brand/Model Used:Energizer Alkaline Power Batterien AAA ( https://www.energizer.eu/de/product/energizer-alkaline-power/ (https://www.energizer.eu/de/product/energizer-alkaline-power/) )
Normal battery life from fresh (No Batteriser): 815 minutes
might be useful to add another column: Test procedure: Turn player on, change PlayMode to repeat track, exit menu, start playing "AC-DC - Highway to Hell", change volume to max, wait until player powers off

I'll use the exact same setup and test procedure when the Batteroo arrives. The remaining two tests shouldn't need that long  >:D
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 19, 2016, 11:46:40 pm
If it cut out at 1.1V then it's not using all the battery. There could still be 10%-20% left in there.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 20, 2016, 08:19:27 am
Ok, I spared no expense and bought a flashlight at the local supermarket today, for EUR 3.99 :) (battery included). It is the Ledlites E3 and needs one AAA battery. The package says 16 lumen. I illuminated my lux meter in about 10 cm distance, and the light cone was about 10 cm^2, and it showed 11,740 lux. This is reasonable, because if 1,000 lumen illuminates 1m^2, the density measured in lux is 1,000 lux for this light power, so if it is concentrated on 10 cm^2, lux is equal to 100 times the lumen output, so the magnitude is right, if I understood this and my calculations are right. A pretty nice flashlight for this price. Of course there is already a review for it on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex-q6lZhe60 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex-q6lZhe60)

I opened it to see what's inside, here are some pics:

(http://i.imgur.com/bFgAylQ.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/kKgZfrK.jpg)

I guess it is some kind of joule thief construction, a coil and the transistor might be on the back. Didn't want to destroy it, will do this after the test.

Then I connected the plus contact (it has some mini spring on the board, this might be a problem with the Batteroo sleeve), screwed in the tube (the tube, where the minus terminal of the battery is at the end, presses on the PCB board to close the circuit, when you turn it; I sanded it to connect a crocodile clip) and tested it with a power supply. The result is amazing, you can still see it very dim at 0.2 V (no regulation, at 1.5 V it uses about 310 mA, dropping fast with voltage) :

1.5 V: 11740 lux
1.4 V: 9970 lux
1.3 V: 8020 lux
1.2 V: 6010 lux
1.1 V: 3910 lux
1 V: 1950 lux
0.9 V: 1518 lux
0.8 V: 1166 lux
0.7 V: 859 lux
0.6 V: 630 lux
0.5 V: 380 lux
0.4 V: 250 lux
0.3 V: 129.5 lux
0.2 V: 57.2 lux

At 0.1 V it turned off. The ambient light was about 38 lux. It turns on again at 0.63 V when increasing the voltage.

At which light output should I say it is dead? At 0.9 V it is still bright enough that I can illuminate a paper in 1 m distance and read the text in darkness (about 1/8 of the max light power, but the eye is logarithmic, so it doesn't look that much darker). Would this be a good number? Below this it will decrease really fast anyway. The package says battery life time is 18 hours, so for the testing procedure might be sufficient to check it every half an hour or so with the lux meter, while using the other sleeve to create various curves.

More complicated than I thought to define a good test procedure for a flashlight.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 20, 2016, 09:38:47 am
Might be easier than I thought. On the package is a small "*" after the text "up to 18 hours burn time", which says "average hours of burning until residual flux amounts to 1 lumen". Maybe I should use the specified operating time to determine if it is dead, because this is how the product is specified, no subjective arguments. This means: measure lux at start (which is at 16 lumen output as specified), then measure the time until it is 1/16 of this intensity.

Drawback of this method is that this would be really the worst case for Batteroo, because when the battery is at maybe 0.5 V, it will be only seconds if Batteroo starts at all until it is 1 lux and below again.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: onlooker on December 20, 2016, 10:57:09 am
For a flashlight like this, one can measure the total accumulated light output. I think it may not be perfect, but it is more objective.

An indirect and simpler way to do this is a relative and comparative measurement using a lux meter. The lux meter is better to have a serial interface. One can set the lux meter at a fixed distance from the flashlight and record the lux value vs time. The number to compare (with and w/o the sleeve) is the integration of lux over time.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Luminax on December 20, 2016, 01:03:51 pm
Do you by any chance happen to prepare ordinary (bulb) flashlight as well?

Might be a good benchmark testing a resistive type flashlight which is just that, a pair of wire across the battery(ies).

As for lux meter... wonder if it's reliable to get a photodiode and whack it on an arduino or something... hmmmmmmmm......
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: ez24 on December 20, 2016, 01:16:45 pm
Drawback of this method is that this would be really the worst case for Batteroo, because when the battery is at maybe 0.5 V, it will be only seconds if Batteroo starts at all until it is 1 lux and below again.
If I am not mistaking, Batteroo said not to use their devices in LED flashlights.  (it is in their instructions)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 20, 2016, 05:46:49 pm
While waiting for the Batteroo sleeves, I did the MP3 player test again, this time with "Duracell plus power" (https://www.duracell.de/product/duracell-plus-power-batterien-aaa/) (only genuine with the Duracell bunny  :) ). Here (http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/mp3-player-without-batteroo-duracell.csv) is the logging. The MP3 player turned off after 14:30 hours, compared to 13:35 hours with the Energizer alkaline power batteries, so not much difference.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 20, 2016, 08:07:01 pm
I've started testing a single AAA MP3 player,  a Creative MuVo TX supposed to be 11hours on alkaline.
Forgot to plug headphones in  :palm: Oh well, still a good test. Started the test again with headphones.
All same batch Duracell Ultra's and all batteries are numbered on camera.
Hard to find products around the home and lab with AAA's and a short run time conducive to testing.
Once the Batteriser arrives I'll repeat the test with the Batteriser on a new cell and then slip the currently discharged cell into the Batteriser and see how much longer it runs for.
Have not tested this player for dropout voltage yet.

(http://i.imgur.com/SkOQxhJ.jpg)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Luminax on December 20, 2016, 08:36:39 pm
As I've mentioned in the other thread Dave, you have the world's bestest Batteroo testing equipment, PROBES!

Hmmm but then again I think the sleeves going your way was AAA wasn't it...

Would be real simple and easy to see to test the three condition of:
1) Run Probes on regular batteries until he stops or shows sign of starting to stop (if that makes sense hmmm)
2) The above, with Batteroo in from the start
3) Grab batteries from 1) and shove it up Bob (errrr I mean PROBES') backside

Anyway, waiting with anticipation !
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 20, 2016, 09:57:52 pm
Hard to find products around the home and lab with AAA's and a short run time conducive to testing.
Right, if they use AAA, usually it is for low powered devices like remote controls etc. And testing it with an Apple keyboard could need a few months. Maybe that's the reason they chose this for their promotion video? Joe Sixpack doesn't do methodically side-by-side tests, but just sees the low battery warning and then is happy if it is full again when he puts on the sleeve, even if it might have run longer without the sleeves. Quiescent current would be interesting, too, because this could make Batteroo unusable for low power devices. BTW, the latest Apple "magic" wireless keyboard uses integrated rechargeable batteries, as many other devices nowadays.

A device with a motor would be perfect. I couldn't find a female test person who wants to demonstrate the kind of device on camera Wayne tested last ("really, only for science"  ;D ), but I found another toy, with one AAA battery (Battery Powered Engine (http://www.brio.us/Products/railway/themes/explore/battery-powered-engine)):

(http://i.imgur.com/pDpvwfx.jpg)

I glued the tracks with double-sided tape to the pertinax board, for same test conditions for each test (they are a bit loose otherwise and the train can even derail), and will do a test without and with Batteroo on camera with a fresh pack of batteries and with a timer until it stops (already tested it off camera, it does just stop after a few hours).
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 20, 2016, 10:00:49 pm
As I've mentioned in the other thread Dave, you have the world's bestest Batteroo testing equipment, PROBES!
Hmmm but then again I think the sleeves going your way was AAA wasn't it...

Yes three AAA's only.
I'll pick up some AAA to AA converters tomorrow from Jaycar

Quote
Would be real simple and easy to see to test the three condition of:
1) Run Probes on regular batteries until he stops or shows sign of starting to stop (if that makes sense hmmm)
2) The above, with Batteroo in from the start
3) Grab batteries from 1) and shove it up Bob (errrr I mean PROBES') backside
Anyway, waiting with anticipation !

This is exactly how I've setup my product testing spreadsheet.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 20, 2016, 10:04:10 pm
Right, if they use AAA, usually it is for low powered devices like remote controls etc. And testing it with an Apple keyboard could need a few months. Maybe that's the reason they chose this for their promotion video? Joe Sixpack doesn't do methodically side-by-side tests, but just sees the low battery warning and then is happy if it is full again when he puts on the sleeve, even if it might have run longer without the sleeves.

Bingo. That is what they are counting on. It's up to us engineers to run controlled tests and compile data on a bunch of products to prove what the product actually does.
And at every chance we my point out that the battery gauge in every product is rendered useless.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 20, 2016, 10:06:03 pm
but I found another toy, with one AAA battery (Battery Powered Engine (http://www.brio.us/Products/railway/themes/explore/battery-powered-engine)):

I've got a single AA powered Percy, will use that with a converter and oval track.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 20, 2016, 10:15:10 pm
To check exactly when the MP3 player I'm using for the first test stops playing, I created a simple peak detector with very slow fallback:

To check when a product stops I'm simply time lapse recording every product next to a stopwatch. When the product stops, low batt comes on etc I have my time (and video proof).
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: razvanme on December 20, 2016, 10:18:42 pm
Yes three AAA's only.
I'll pick up some AAA to AA converters tomorrow from Jaycar

4 AAA's I tried to do some tests myself, I gave up due to Picoscope software that does not allow logging of data  |O. So 4 AAA's going your way.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: madires on December 20, 2016, 10:27:33 pm
Do you by any chance happen to prepare ordinary (bulb) flashlight as well?

Might be a good benchmark testing a resistive type flashlight which is just that, a pair of wire across the battery(ies).

As for lux meter... wonder if it's reliable to get a photodiode and whack it on an arduino or something... hmmmmmmmm......

I agree, a flashlight with a classic bulb would be great for testing. But we should define a threshold for the brightness in % at which we consider the flashlight being unusable, and use that threshold for all flashlights for a proper consistency.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: razvanme on December 20, 2016, 10:38:44 pm
Do you by any chance happen to prepare ordinary (bulb) flashlight as well?

Might be a good benchmark testing a resistive type flashlight which is just that, a pair of wire across the battery(ies).

As for lux meter... wonder if it's reliable to get a photodiode and whack it on an arduino or something... hmmmmmmmm......

I agree, a flashlight with a classic bulb would be great for testing. But we should define a threshold for the brightness in % at which we consider the flashlight being unusable, and use that threshold for all flashlights for a proper consistency.

The tests with the mp3 player is the best option for now.

I think the problem with defining a threshold is that it's subjective, it's possible I can see better than you in the dark. Also using Batteriser the light will be full brightness until it goes dark. How do you compare them? One will have a gradual dimming, one will have full brightness till the end. Maybe integrating the amount of light, I don't think that will work either.

The tests with the MP3 player are the best they can do right now in my opinion.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 20, 2016, 10:41:39 pm
4 AAA's I tried to do some tests myself, I gave up due to Picoscope software that does not allow logging of data  |O. So 4 AAA's going your way.

Thanks. One will get damaged with wires soldered on it for testing, so that leaves 3 for a product.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 20, 2016, 10:43:19 pm
To check when a product stops I'm simply time lapse recording every product next to a stopwatch. When the product stops, low batt comes on etc I have my time (and video proof).
Right, but that's no fun :) I already learned a lot by building it and setup the automated measuring procedure.

For the characteristic curves I checked my HM8012 multimeter and the uCurrent with this nice device: http://www.voltagestandard.com/DMMCheck_Plus.html (http://www.voltagestandard.com/DMMCheck_Plus.html) (with the nice case you can see at the bottom, but an older version, without the AC/DC switch, just DC). Cross checked with a BM257s multimeter and all results are very well below 1%. And the ADG608 switch is really good, no difference when measuring the voltage at an input and when switched to an output.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 20, 2016, 10:46:25 pm
4 AAA's I tried to do some tests myself, I gave up due to Picoscope software that does not allow logging of data  |O.
I had a Picoscope many years ago, and it was possible with it. But looks like they removed the feature in later software? https://www.picotech.com/support/topic6815.html (https://www.picotech.com/support/topic6815.html) :o Maybe the Picolog software supports your Picoscope.

But they have a nice and documented API, it is easy to write some data logging program for it.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 20, 2016, 10:47:30 pm
If it cut out at 1.1V then it's not using all the battery. There could still be 10%-20% left in there.

Which is the ballpark we all expect the Batteriser to improve things by on most modern products, at best.
If that turns out to be the case then it's a dead duck product. No one is going to give up the functionality of their battery gauge for 10-20% extra battery life and have the thing just die on them.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 20, 2016, 10:52:14 pm
One of Batteroo principal claims is that they can be used with "dead" batteries.

I think we need to do tests starting with "dead" batteries and show the public how much longer things will run.

eg. A LED torch might start up again with a Batteriser but I don't think it'll run for more than 20-30 seconds. That's a looooong way off the 80% that Bob claims it will do.  :-//

This would make for good, simple to understand video footage ("Batteroo lies!").

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: CJay on December 20, 2016, 10:56:07 pm
If it cut out at 1.1V then it's not using all the battery. There could still be 10%-20% left in there.

Which is the ballpark we all expect the Batteriser to improve things by on most modern products, at best.
If that turns out to be the case then it's a dead duck product. No one is going to give up the functionality of their battery gauge for 10-20% extra battery life and have the thing just die on them.

Well, they will, but once they realise it's the Batteroo doing it they'll stop using them.

Or just forget them and throw them away with the dead cells and not bother to replace them. 

I think it'll have a brief surge in sales if it ever makes it to the shelves of a supermarket but it'll be on the shelf end 'tat' display and, if the company survives, eventually end up being sold via direct marketing TV shopping channels.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amyk on December 20, 2016, 11:07:39 pm
I'd like to see inside that MP3 player --- if you can find a datasheet for the DC-DC it uses, you can compare the stated Vi(min) to the observed results.

If it cut out at 1.1V then it's not using all the battery. There could still be 10%-20% left in there.

Which is the ballpark we all expect the Batteriser to improve things by on most modern products, at best.
If that turns out to be the case then it's a dead duck product. No one is going to give up the functionality of their battery gauge for 10-20% extra battery life and have the thing just die on them.
...that is if the 10-20% wasn't already consumed by the boost converter losses... the quoted datasheet efficiencies are a best-case figure, and especially near the end when the internal resistance of the cell increases and the booster tries to draw more current, leading to even more voltage drop, the efficiency will nosedive.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 20, 2016, 11:23:03 pm
One of Batteroo principal claims is that they can be used with "dead" batteries.
I think we need to do tests starting with "dead" batteries and show the public how much longer things will run.

That is precisely why I have this test as part of my spreadsheet.
It's done in a controlled manor so you can easily get a direct "extra run time" percentage from the "dead" battery.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on December 21, 2016, 12:01:22 am
I don't know if you can regard the claims in the Batteriser Twins commercial that was mentioned in an earlier thread as an official Batteroo statement, but they make a very simple claim that should be easy to test.

http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/msg1093066/#msg1093066 (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/msg1093066/#msg1093066)

"Guaranteed to increase battery life by at least two times, because two is better then one"


Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 21, 2016, 12:06:05 am
Who sells those AAA to AA battery adapters in Sydney?
I thought Jaycar used to have them, but can't find on their website.

(http://thumbs3.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mHcpQ64zYMeTWw-bRDDfZCA.jpg)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on December 21, 2016, 12:27:16 am
Who sells those AAA to AA battery adapters in Sydney?
I thought Jaycar used to have them, but can't find on their website.

(http://thumbs3.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mHcpQ64zYMeTWw-bRDDfZCA.jpg)

They used to be easy to find, but I cannot see any in Australia right now. Easy to get on Aliexpress, Bangood, Deal Extreme, etc.

You could look at using this as an adapter:

https://www.jaycar.com.au/1-x-aaa-pcb-mount/p/PH9261 (https://www.jaycar.com.au/1-x-aaa-pcb-mount/p/PH9261)

The length is the same as an AA battery and the width slightly less.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on December 21, 2016, 12:58:13 am
A better solution would be to make a sleeve and an anode extension (with a bit of brass rod) using polymoph plastic.

https://www.jaycar.com.au/polymorph-pellets/p/NP4260 (https://www.jaycar.com.au/polymorph-pellets/p/NP4260)

This is hand moldeable at 60 degC but when it cools it is like nylon. It is very strong.

The reason why it is probably a better solution is that you can fashion and extender that can accommodate the Batteriser and it can fit in a way that will not damage the Batteriser +ve contacts. Leave the negative contact uncovered.

It takes a bit of skill, but this stuff is magic. To make it bond permanently with the brass rod, just make sure that both the rod and the polymorph plastic heat up to over 60 degC together (ie chuck it in a cup of hot water until you see the polymorph plastic turn transparent.)

If you are molding over another object (like a battery), as long as the object doesn't reach 60 degC, the polymorph plastic will not stick.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 21, 2016, 01:25:02 am
Who sells those AAA to AA battery adapters in Sydney?
I thought Jaycar used to have them, but can't find on their website.

(http://thumbs3.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mHcpQ64zYMeTWw-bRDDfZCA.jpg)

Isn't this exactly the sort of thing 3D printers are for?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: razvanme on December 21, 2016, 01:48:25 am
I think you guys are overdoing things.

http://www.instructables.com/id/Make-a-AAA-battery-work-as-a-AA-battery/?ALLSTEPS (http://www.instructables.com/id/Make-a-AAA-battery-work-as-a-AA-battery/?ALLSTEPS)

Paper + Adhesive tape + Aluminium foil. 5 minutes.

Also is this thread going off topic?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 21, 2016, 01:59:19 am
And of course there is something at thingiverse:

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:84337 (http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:84337)

But a professional adapter would be better, otherwise Batteroo could say that it stopped working because of the adapter. I guess they might even say you are not supposed to use AAA batteries in AA devices, but then they may counter with another story of poor snails trapped in wells anyway, and you have no chance with facts.

Still on topic to discuss if it is valid to use an AAA to AA adapter and which one.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on December 21, 2016, 02:05:37 am
Here is 15 minutes effort with Polymorph plastic. I used the top of a small fuse as the anode extender.

Beats 3D printing any day for speed.  :)

This is my Batteriser friendly design. It is actually very strong and grips the battery firmly. it wasn't quite set in these photos - it gets whiter after an hour or so.

(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=279229;image)
(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=279231;image)
(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=279227;image)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: ez24 on December 21, 2016, 05:56:31 am
but I found another toy, with one AAA battery

I love it  :-+ :-+ :-+
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 21, 2016, 08:57:46 am
314 minutes for the MuVo MP3 player.
Good thing is when the battery dies the DC-DC convter just drops out and draw no more current. So the "dead" battery (recovered to 1.31V) is ready to go on the Batteriser when it arrives.
Dropout voltage was measured at just over 0.9V, so a well designed product. But of course according to Batteroo that test with a PSU and a sense meter on the terminal is NOT a valid test  :palm:
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on December 21, 2016, 09:09:28 am
314 minutes for the MuVo MP3 player.
Good thing is when the battery dies the DC-DC convter just drops out and draw no more current. So the "dead" battery (recovered to 1.31V) is ready to go on the Batteriser when it arrives.
Dropout voltage was measured at just over 0.9V, so a well designed product. But of course according to Batteroo that test with a PSU and a sense meter on the terminal is NOT a valid test  :palm:
Trouble is you will put the Batteriser on and get another 20 minutes and Batteroo will say - "See it works! Power from a dead battery." You will need to have a second flat battery that you use again without the Batteriser so you can compare.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 21, 2016, 09:24:20 am
Trouble is you will put the Batteriser on and get another 20 minutes and Batteroo will say - "See it works! Power from a dead battery." You will need to have a second flat battery that you use again without the Batteriser so you can compare.
No one ever doubted that it has a little benefit for some devices (but we'll see). The problem was the 800% claim, and how it works if it is used from the beginning with a fresh battery.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 21, 2016, 09:33:41 am
Trouble is you will put the Batteriser on and get another 20 minutes and Batteroo will say - "See it works! Power from a dead battery." You will need to have a second flat battery that you use again without the Batteriser so you can compare.
No one ever doubted that it has a little benefit for some devices (but we'll see). The problem was the 800% claim, and how it works if it is used from the beginning with a fresh battery.

That's what I want to do in my spreadsheet, get a list of just how much improvement you get in a whole bunch of products. Their claim is not 20%, it's an order of magnitude more and that's the selling point "Only 20% of a battery's capacity is used"
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: max_torque on December 21, 2016, 09:44:17 am
Depending on many factors such as discharge rate, recovery time, specific battery chemistry and recovery time (ie how long you leave the battery without load before reloading it), you'll get a bit more run time with a "dead" battery, so make sure you do that test too, and take that time off the time the batteroo extends!
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 21, 2016, 12:31:05 pm
I'm preparing the automated tests for creating the characteristic curves for tomorrow. I thought I had a proper 0.1 ohm shunt, but all I can find is an old wirewound cement resistor. It says "R15 10%", so 0.15 ohm. I'll use this for the 100 mA to 1 A tests.

For measuring the exact resistance, I used my SPD3303D power supply in constant current mode with 1 A limit and a BM257s to verify the current. Turns out the Siglent thing is pretty accurate, as you can see in the image below (too bad it doesn't have sense terminals for the voltage). Then I measured the voltage drop with my benchtop multimeter. Depending on where I measure it, it changes from 154.50 to 154.80 mV. Might need to solder some thicker silver wires to avoid this voltage drop, but I don't care about errors less than 1%, high precision measurements is a science of its own, will leave this to the experts.

(http://i.imgur.com/QgOXwTt.jpg)

Even after some time the resistor gets barely warm. Now the voltage drop is at 154.24 mV and doesn't change. So I can assume a resistance of 154.24 milliohm, which I will use as a calibration value when measuring the current with the initial setup I posted. Is this ok?

Next I'll replace the 8x1 mux with a 4x2 mux, to switch both multimeter inputs as close as possible to the shunt and the uCurrent and do some tests with a voltage regulator module I have here, which has a efficiency graph in the datasheet, and my graph should then look the same. Then I can just connect the Batteroo instead of my test module, run the script again, and we'll have a curve in no time :)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 21, 2016, 01:01:04 pm
Depending on many factors such as discharge rate, recovery time, specific battery chemistry and recovery time (ie how long you leave the battery without load before reloading it), you'll get a bit more run time with a "dead" battery, so make sure you do that test too, and take that time off the time the batteroo extends!

Yes, that was on my list.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: ez24 on December 21, 2016, 01:30:06 pm
I'm preparing the automated tests for creating the characteristic curves for tomorrow. I thought I had a proper 0.1 ohm shunt, but all I can find is an old wirewound cement resistor. It says "R15 10%", so 0.15 ohm. I'll use this for the 100 mA to 1 A tests.

I like the train better and hope you will do it first. If you are not doing video you could take a dozen or so pictures (if the wheels do not wear out).

 I think the best use of these things will be in toys and these things will sell very well next Christmas at toy stores (if they work)

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 21, 2016, 02:30:18 pm
I like the train better and hope you will do it first. If you are not doing video you could take a dozen or so pictures (if the wheels do not wear out).

 I think the best use of these things will be in toys and these things will sell very well next Christmas at toy stores (if they work)

I'll do both tests. But the train will run for some hours (I'll record it full time on video), so meanwhile I can use the second sleeve for the in-depth tests.

Modified setup idea

(http://i.imgur.com/161GF4N.png)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: ez24 on December 21, 2016, 03:45:24 pm
I'll do both tests. But the train will run for some hours (I'll record it full time on video), so meanwhile I can use the second sleeve for the in-depth tests.


When is the ETA?  ie how many hours left
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Luminax on December 21, 2016, 04:05:01 pm
Here is 15 minutes effort with Polymorph plastic. I used the top of a small fuse as the anode extender.

Beats 3D printing any day for speed.  :)

This is my Batteriser friendly design. It is actually very strong and grips the battery firmly. it wasn't quite set in these photos - it gets whiter after an hour or so.

(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=279229;image)
(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=279231;image)
(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=279227;image)

Wow... did you just make your own "Batteroo Sleeve"? brilliant!

That aside, are we tracking types/brands of batteries used? Just wondering
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: McBryce on December 21, 2016, 11:51:00 pm
@FrankBuss: According to your tracking details, we must be almost neighbours. I have some Arcol HS25 R1 J (0.1ohm +/- 5% 25W) shunts here which you can pick up any time if they are useful for your tests.

McBryce.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 22, 2016, 12:46:59 am
@FrankBuss: According to your tracking details, we must be almost neighbours. I have some Arcol HS25 R1 J (0.1ohm +/- 5% 25W) shunts here which you can pick up any time if they are useful for your tests.
Nice, but my resistor should work, because it doesn't get warm, so the measured reference value should be valid for my tests.

I got the two Batteroo sleeves and started testing with the train with normal batteries and trying to measure the other sleeve. Needs a bit longer, because my electronic load had an error of more than 5 mA in constant current mode. So I tried to calibrate it as described here (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rek-rk8511-150v30a150w-dc-electronic-load-(short-review-pictures-calibration/). Thought I could just calibrate the low current values, because I can't generate 25 A. But now it doesn't work at all anymore. When I set 1 A, it draws max current, when I set 0.9 A it draws no current etc.

But no worries, I modified my test setup a bit: The unused op-amp of the TL084 is now used to control an IRF540 FET I found in my parts bin, in a circuit as described in EEVblog #102. I had to increase the symmetrical voltage of the op-amp to +/-10 V for high enough gate voltage and had to use another power supply for the constant voltages, so that I can now use the second channel of my SPD3303D to control the op-amp (with a 1:10 resistor divider, for higher resolution) , which controls the FET for the desired current. The first channel will be used to simulate different input voltages. Looks like it is working, up to 4 A is no problem, now writing the scripts :phew:
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 22, 2016, 01:43:31 am
I'm bothered by a lot of these tests.

eg. The train. If the train goes around the track faster with batteroo then they can declare it a "win" even if it only lasts half as long.

A better test might be "How many times does it go around the track?" and totally ignore the overall running time. It's less correct technically but I really think that "number of times around the track" would be a better set of numbers to show the public.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: lpickup on December 22, 2016, 02:09:35 am
I'm bothered by a lot of these tests.

eg. The train. If the train goes around the track faster with batteroo then they can declare it a "win" even if it only lasts half as long.

A better test might be "How many times does it go around the track?" and totally ignore the overall running time. It's less correct technically but I really think that "number of times around the track" would be a better set of numbers to show the public.
While I wouldn't disagree with clearly defining the rules for the test, I have to say it seems like you are trying to define the test in order to wind up with the result that the Batteroo fails.

You should define the test solely based on what you think the typical end user would desire.

If you think users are going to want longevity in their toy train, total number of laps would be the appropriate measure.
If you think users are going to want consistent speed in their toy train, wall clock time until the train fell below a critical threshold speed would be the appropriate measure.
If you don't really know what users are going to prefer, maybe this isn't the test you want to perform?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: razvanme on December 22, 2016, 02:10:58 am
I think any test can be viewed from two or more angles. The point is to prove they lied about the 80% more battery life, and that it actually decreases life ( maybe not all cases, I don't see on yet ). There is no doubt the sleeves will have their value, like someone said in the other thread, toys might benefit from the boost converter ( lego trains that chu chu constantly, cars that run at constant speed instead of crawling,  a large amount of toys ).

Also there are other tests suggested that should cover what you are saying like the lightbulb or the wall clock. I think some people might prefer the train to run as fast as it can until the batteries die, some will prefer the number of rounds around the track.

I'm bothered by a lot of these tests.

eg. The train. If the train goes around the track faster with batteroo then they can declare it a "win" even if it only lasts half as long.

A better test might be "How many times does it go around the track?" and totally ignore the overall running time. It's less correct technically but I really think that "number of times around the track" would be a better set of numbers to show the public.


Speed and time equals distance, so beside the inherent losses due to efficiency, you might say the trains travel the same distance, it's a matter of opinion if I care about the speed or the time (slower train).
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: lpickup on December 22, 2016, 02:26:43 am
I think any test can be viewed from two or more angles. The point is to prove they lied about the 80% more battery life, and that it actually decreases life ( maybe not all cases, I don't see on yet ). There is no doubt the sleeves will have their value, like someone said in the other thread, toys might benefit from the boost converter ( lego trains that chu chu constantly, cars that run at constant speed instead of crawling,  a large amount of toys ).

Also there are other tests suggested that should cover what you are saying like the lightbulb or the wall clock. I think some people might prefer the train to run as fast as it can until the batteries die, some will prefer the number of rounds around the track.

Right.  So given the dilemma of different viewpoints, one should be prepared to back their test procedure up with some kind of meaningful rationale why a particular viewpoint was chosen.  So you may do a survey of 100 users and find at which point do they consider the batteries "dead" for a given product, whether the product is a train or toy slowing down to a certain minimum speed, or a flashlight/light bulb dimming to a certain point.  Based on the answers you get and how tight the distribution is, you could also infer some relevant information on how valid the test even is.  If there is a very tight distribution, you can say with confidence that your test's endpoint criteria is statistically meaningful.  If it's a wide distribution, there is a wide variance of opinion and maybe using this device under test is flawed from the outset.

Now I realize nobody is going to do any surveys/focus groups.  Instead, you will make an engineering judgement about the finish criteria.  Just be prepared to back that selection up with a meaningful explanation other than "this criteria was chosen because we feel like it will make the Batteroo lose".

This is why testing on "passive load" devices is going to be difficult, because defining the failure threshold is a matter of subjective opinion.

Regulated devices are so much easier because they will definitely get to a point where they will simply shut off.  Just need to make sure that it's a fairly realistic test, or if you can replicate a test that Batteroo themselves have done (such as the GPS unit with the finger poking device--which is not a realistic usage scenario, but it does prove to show that they cheated on the test).
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: razvanme on December 22, 2016, 02:44:59 am
Even the Apple keyboard might be a good test, I know it's a low power device, it will wake up when a key is pressed, so like they did on the Garmin, we can do on the keyboard, keep a key pressed this in turn will keep the micro awake, when the level is ~11% place the sleeve over the batteries and check how much it lasts (number of keys pressed). Two tests like that with their own use case should prove something at least. I know it will take longer.

In this case there is no opinion to be had, you just have one output, the number of key's pressed. You can't take sides, no survey to do :).
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 22, 2016, 02:59:26 am
So given the dilemma of different viewpoints, one should be prepared to back their test procedure up with some kind of meaningful rationale why a particular viewpoint was chosen.

Or record longevity and number of laps. Add a lap counter to the train.


Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 22, 2016, 03:04:57 am
I'm bothered by a lot of these tests.

eg. The train. If the train goes around the track faster with batteroo then they can declare it a "win" even if it only lasts half as long.

A better test might be "How many times does it go around the track?" and totally ignore the overall running time. It's less correct technically but I really think that "number of times around the track" would be a better set of numbers to show the public.

I thought about using a photodiode and an Arduino to count the laps and lap times, but the video is all you need, you can do it yourself, if you like. Would be a nice test for OpenCV.

The train test is done, pretty embarrassing for Batteroo :) Will make a nice video now and upload it.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: razvanme on December 22, 2016, 03:09:28 am
So given the dilemma of different viewpoints, one should be prepared to back their test procedure up with some kind of meaningful rationale why a particular viewpoint was chosen.
Or record longevity and number of laps. Add a lap counter to the train.

True, that basically means finding out the energy extracted from the battery, that energy can be extracted in different ways. Not saying it's not a good test.
I think we should also find some tests that anyone can support.
For example I think everyone can agree the more pictures a camera takes the better, there is nothing to say about that, you can't say it took them faster with batteriser than without, you can't pick sides depending on the test.
- Apple keyboard - key's pressed
- Pictures taken
- Movie length recorded

The test's can't be evaluated in different ways.

( The mp3 player is not part of those, you can have the time it plays AND the volume, two things to consider, not one )

I thought about using a photodiode and an Arduino to count the laps and lap times, but the video is all you need, you can do it yourself, if you like. Would be a nice test for OpenCV.
The train test is done, pretty embarrassing for Batteroo :) Will make a nice video now and upload it.

Don't make us wait too long  :popcorn:
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 22, 2016, 04:30:40 am
I thought about using a photodiode and an Arduino to count the laps and lap times, but the video is all you need, you can do it yourself, if you like. Would be a nice test for OpenCV.

The train test is done, pretty embarrassing for Batteroo :) Will make a nice video now and upload it.

OTOH if it's embarrassed itself then no need for anything fancy.   :popcorn:

(Was the train actually going noticeably faster at any point?)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 22, 2016, 04:49:24 am
The camcorder needs ages to transfer the video, not the latest model.

But I could already create some data to create efficiency curves. TL;DR: the Python measurement script (http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/batteroo.py) and the data (http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/batteroo.csv).

This is the circuit I used for the electronic load:

(http://i.imgur.com/uj5eD7k.png)

The op-amp has a terrible offset and doesn't seem to be much linear, or I don't understand how to build it right, but it is short term stable and at least strictly monotonically increasing, so I could program a binary search in Python: The PSU channel 2 is set to 0 and step size to something big. Then the shunt voltage is measured with the Hameg multimeter. If it is lower than needed, the step is added. If it is higher, the step size is halved and subtracted, until the step size is reasonable small. Of course, after adjusting the current, the input voltage has to be adjusted again, too, because of losses in the uCurrent and wires, so that the exact desired voltage is at the Batteroo sleeve. The sleeve itself has 3 connections: input, output and ground. The idea from razvanme to use a metal strip from a 9V battery was excellent, I stuffed a battery with the sleeve in a solderable battery holder and the stripe connected to the Batteroo input, but isolating the plus terminal of the battery. So I didn't had to solder anything to the sleeve and the dummy battery acts as a heat sink, too. The input connection is then connected to the first PSU channel (after the uCurrent). The output is connected to the electronic load and ground is connected to ground. Each of the 3 connections have sense wires, which are connected to the analog mux and switched in pairs to the voltmeter.

That's not fast, but I don't care if it runs an hour. With this I could automate to measure all four values (input voltage, current and output voltage and current) for 0.6 V to 1.6 V input voltage, in 0.2 V steps, and for each voltage the load is stepped through from 10 mA to 100 mA (need a higher shunt for lower current, because the resolution gets too low, and a lower shunt for higher current). See the script for details (still a bit rough, just a quick hack).

I hope there is no bug and the numbers are right, will verify some samples tomorrow with my multimeter manually, but it is consistent with the train test. Now finishing the MP3 player test. The setup looks a bit crazy, but I've labelled all wires on an extra patch board, so that I don't get confused :)

(http://i.imgur.com/ZeH6vu0.jpg)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: razvanme on December 22, 2016, 06:43:46 am
@Frank great job, you know you will be remembered as the first one that tested the sleeves  :-DMM , children will sing about you in the future  :-+

I like the crazy scientist mess on your desk  :)

The values seem correct at first sight, the output current increases in steps of 10ma so the load is working correctly, the input / output voltage is constant, seem like good tests.

Based on the data you provided the efficiency of the controller is between 77% and 88%, it varies but steadily increasing with higher voltages. Maybe for a higher current it will do better.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 22, 2016, 08:32:04 am
The train test is done, pretty embarrassing for Batteroo :) Will make a nice video now and upload it.

 :-DD
Toys were supposed be one of their big things.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: StillTrying on December 22, 2016, 08:40:34 am
Based on the data you provided the efficiency of the controller is between 77% and 88%,

It seems to "use up" the 20%(or is it 800%!) that's supposed to be left at the end, and will be worse with the higher internal resistance <1.1V. At least the battery meter will still work sort of.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 22, 2016, 09:03:44 am
I need faster internet, even with timelapse still 25 minutes and GB video. But here is the entry for the spreadsheet:

Product description and model: Brio Battery Powered Engine, Art# 33595
Contributor Name: Frank Buss
Batteroo Type AA/AAA/C/D: AAA x 1
Battery Brand/Model Used: Energizer Alkaline Power
Battery Fit? / Issues?: Tight, not easy to insert
Normal battery life from fresh (No Batteriser) Minutes: 127
Normal battery life from fresh (With Batteriser) Minutes: 59
Batteriser Improvement % for fresh batteries: -53.54 %
Extra time added on "dead" battery with Batteriser. Minutes: 4
Batteriser extra run time in % on "dead" batteries": 3.15 %

And some more numbers: Quiescent current at 1.5 V is about 2 uA. Don't know how to measure the switching frequency, but output ripple is really bad. With 1 k load:

(http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/ripple-1000-ohm.png)

With 100 ohm load:

(http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/ripple-100-ohm.png)

I wonder when the first complain about hissing audio product appears on Indiegogo.

I'll finish the MP3 player test, but don't know if it makes sense to test a flashlight. And the edges look pretty steep, might have EMV problems.

Who wants the two sleeves next? One will be shipped with the construction with the battery holder, for easy measuring. Would be cool if someone with ESD/EMV equipment could take a look at it, or verify the efficiency results with a non-bricked eload, or test the current limiter.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Kean on December 22, 2016, 09:07:52 am
Wow, that is pretty poor results.  Thanks Frank!
Looking forward to seeing more tests by someone else for comparison.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: cowana on December 22, 2016, 10:38:39 am
Would be cool if someone with ESD/EMV equipment could take a look at it, or verify the efficiency results with a non-bricked eload, or test the current limiter.

Would be great to see their EMC tests repeated with a realistic current draw, rather than the 1k load (IIRC) load they used!
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amyk on December 22, 2016, 11:20:43 am
(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=279688)

The efficiency is pretty bad, but so is the line regulation; I wonder if the latter is deliberate, and they were thinking all along about battery gauges?

It looks like a variable-frequency converter. The ripple is not surprising given it basically has no output filtering.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 22, 2016, 11:20:43 am
Wow! That's switching at a really low frequency. Efficiency and ripple will be a total disaster at <10kHz with such a tiny inductor. It should really be working in the MHz range(!)

( I'm off on holiday in a few hours. Looks like I'm going to miss all the fun.  >:( )
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dcac on December 22, 2016, 11:40:22 am
At least 2 uA quiescent draw are not so bad, I think Jay_Diddy_B's batteriser prototypes was about 20-30uA.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dcac on December 22, 2016, 11:52:21 am

It looks like a variable-frequency converter. The ripple is not surprising given it basically has no output filtering.

They are probably relying heavily on capacitors at the battery input in the 'DUT' for filtering, but there could be anything from nothing to hundreds of uF and no clue to what quality caps they are either.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Luminax on December 22, 2016, 12:38:50 pm
Whack 6 of them in series to get 9 Volt, whack a 9V connector in and put them in one of Boss/Roland's Distortion/Heavy Metal gadget and listen to the phat sound that will be produced by the interference...

I think I just gave Batteroo a marketing idea  :-DD
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on December 22, 2016, 01:33:25 pm
To get decent efficiency over a wide range, you have to set a minimum pulse width - say 5% - and then below about 5% load, the frequency is varied. So you can get kHz switching frequencies - and big ripple at low currents. Double the current and the ripple will probably halve.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 22, 2016, 03:42:50 pm
Wow! That's switching at a really low frequency. Efficiency and ripple will be a total disaster at <10kHz with such a tiny inductor. It should really be working in the MHz range(!)

I'm pretty sure Batteroo said it was 1.5MHz somewhere?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 22, 2016, 03:44:42 pm
It looks like a variable-frequency converter. The ripple is not surprising given it basically has no output filtering.
They are probably relying heavily on capacitors at the battery input in the 'DUT' for filtering, but there could be anything from nothing to hundreds of uF and no clue to what quality caps they are either.

You mean those same capacitors in the product that help prevent the pulse current from causing the dropout voltage problem that Batteroo are so proudly sprout as the key to why their product will be so useful?  :-DD
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on December 22, 2016, 04:17:30 pm
We can work out the output capacitor value from Frank's waveforms. With 100 ohm load, the output current is 15mA. The voltage drops about 200mV in about 150uS.

So C = 150uS x 15mA / 200mV = 11uF. So they will be using a 10uF multilayer ceramic capacitor. Probably what you would expect given the space.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on December 22, 2016, 04:44:42 pm
At least 2 uA quiescent draw are not so bad, I think Jay_Diddy_B's batteriser prototypes was about 20-30uA.
2 uA is pretty amazing. That is low enough to have no effect on the life of a battery. For the analog circuitry of the regulator, there is a current consumption versus speed trade-off, and so using a very low power analog circuit may mean really bad transient performance.

However, they could be doing another trick. They could switch the converter off totally at low currents, except for a very low powered comparator. When the comparator detects the 200mV drop, the converter circuit wakes up until the voltage is correct again, and then switches off.

It would be a way to get extremely low quiescent current at the expense of the 200mV p-p waveform at low loads. The big negative would be that if a 1A load is suddenly applied, the output voltage could drop down to almost zero before the converter starts up.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: razvanme on December 22, 2016, 05:36:18 pm
Don't know how to measure the switching frequency
...............
Who wants the two sleeves next? One will be shipped with the construction with the battery holder, for easy measuring. Would be cool if someone with ESD/EMV equipment could take a look at it, or verify the efficiency results with a non-bricked eload, or test the current limiter.

If nobody wants the sleeves you should sacrifice one for science and find the component values. Also please test with higher currents / oscilloscope attached so we see how it behaves when a load is applied / detached and if the switching frequency and p-p ripple changes. Based on the data so far, it seems like the efficiency has not quite reached it's maximum so higher currents might improve it by a few percent.
You can measure the switching frequency at the inductor, you will have to solder the power in this case. Probe the two sides and see what you get.

Please test the flashlight just so we have more data, even if they said you should not use it in such a device. No need for a movie just a photodector / arduino to track the time.
I have a feeling that we will be ruling out a lot of devices from use.
They might say it's not meant for mp3 players, it's not meant for trains , it's not meant for toy cars, it's not meant for gauged devices, it's not meant for flashlights. And we will be left with the package they came in.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: PeterL on December 22, 2016, 08:14:44 pm
With 100 ohm load:

(http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/ripple-100-ohm.png)

Looks like regulator is in sleep mode most of the time, it makes one or two cycle at minimum on-time, overshoots, and goes to sleep. I have seen this behaviour also on convertors from TI and LT. It's not the switching frequency your looking at here, it's an active/sleep rhythm: during the rising edge the converter is active, during the falling edge it's asleep.

Since this is most certainly a boost converter it needs to operate at a duty cycle of (1-Vin/Vout). So if you feed this thing with 1.5V, it basically needs a dutycycle of zero, but these converters use a minimum on-time, which results in a minimum dutycylce if the frequency is fixed.

Things will probably get better once you lower the input voltage, and the converter actually starts boosting.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: LabSpokane on December 22, 2016, 08:59:28 pm
So far, the efficiency is about what I expected, but that sawtooth output is awful. It's hard to believe that isn't going cause issues.

Custom silicon?!  While you were "customizing," Bobby, while the hell didn't you stuff in a bypass FET?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 22, 2016, 09:20:18 pm
So far, the efficiency is about what I expected, but that sawtooth output is awful. It's hard to believe that isn't going cause issues.
It is no problem with the MP3 player, can't hear any distortions or noise. Maybe it has good power supply filtering.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 22, 2016, 10:48:36 pm
So Frank has entered the first test in the spreadsheet (the toy train):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18K9c2YAT0d0QABGYGpzItbvDcgfAQCRUtloEzzfXADU/
And it was nothing short of a horrible result. -53% (minus!) Batteriser run time with a new battery, and a paltry 3.1% extra run time form the "flat" battery. Not 30%, not 300%, 3%.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: CJay on December 22, 2016, 11:07:27 pm
So Frank has entered the first test in the spreadsheet (the toy train):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18K9c2YAT0d0QABGYGpzItbvDcgfAQCRUtloEzzfXADU/
And it was nothing short of a horrible result. -53% (minus!) Batteriser run time with a new battery, and a paltry 3.1% extra run time form the "flat" battery. Not 30%, not 300%, 3%.

It's a bloody awful result and I'd not expected it to be anywhere near that bad but can we be sure the original cell wasn't faulty* from the packet or was it repeated with other cells?

Or am I misunderstanding how the test was applied?

*(it's happened to BigClive with Duracell Simply AA cells, one was around 400mAH and the other from the same pack was 1700mAH)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 22, 2016, 11:37:47 pm
It's a bloody awful result and I'd not expected it to be anywhere near that bad but can we be sure the original cell wasn't faulty* from the packet or was it repeated with other cells?
You are right, I should have measured the voltage. But the speed of the train was as fast as with the other cell, at least in the beginning, and the 4 minute result is not affected, because this was done with the other battery which was used in the first test.

For details see the video, it is uploaded now (needs still some time until HD is processed for better quality) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj6GyGVWwto (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj6GyGVWwto)

Video description: Testing a Brio Battery Powered Engine, Art# 33595, with the Batteroo sleeve. The tracks were glued with double-sided tape to the pertinax board, for same test conditions. Result: without the sleeve it ran for 127 minutes, with the sleeves for 59 minutes and using the sleeves on the dead battery of the first test, it ran for 4 minutes. The video shows all 3 tests in one shot, no editing, only time lapse when it is not interesting. In the small overlay at bottom right in the first half of the video, you can see the test with the sleeve, to compare it without the sleeve.

At 6:28 you can see in the overlay how it dies with the sleeve, while it is still running without the sleeve at this time, and after this you can see the 4 minute run, and at the end of the video at 24:20. You can also see that the train runs faster without the sleeve.

Conclusion: The Batteroo sleeve has no advantage for this toy.

I published the video under CC license, so anyone can use it for own videos, for voice overs etc. (I'm not much of a talker, as you can hear in the video).
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: onlooker on December 23, 2016, 12:58:09 am
I guess the "dead" battery was allowed to recover for about one hour before test 3. One more interesting test  as others have already mentioned is to measure a "dead" battery's extra time without the sleeve and after one hour recovery.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 23, 2016, 01:17:33 am
I guess the "dead" battery was allowed to recover for about one hour before test 3. One more interesting test  as others have already mentioned is to measure a "dead" battery's extra time without the sleeve and after one hour recovery.

Right, I guess it might be longer, too. But doesn't matter much, the interesting result is that the advantage is 3% instead of 300%. Maybe a problem while they calculated it? "0.03, hmm, times 100, percent. Oh, did I already pressed enter?" :-DD

But I just did the train test with the sleeves again, this time checking the battery (was from the same pack of 4) and open loop voltage was 1.6 V. It is important to verify experiments. The Batteroo sleeve was the other one I have, so no faulty sleeve, no faulty battery. Time confirmed, 61 minutes this time. The train is available everywhere to buy, e.g. Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/Brio-Battery-Powered-Engine-Train/dp/B00AOVRS1E/), everyone can do the same test. I didn't specifically chose the train because of its bad performance, it was just one of the few items I could find at all which has a motor and uses 1.5 V AAA batteries. I expect lots of other similar toys will have the same problem, like probes the monkey. :popcorn:

While testing the MP3 player, the clips at the end broke off of one of the sleeves I have when I removed it from the player. I was careful, but the MP3 player has little springs at the positive battery terminal, too, and it seems it got stuck with it. Can't find the clips, they are in Batteroo nirvana now.

(http://i.imgur.com/mx3XIAZ.jpg)

Trying to photograph through the lens of my microscope (I'm sure Dave's awesome Tagarno will produce much better images soon). Looks like they were soldered:

(http://i.imgur.com/5RpwdoZ.jpg)

And the inside:

(http://i.imgur.com/BHXwp23.jpg)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: CJay on December 23, 2016, 01:20:57 am
It's a bloody awful result and I'd not expected it to be anywhere near that bad but can we be sure the original cell wasn't faulty* from the packet or was it repeated with other cells?
You are right, I should have measured the voltage. But the speed of the train was as fast as with the other cell, at least in the beginning, and the 4 minute result is not affected, because this was done with the other battery which was used in the first test.

I'm not sure the terminal voltage would have been different if a cell was low capacity, after all a D cell has much higher capacity than an AA but the same terminal voltage from new.

 I'd just be interested in seeing the test repeated a few times with same brand/type cells to eliminate the possibility of a low capacity cell.

I'm almost curious enough to try and lay hands on some sleeves to play with but, damnit, if this carries on Batteroo will make a living selling sleeves to curious engineers :)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: PA0PBZ on December 23, 2016, 01:41:57 am
Time confirmed, 61 minutes this time.

Anyone care to guess why the result is so bad? Simply looking at the efficiency does not explain it.
Frank, did you measure the current consumption of the train? Maybe I missed it...
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dcac on December 23, 2016, 02:04:06 am
I’ve seen some tests of AA batteries where the capacity variation in a 10 cell pack could be as much as 70% difference between the best and the worst cell from the same package. But this was the extreme case in the 9 brand test, other brands varied about 3-20%, so still something that really should be taken into consideration.

What are the capacity tolerances on a typical battery anyway? are they ever specified. I believe output voltage and internal resistance are monitored at manufacturing, but how about the capacity the battery can deliver when its energy is drawn over hours/days/months or even years.

Though I’m not saying this explains the test results we seen so far.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 23, 2016, 02:04:59 am
Anyone care to guess why the result is so bad? Simply looking at the efficiency does not explain it.
Frank, did you measure the current consumption of the train? Maybe I missed it...

Current is about 250 mA at 1.5 V and 210 mA at 1 V.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: razvanme on December 23, 2016, 02:19:42 am
Anyone care to guess why the result is so bad? Simply looking at the efficiency does not explain it.
Frank, did you measure the current consumption of the train? Maybe I missed it...

Current is about 250 mA at 1.5 V and 210 mA at 1 V.

That might explain it, we don't have any data for higher current draw, if it takes 250mA at 1.5V and the batteriser keeps that, it will draw more and more current.
We need some data at higher current draw.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: onlooker on December 23, 2016, 02:24:18 am
Right, I guess it might be longer, too. But doesn't matter much, the interesting result is that the advantage is 3% instead of 300%.
I understand your argument. I am just curious whether that 3% extra turns out to be 0% in real term.

I think your test results should be indicative for all direct battery powered motorized devices and "toys",  including the monkey ...

The other device types of interest are those with built-in DC-DC convertors and those with pulsed power consumption.  The interest  is mainly on checking all different predictions made throughout the 300+ pages.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: LabSpokane on December 23, 2016, 02:27:50 am
I’ve seen some tests of AA batteries where the capacity variation in a 10 cell pack could be as much as 70% difference between the best and the worst cell from the same package. But this was the extreme case in the 9 brand test, other brands varied about 3-20%, so still something that really should be taken into consideration.

What are the capacity tolerances on a typical battery anyway? are they ever specified. I believe output voltage and internal resistance are monitored at manufacturing, but how about the capacity the battery can deliver when its energy is drawn over hours/days/months or even years.

Though I’m not saying this explains the test results we seen so far.

With alkaline batteries, I think it's very safe to say that the error bars are at least 10%. A 3% difference is no difference at all.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 23, 2016, 02:28:59 am
The MP3 player test is done. I used the method Dave described, just filming it, no measuring, to actually see when it turns off (looks like there was no low battery warning, maybe voltage jumped a bit). With sleeve a fresh battery worked 17.9% less long than without the sleeve and the additional time after using the sleeve on the dead battery from the first test with the MP3 player (which had a few days to recover) was 13.4 %.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: LabSpokane on December 23, 2016, 02:31:11 am
And holy cold solder joints!  That's terrible. You'd think someone from Flextronics would know those terminals need to be preheated before reflow.  :palm:
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Hensingler on December 23, 2016, 02:31:19 am
Anyone care to guess why the result is so bad? Simply looking at the efficiency does not explain it.
Frank, did you measure the current consumption of the train? Maybe I missed it...

Because the train is a non-switching regulated load and increasing the feed voltage above the train's drop out voltage is pure waste. That and batteroo losses means twice as many batteries will end up in landfill.

This train is a good example of where batteroos are a complete fail. The only way to win is to put sleeves on already dead batteries and in this case you get another 3.1%. Given a batteroo costs about 6 times more than quality Amazon branded batteries you would have to clip onto nearly 200 dead batteries to break even which no one sane would bother to do and the batteroos would likely fall to bits long before that anyway.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: PeterL on December 23, 2016, 02:37:06 am
Anyone care to guess why the result is so bad? Simply looking at the efficiency does not explain it.

I think one thing that explains it is the way the batterisers loads the battery.

Without the batteriser there is a constant load on the train of .2 Amp.
With it say we can assume a pulsating load, judging from the voltage ripple we have seen. Let's say the load is now 2 Amp for 10%
(neglecting the losses in the batteriser)
This has a big effect on the Powerlosses in the ESR:

Without Batteriser:

PESR = 0.22 x RESR = 0.04RESR

With Batteriser:

PESR =  10% x 22 x RESR = 0.4RESR

So we have much more losses in the ESR due to the batteriser.

It would be interesting to see the current waveform on the input of the batteriser at different charge levels of a battery to check this theory.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: StillTrying on December 23, 2016, 02:40:01 am
Current is about 250 mA at 1.5 V and 210 mA at 1 V.

That's about 1/2 of what I expected. Is that with the train just held in hand, or driving itself around the track?
200mW-300mW doesn't seem enough input power to drive a wooden train around a wooden track.

data.energizer.com/PDFs/E92.pdf (http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/E92.pdf)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: LabSpokane on December 23, 2016, 03:19:33 am
The MP3 player test is done. I used the method Dave described, just filming it, no measuring, to actually see when it turns off (looks like there was no low battery warning, maybe voltage jumped a bit). With sleeve a fresh battery worked 17.9% less long than without the sleeve and the additional time after using the sleeve on the dead battery from the first test with the MP3 player (which had a few days to recover) was 13.4 %.

A test of runtime using recovered battery with *no* sleeve is also needed.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 23, 2016, 04:19:26 am
Thanks for the Youtube video with the toy train Frank. Excellent real world demonstration, shows simply and beyond a doubt that there is no advantage - rather a disadvantage - to using the sleeves compared to a battery by itself. Looking at the train on the round track like a clock, you can even see that the train runs faster throughout the test with just the bare battery.
One simple real world test has utterly exposed the Batteroo as total bullshit.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 23, 2016, 04:44:49 am
Right, I guess it might be longer, too. But doesn't matter much, the interesting result is that the advantage is 3% instead of 300%.
I understand your argument. I am just curious whether that 3% extra turns out to be 0% in real term.

I think your test results should be indicative for all direct battery powered motorized devices and "toys",  including the monkey ...

The other device types of interest are those with built-in DC-DC convertors and those with pulsed power consumption.  The interest  is mainly on checking all different predictions made throughout the 300+ pages.

Yes, I can almost guarantee that if the bare battery from the test with bare battery had been left to rest for an hour and reinserted again bare, without the batteroo, it would have run for at least as long, probably longer again than it did with the batteroo on. As a kid that was always my method with dead batteries, swap them back and forth giving them time to rest and the toy would always run again for a good while.
You'd actually get a better increase in life from the "dead" battery by biting it hard and reinserting it than by putting a batteroo sleeve over it. Seriously.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: CJay on December 23, 2016, 04:53:26 am
I’ve seen some tests of AA batteries where the capacity variation in a 10 cell pack could be as much as 70% difference between the best and the worst

What are the capacity tolerances on a typical battery anyway? are they ever specified. I believe output voltage and internal resistance are monitored at manufacturing, but how about the capacity the battery can deliver when its energy is drawn over hours/days/months or even years.

Though I’m not saying this explains the test results we seen so far.

Nope, I don't think it's that which is causing the crappy results, I just want to be sure that Batteroo can't come back and claim it is.

Capacity is temperature and load dependant so we need to know current drawn but the tests we have so far are not indicative of a product that works as advertised.

Go figure, who could have predicted that...

The only way to be conclusive is to amass a large statistically significant number of test results so that faulty or low capacity cells can be weeded out.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: f4eru on December 23, 2016, 05:06:52 am
Anyone care to guess why the result is so bad? Simply looking at the efficiency does not explain it.
Frank, did you measure the current consumption of the train? Maybe I missed it...
That's easy :
current in the load : 250 mA at 1.5 V and 210 mA at 1 V.

let's say the converter has 88% efficiency.

Iout =250mA @ Vout =1,5V at the load means you have : Iin=Iout*Vout/Vin /Eff  = .25*1,5/1/0,88 = 420mA
So you take up much more current, which already lowers the time nearly half.
Also, higher current means lower capacity on the battery itself :
http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/E92.pdf (http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/E92.pdf) --> on the bar graphic you see the battery capacity going down with increased current, perhaps 30%

So, all in all, about half the run time with a simple unregulated load like a motor or a non active light is expected.
Batteriser is a total and utter fail.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: lpickup on December 23, 2016, 05:09:40 am
Looking at the train on the round track like a clock, you can even see that the train runs faster throughout the test with just the bare battery.
That much was expected, and was the only hope that the Batteroo stood for being considered a "win" if in fact it had run longer but at a slower pace.

However, it turns out Batteroo failed (miserably) on BOTH counts.   :palm: :palm: :palm:

That is truly an astounding and damning result for Batteroo. 
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: razvanme on December 23, 2016, 05:35:20 am
The movie is like watching the Duracell Rabbit commercial  :popcorn:

Has anyone seen how he is poking the Batteriser train at the end in the hopes it might just do one more lap  :-DD
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 23, 2016, 05:46:25 am
Train Test:

Another way to look at the results of this excellent train test is by means of WORK DONE, rather than time of operation.
So, we can view one complete lap or circuit of the track as being ONE unit of work.
Fresh Bare cell: 613 laps.
Fresh cell with Batteroo: 290 laps.
The cell from test one, after being allowed an hour to recover, went on to do another 17 laps with the batteroo on. (I contend that the extra 17 laps were from the cell's natural recovery over one hour rather than any gain from the batteroo sleeve, but hey, without this having been tested in this instance, we'll give batteroo the benefit of the doubt for now.)

Interestingly, regarding the RATE of work done, in the first 58 minutes and 35 seconds, the bare cell test completed 314 laps, while the batteroo'd train completed its 290 laps. So it didn't even increase the output.
Batteroo decreased the RATE of operation, the TIME PERIOD of operation, and the AMOUNT of work done. Fail on every measurable metric.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: quad on December 23, 2016, 05:58:53 am
Awesome breakdown samgab!  :-+

How did you count the number of laps?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: onlooker on December 23, 2016, 06:20:32 am
...
Iout =250mA @ Vout =1,5V at the load means you have : Iin=Iout*Vout/Vin *Eff  = .25*1,5/1*0,88 = 330mA
...

Iin=Iout*Vout/Vin/Eff  = .25*1,5/1/0,88 = 426mA

I think at this current and state of discharge, the battery ESR  has a significant impact. The AAA battery should be stopped working long before reaching 1 V discharge state.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: ez24 on December 23, 2016, 06:25:29 am
The movie is like watching the Duracell Rabbit commercial  :popcorn:

Has anyone seen how he is poking the Batteriser train at the end in the hopes it might just do one more lap  :-DD

Last night in the US there was a short Rabbit commercial and said "its back"
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 23, 2016, 06:28:25 am
Awesome breakdown samgab!  :-+

How did you count the number of laps?

Err, well, I'm a nerd with a bit of time on my hands just at the moment and not enough sleep; so I used one of those clicker counter things, and just watched the video and clicked it each time the train completed a lap...  :-[  Cheers though!
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dcac on December 23, 2016, 06:36:43 am
I realize this is a bit grasping at straws, but how much does the Batteriser weigh? and how much does the Toy train weigh? together with the AAA cell.

A AAA cell weigh about 11.5g and I’m guessing the train except for the engine parts is mostly plastic but still not easy to judge it's weight.

In any case the train with the added weight of the batteriser, even if it’s relatively small, would require more energy to move around.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 23, 2016, 06:39:18 am
I realize this is a bit grasping at straws, but how much does the Batteriser weigh? and how much does the Toy train weigh? together with the AAA cell.

A AAA cell weigh about 11.5g and I’m guessing the train except for the engine parts is mostly plastic but still not easy to judge it's weight.

In any case the train with the added weight of the batteriser, even if it’s relatively small, would require more energy to move around.

I think the official measurement given was "half a bee's dick", IIRC.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Muttley Snickers on December 23, 2016, 06:54:12 am
Excellent thread guys.   :-+

I don't think the minute weight of the sleeve would make a hell of a difference personally and if you were going to start factoring in those minuscule details then you may also want to consider that the moving parts of the train over time will probably free up with wear, I wouldn't worry about it at this point in time.

   
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: johndoe123 on December 23, 2016, 07:59:09 am

But I just did the train test with the sleeves again, this time checking the battery (was from the same pack of 4) and open loop voltage was 1.6 V. It is important to verify experiments. The Batteroo sleeve was the other one I have, so no faulty sleeve, no faulty battery. Time confirmed, 61 minutes this time.

We should include this measurement in the google doc too, just to keep the record.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Iceberg86300 on December 23, 2016, 09:44:09 am
Pretty please, with cherries on top, add labels to the legends (or whatever they are) on these graphs.

I'm having flashbacks of college & failing grades on lab reports for not having everything labeled correctly.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Luminax on December 23, 2016, 11:52:04 am
Right, I guess it might be longer, too. But doesn't matter much, the interesting result is that the advantage is 3% instead of 300%.
I understand your argument. I am just curious whether that 3% extra turns out to be 0% in real term.

I think your test results should be indicative for all direct battery powered motorized devices and "toys",  including the monkey ...

The other device types of interest are those with built-in DC-DC convertors and those with pulsed power consumption.  The interest  is mainly on checking all different predictions made throughout the 300+ pages.

Yes, I can almost guarantee that if the bare battery from the test with bare battery had been left to rest for an hour and reinserted again bare, without the batteroo, it would have run for at least as long, probably longer again than it did with the batteroo on. As a kid that was always my method with dead batteries, swap them back and forth giving them time to rest and the toy would always run again for a good while.
You'd actually get a better increase in life from the "dead" battery by biting it hard and reinserting it than by putting a batteroo sleeve over it. Seriously.

I remember back when I was a kid, someone 'taught' me to put dead batteries out in bright daylight and they'll recover some 'energy' from the sun... I wonder if it's just the natural battery regeneration after all... Or maybe there's some truth in that the heat affects the chemical inside and it 'rearranges' to give higher recovered voltage or something?  :-//

At any rate, Is that train a pure resistive load ie. no regulation circuit at all? Also I agree, should do the test with the parameter of 'reinserting'

1) Test A without batteriser until train stops, keep battery aside and after a while (fixed time) and maybe some treatment(biting, sun-drying? :-DD) reinsert and continue experiment
2) Test B with batteriser, same as above, reinsert battery into batteriser and re-test.
3) Test C without batteriser, reinsert into batteriser and re-test
4) Test D with batteriser, reinsert without sleeve back and re-test

Cheers  :popcorn:

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 23, 2016, 12:19:02 pm
Frank: If you have a quality rechargeable Low Self Discharge Ni-MH AAA cell, like an eneloop lying around at your home, would it be possible to fully charge it and chuck it in the train and see how long it runs for (how long and how many laps)?

Just as a side comparison: (I would strongly advocate to potential buyers of batteroo, to instead take that money and invest it in a charger and a set of eneloops instead, which can last many hundreds of recharge cycles and are much more effective in most applications these days than Alkaline primaries. So they save money in the long run, they save the environment, and they work better. No brainer, especially as now with modern LSD types, self discharge isn't the problem it used to be with Ni-MH cells.)

Edit: Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with BRB - Big Rechargeable Battery!
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: djos on December 23, 2016, 01:42:04 pm
I have a charger at home that can recharge alkaline batteries about 10 times each. Cost me less than a stack of Batteroo's.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on December 23, 2016, 02:19:56 pm
I'm bothered by a lot of these tests.

eg. The train. If the train goes around the track faster with batteroo then they can declare it a "win" even if it only lasts half as long.

A better test might be "How many times does it go around the track?" and totally ignore the overall running time. It's less correct technically but I really think that "number of times around the track" would be a better set of numbers to show the public.

I believe we should consider any and all possible measuring sticks when doing these tests - and publish the lot of them.  If one of those shows a benefit for Batteroo, then publish it.  It's better to include all results so that the tester cannot be accused of being biased - and have that accusation proved by taking the tester's own data and using it against them.  If there is one, you might find that the metric which shines in favour of Batteroo is measuring something that people don't really care about.

By publishing all the metrics, you get a much more persuasive message, especially when they all point in the same direction.  Here's an example:
Train Test:

Another way to look at the results of this excellent train test is by means of WORK DONE, rather than time of operation.
So, we can view one complete lap or circuit of the track as being ONE unit of work.
Fresh Bare cell: 613 laps.
Fresh cell with Batteroo: 290 laps.
The cell from test one, after being allowed an hour to recover, went on to do another 17 laps with the batteroo on. (I contend that the extra 17 laps were from the cell's natural recovery over one hour rather than any gain from the batteroo sleeve, but hey, without this having been tested in this instance, we'll give batteroo the benefit of the doubt for now.)

Interestingly, regarding the RATE of work done, in the first 58 minutes and 35 seconds, the bare cell test completed 314 laps, while the batteroo'd train completed its 290 laps. So it didn't even increase the output.
Batteroo decreased the RATE of operation, the TIME PERIOD of operation, and the AMOUNT of work done. Fail on every measurable metric.


I reckon that is the way to go.  :-+
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: SL4P on December 23, 2016, 02:42:07 pm
Awesome breakdown samgab!  :-+

How did you count the number of laps?

Err, well, I'm a nerd with a bit of time on my hands just at the moment and not enough sleep; so I used one of those clicker counter things, and just watched the video and clicked it each time the train completed a lap...  :-[  Cheers though!
Glad you did that, as i was going to ask if anyone does another mechanical test - for them to count the number of operational cycles as part of the result.  Also possibly graphed over time, as the sleeved battery appeared to start off with more gusto (although it may have been an illusion of the video size differences)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 23, 2016, 03:16:59 pm
The sleeve with the broken clips at the plus terminal didn't work anymore, maybe I broke the PCB or something, it is very brittle. But I managed to remove the metal to the minus terminal and the red plastic on top of the PCB:

(http://i.imgur.com/RW3722s.jpg)

I measured the caps in place, so could be wrong, but it says 14 uF, for both pairs, so 7 uF each cap (seems to be parallel). The inductor is 2.2 uH, if the in place measurement is right.

The chip has some label, really hard to read it:

(http://i.imgur.com/VJqArIg.jpg)

Looks like it says "B041" and date code 1629.

And some more train tests: I did close the lid, this should be heavier than the Batteroo sleeve, and tried it again. But I ran out of Energizer batteries, so I used a Duracell. And looks like the bunny ads are true :) With the Duracell and without the sleeve, it runs for 195 minutes now, instead of 127. But there are different types of the Energizer batteries, maybe this is a type which lasts longer for lower discharge currents.

Then I used a fresh Duracell battery with the Batteroo sleeve, and the train was running for 115 minutes.

Meanwhile the first battery has recovered and I tried it without the Batteroo sleeve. It was running for 7 additional minutes! Of course, this can't be compared because of the longer recovery time and the different battery type, but I guess it will be not much different for the Energizer battery. This means the Batteroo sleeve has no positive effect at all for this train, not even the 3%, because without the sleeve most probably it would have run longer (but maybe a bit slower).

Ok, before I break the second sleeve, too, I'll send it to the next tester, @Ysjoelfir . He might be able to test it with professional EMC and ESD equipment. Was a fun project.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 23, 2016, 03:40:05 pm
I have one of these single AAA toy trains.
http://www.toysrus.com/buy/preschool-trains/imaginarium-power-steam-engine-train-set-5f5eedb-12595303 (http://www.toysrus.com/buy/preschool-trains/imaginarium-power-steam-engine-train-set-5f5eedb-12595303)
Will do the same test as Frank did.
Thought about getting two and running side-by-side but then people might complain the trains aren't identical. So will run two tests and then edit side-by-side footage with timer. Maybe add a lap counter?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Kean on December 23, 2016, 03:49:12 pm
Frank, do you have some digital (or vernier) calipers?
If so, can you measure the thickness of the PCB material and the metal.
This is just for interest relating to fragility - as your first one clearly didn't last very long.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 23, 2016, 04:35:00 pm
Thanks for the Youtube video with the toy train Frank. Excellent real world demonstration, shows simply and beyond a doubt that there is no advantage - rather a disadvantage - to using the sleeves compared to a battery by itself. Looking at the train on the round track like a clock, you can even see that the train runs faster throughout the test with just the bare battery.
One simple real world test has utterly exposed the Batteroo as total bullshit.

And that's likely going to be very typical, if not pretty universal, for "passive devices" as Batteroo likes to clearly define in their products sheet
Now it's onto "Active load" devices like the Mp3 player and any other modern electronic gadget.
Batteroo have already admitted on their product sheet that it's not recommended with torches with DC-DC converters, why?, because they are active loads!
 :popcorn:
 
(http://i.imgur.com/qlnkCs1.jpg)

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 23, 2016, 04:47:37 pm
I have one of these single AAA toy trains.
http://www.toysrus.com/buy/preschool-trains/imaginarium-power-steam-engine-train-set-5f5eedb-12595303 (http://www.toysrus.com/buy/preschool-trains/imaginarium-power-steam-engine-train-set-5f5eedb-12595303)
Will do the same test as Frank did.
Thought about getting two and running side-by-side but then people might complain the trains aren't identical. So will run two tests and then edit side-by-side footage with timer. Maybe add a lap counter?

That'll be great, I look forward to it! It'd be a pretty simple task for you to put a little magnet on the side of the train and set up a simple reed switch and increasing count-up circuit with a display to show in shot the number of laps completed? That adds a very useful parameter to the tests.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on December 23, 2016, 05:01:36 pm
Frank,

Some tests you could do.

1. If the battery is 1.6V, it looks like the device acts like a forward biased silicon diode with about a 0.8V drop at 100mA. If it was 1v drop at 1A, that would be 1W dissipation which is a lot for that package on a very thin substrate.

You could actually test as the temperature coefficient is about -2.2mV/C. So if you attached 1.6V supply to the input with a 15 ohm resistor, by looking at the increase in output voltage over time, you can measure the die temperature. If the voltage across the resistor rises by 100mV as the chip heats up, you know that there has been a 45 degC temp rise in the die above ambient. The maximum rated temperature will probably be somewhere between 85 degC and 125 degC.

The point is that if a certain current raises the chip to 125degC with a 1.6V battery, that will probably define an absolute maximum current load that the Batteriser can safely be connected to.

2. If the battery is dead (ie replace the battery with a 20A range on a multimeter), what does the Batteriser look like on the output.
Is it an open circuit for both positive and negative applied output voltages?
Does it look like a diode for a positive applied voltage? Does it look like a diode with a negative applied voltage?
In both these cases, if it looks like a diode, what current is going through the battery (the 20A multimeter range)?

The point is that if something uses several batteries, then when the first battery with a batteriser runs flat, the voltage from all the other batteries will be applied to the dead cell/batteriser as a reverse voltage in series with the load.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: IanB on December 23, 2016, 05:16:00 pm
Batteroo have already admitted on their product sheet that it's not recommended with torches with DC-DC converters, why?, because they are active loads!

Not all LED lamps have good regulation, for example, this one:

Ultimate Survival Technologies 10-Day 6-AA Lantern (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00FEZWBSU)

It takes 3 or 6 AAs in a 3s2p arrangement. I bought it for blackouts/emergencies based on the good reviews, but when I tested it I found it has absolutely no regulation at all. The current consumption increases exponentially with increasing battery voltage, about twice as much at 1.5 V as at 1.1 V, and rising ever more rapidly if you go above 1.5 V.

I guess this works OK with alkaline batteries, but I think the design would be much better if it had regulation to maintain a constant, stable brightness when the voltage increases above something like 1.2 V.

Anyway, to the point: I would guess the Batteroo would work against this lamp as boosting the input voltage will drain the batteries much quicker due to the voltage/current load characteristic.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 23, 2016, 05:19:40 pm
I know there are dozens of ways to do a reed switch counter circuit, using 4026 IC, ATmega8 circuit, PIC16F84 circuit, some kind of Arduino circuit, using 7 segment displays etc, but for anyone out there who is thinking of setting up a simple counter circuit for any kind of testing, where you want to keep it as simple as possible and don't want to make a little circuit for it, here's a nice cheap and easy solution using a cheap-as-chips pedometer and a reed switch:
http://www.trainelectronics.com/artcles/pedometer/index.htm (http://www.trainelectronics.com/artcles/pedometer/index.htm)

https://goo.gl/juvaWu (https://goo.gl/juvaWu)

The advantage of using a reed switch and magnet is that there is no physical contact to trigger the switch, so it doesn't affect the device under test. Go nuts people!
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: razvanme on December 23, 2016, 05:45:07 pm
(https://s27.postimg.org/3ncfrn7y7/Passive_Load.png) (https://postimg.org/image/3ncfrn7y7/)

Keeping a constant voltage to a passive load should be the same thing? If I keep a constant 1.5V over a 15 \$\Omega\$ load, it means I am keeping a constant 100mA over the load. So the batteroo is a lot worse at doing that, in any passive load. Am I missing something? It seems it's the exact thing they warn about just worse.


Also, they might get away with "murder" since they do not mention anything about extra battery life, they were very careful with the wording.
Quote
"Don't waste time on new batteries to get great performance, just slip on a Batteroo from the start and your device will perform at it's best until all the energy is used up"
It's what I expected, the train will run full speed until the end, it seems even that is a fail.


(https://s27.postimg.org/g0p9yjxmn/Batteroo_efficiency.png) (https://postimg.org/image/g0p9yjxmn/)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 23, 2016, 05:48:57 pm
Does anyone else here remember user 5ky here on the forum http://www.eevblog.com/forum/profile/?u=110170 (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/profile/?u=110170) , he has already got the same Garmin unit that was used in batteroo's infamous rigged test, and has done some pretty good initial testing. He has also ordered batteroos, but he hasn't been active on the forum here for a year or so. I hope we see some more from him when his batteroos arrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cV8SH7Ghbo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cV8SH7Ghbo)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw_jFIPxePc&t (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw_jFIPxePc&t)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00YYQxOn2YE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00YYQxOn2YE)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: 6581 on December 23, 2016, 05:56:26 pm
The advantage of using a reed switch and magnet is that there is no physical contact to trigger the switch, so it doesn't affect the device under test. Go nuts people!

As long as the magnet on the DUT is kept away from motor and batteroos inductor - could affect results if too near. (I guess the effect to motor would cancel out though.)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on December 23, 2016, 06:03:42 pm
It hasn't been clear to me - but how many times have each of these tests been run?

A single test is a very dangerous sample on which to base conclusions.  I would suggest getting a pack of 6 batteries and running the train test 6 times - 3 times with a sleeve and 3 times without.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on December 23, 2016, 06:07:21 pm
The advantage of using a reed switch and magnet is that there is no physical contact to trigger the switch, so it doesn't affect the device under test. Go nuts people!

As long as the magnet on the DUT is kept away from motor and batteroos inductor - could affect results if too near. (I guess the effect to motor would cancel out though.)

Simple answer - just use a light source and a photosensitive device where the train interrupts the beam.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: f4eru on December 23, 2016, 06:08:25 pm
Quote
Thought about getting two and running side-by-side but then people might complain the trains aren't identical. So will run two tests and then edit side-by-side footage with timer. Maybe add a lap counter?

That's not a problem : color code the locomotives, then exchange them and re-run the test, all in one shot.

For the lap counting, Dave, you could use two of your huge collection of 4-bangers, and rig the "=" button to reed switches :)
Then type "0+1", and if it repeats, it counts the laps.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Wytnucls on December 23, 2016, 07:24:53 pm
Here is an attempt to identify the DC to DC converter IC (I find it unlikely that they would have developed their own IC at that price point).
There are no resistors to set the output voltage, so it is probably a fixed voltage output IC (~1.5V), which usually comes in a 6 pin package. This one has 8 pins.
A 2.2uF inductor usually means a switching frequency of 2MHz for similar ICs.

The picture is a bit blurry, but here my best guess for the PCB topology and pin functionality:
Feel free to chime in if you spotted other connections
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: IanB on December 23, 2016, 07:46:41 pm
A single test is a very dangerous sample on which to base conclusions.  I would suggest getting a pack of 6 batteries and running the train test 6 times - 3 times with a sleeve and 3 times without.

The number of tests for a significant result depends on the magnitude of the effect being measured. If the difference is something striking like 2:1, then only a couple of tests with a similar outcome is enough to start establishing confidence in the conclusion.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on December 23, 2016, 08:03:44 pm
That's why I mentioned three.  Three very similar results will give a very high degree of confidence.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 23, 2016, 08:40:27 pm
Frank,

Some tests you could do.


Good ideas. But I shouldn't do it all by myself, then there is nothing left for Dave and others to test  :) Dave could measure the temperature with his IR camera, and/or tape a thermocouple on the case with kapton tape. I have only one sleeve left, don't want to break this. The packet is now shipped to the next tester. I have included another cute little toy I ordered from eBay and just got today and didn't test so far, would be interesting to see it in a video.

Thought about getting two and running side-by-side but then people might complain the trains aren't identical. So will run two tests and then edit side-by-side footage with timer. Maybe add a lap counter?

A lap counter would be nice. I thought about this, too, but didn't have much time, always crazy time at the end of the year with client projects. An easy way would be a photodiode, and then an Arduino which measures it on an analog input, and a simple software high pass filter and hold-off, no need for calibration. Outputs each lap time on the serial port.

Running two side-by-side is possible, just do two tests with four batteries, first test train A without sleeves, train B with sleeves, second test train A with sleeves and train B without sleeves, all in one shot. This should proof that there is not much difference. Then wait for a day so that the batteries can recover. Then a third test, using the two batteries from the tests without the sleeve: one in train A without the sleeve, one in train B with the sleeve. I guess the results will be really devastating for Batteroo. Don't forget to measure the open loop voltage of each battery at the beginning and the end of every test.

The number of tests for a significant result depends on the magnitude of the effect being measured. If the difference is something striking like 2:1, then only a couple of tests with a similar outcome is enough to start establishing confidence in the conclusion.

I'm pretty confident that the train tests are significant. I did now four tests, two with the sleeve and two without the sleeve, with two different battery brands. What I was thinking, after the second test you could argue that the train might have wear off, or getting dusty or something like this. But this is not valid anymore after the 4th test, and all tests are showing that with the Batteroo sleeves the time was significantly reduced, and the 4th test suggesting, that even the additional time for dead batteries with the sleeve is lower than without it (but maybe the train is running a bit faster for a very short time). Needs 6 tests as described above to compare all scenarios.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: rollatorwieltje on December 23, 2016, 09:01:24 pm
Here is an attempt to identify the DC to DC converter IC (I find it unlikely that they would have developed their own IC at that price point).
There are no resistors to set the output voltage, so it is probably a fixed voltage output IC (~1.5V), which usually comes in a 6 pin package. This one has 8 pins.
A 2.2uF inductor usually means a switching frequency of 2MHz for similar ICs.

The picture is a bit blurry, but here my best guess for the PCB topology and pin functionality:
Feel free to chime in if you spotted other connections
Not quite sure about the green Vout. If that was actually ground, the pinout matches the Monolithic Power MP3414 (http://www.monolithicpower.com/DesktopModules/DocumentManage/API/Document/getDocument?id=908) closely, except for the feedback pin of course.

[conspiracy hat]
Monolithic Power is about a 20 minute drive (https://goo.gl/maps/eMjs9LuMb2k) from Batteroo HQ
[/conspiracy hat]
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 23, 2016, 09:03:55 pm
The MP3 player test is done. I used the method Dave described, just filming it, no measuring, to actually see when it turns off (looks like there was no low battery warning, maybe voltage jumped a bit). With sleeve a fresh battery worked 17.9% less long than without the sleeve and the additional time after using the sleeve on the dead battery from the first test with the MP3 player (which had a few days to recover) was 13.4 %.

And there goes the ball game.
Typical passive device and typical active device FAIL :-DD

And who was it that predicted maybe a 10-20% typical increase from a "dead" cell in their original video?
And also the Oz university professor interviewed by the newspaper predicted the same thing.
The odd device might be higher, but I'm pretty sure the results are not going to be pretty...
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: bktemp on December 23, 2016, 09:10:23 pm
Here is an attempt to identify the DC to DC converter IC (I find it unlikely that they would have developed their own IC at that price point).
There are no resistors to set the output voltage, so it is probably a fixed voltage output IC (~1.5V), which usually comes in a 6 pin package. This one has 8 pins.
A 2.2uF inductor usually means a switching frequency of 2MHz for similar ICs.
Are there any boost converter ICs preset to 1.5V output voltage?
I couldn't find one. 1.5V is an unusual output voltage for a boost conveter. Typically you need 3.3V or at least 1.8V for powering a microcontroller from a single battery.
Therefore my guess would be it is a customized version, so even the pinout could be customized.
Guessing from the high output ripple and the bad load regulation, it also doesn't seem to have a fixed switching frequency.
Many ultra low power regulators turn the switch on until a peak current is detected, then turn it off until the output voltage is below a fixed theshold voltage. The output regulation will be bad, but the control circuit will be much simpler, consuming less power.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: razvanme on December 23, 2016, 10:18:01 pm
Here is an attempt to identify the DC to DC converter IC (I find it unlikely that they would have developed their own IC at that price point).
There are no resistors to set the output voltage, so it is probably a fixed voltage output IC (~1.5V), which usually comes in a 6 pin package. This one has 8 pins.
A 2.2uF inductor usually means a switching frequency of 2MHz for similar ICs.

The picture is a bit blurry, but here my best guess for the PCB topology and pin functionality:
Feel free to chime in if you spotted other connections

The Red Vout in your image is actually Ground.

(https://s28.postimg.org/9a8haop6h/Batteriser_circuit.png) (https://postimg.org/image/9a8haop6h/)

The IC is mirrored. VIN is on the Left.

Therefore my guess would be it is a customized version, so even the pinout could be customized.

Don't think it's a custom chip, what's the point of having 3 grounds and 2 unconnected pins. They could have done a 4 pin chip.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: MatthewEveritt on December 23, 2016, 10:52:35 pm
I have one of these single AAA toy trains.
http://www.toysrus.com/buy/preschool-trains/imaginarium-power-steam-engine-train-set-5f5eedb-12595303 (http://www.toysrus.com/buy/preschool-trains/imaginarium-power-steam-engine-train-set-5f5eedb-12595303)
Will do the same test as Frank did.
Thought about getting two and running side-by-side but then people might complain the trains aren't identical. So will run two tests and then edit side-by-side footage with timer. Maybe add a lap counter?

If you record time per lap you can look at how the train slows down -  might be interesting. Toyboy discharge curves. :)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: bktemp on December 23, 2016, 11:05:54 pm
Don't think it's a custom chip, what's the point of having 3 grounds and 2 unconnected pins. They could have done a 4 pin chip.
GND is the most critical pin: During switching the current ramps up slowly and then abruptly drops to zero when the switch turns off -> You need a good connection to GND with low parasitic inductance.
In your drawing the two left GND pins are probably power GND (short connection to input capacitors), while the right GND pin could be signal GND for sensing the output voltage (short connection to output capacitors).

It would be interesting to see if both NC pins are really not connected or if they are unused functions like undervoltage detection, power good, enable or similar usual functions.

I don't think it is a completely custom silicon, but maybe a customized version (output voltage set to 1.5V and maybe custom pinout).
Many manufacturers offer customized voltage options in addition to the usual output voltage version.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 23, 2016, 11:26:22 pm
A crude motor load like this may well cause confusion to the regulator - might be interesting to look at the voltage waveform on the output & input current. With such a difference in lifetime, a question is where is the energy actually going - batteriser heating? motor heating?
Or maybe just crapping out early - might be interesting to take the battery out of the sleeve and see how long it will then run the train by itself.
 
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on December 23, 2016, 11:34:16 pm
The IC is not a long way off the Linear Technology LTC3539/LTC3539-2

http://cds.linear.com/docs/en/datasheet/35392fc.pdf (http://cds.linear.com/docs/en/datasheet/35392fc.pdf)

If it was an IC with the same pinout, then pins 8, 7, and 6 would be connected together on the output.
Pin 4 would connect to the input and the indictor. Pin 1 to the other side of the inductor.
Pins 2 and 3 -ve (that is the one that looks wrong).

It is possible they have gone to LT, or even a chinese company who makes LT copies and have changed the packaging/pinout slightly for some reason.

There are differences. The ripple in burstmode from the LT device is 20mV whereas the Batteriser is 200mV but has a lower quiescent current.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 24, 2016, 02:24:30 am
And there goes the ball game.
Typical passive device and typical active device FAIL :-DD

Right, not much left of what they claimed.

Another useful test would be testing the current limiter. I found this (http://www.varta-microbattery.com/applications/mb_data/DOCUMENTS/GRAPHS/04103/G_04103_O_S01_en.pdf) diagram: An AAA battery can provide 12 A peak short circuit current, and 2 A with no problem for several minutes. Another claim for their product was that it helps providing stable voltage for devices with current spikes. If this doesn't work, it would be the final nail in the coffin for the Batteroo sleeve.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Jay_Diddy_B on December 24, 2016, 02:37:23 am
The IC is not a long way off the Linear Technology LTC3539/LTC3539-2

http://cds.linear.com/docs/en/datasheet/35392fc.pdf (http://cds.linear.com/docs/en/datasheet/35392fc.pdf)

snip ....

In January 2016 I built a 'fake' batteroo using the LTC3539. There are pictures here:

Link: http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/msg849800/#msg849800 (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/msg849800/#msg849800)


(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/?action=dlattach;attach=196488;image)


I believe that this is a custom ic.
I would like to see it de-caped and photographed.

I used some expensive parts, the inductor I used was from Wurth MAPI series.

I think the Batteroo inductor is something like CKP20162R2M-T from Taiyo Yuden This has about 140m \$\Omega\$ of DCR.

Link: http://www.digikey.ca/product-detail/en/taiyo-yuden/CKP20162R2M-T/587-2606-2-ND/2349935 (http://www.digikey.ca/product-detail/en/taiyo-yuden/CKP20162R2M-T/587-2606-2-ND/2349935)






@FrankBuss

Great work !! I appreciate your efforts.

Regards,

Jay_Diddy_B

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on December 24, 2016, 07:38:23 am
 I agree that it looks like a custom IC, but probably to the extent of simple changes. Such as hardwiring shutdown to always on, pwm/boost mode to boost, internal feedback divider to a fixed 1.5v, and possibly lowered the current in sleep mode at the expense of increasing the low current waveform to 200mV pp.

The inductor is more likely to be something like a 2.2A Murata.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 24, 2016, 07:49:06 am
I'd be surprised if it was custom, considering that it's hardly a new requirement.
My guess is it's something from an obscure Chinese company. 
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on December 24, 2016, 08:07:38 am
I'd be surprised if it was custom, considering that it's hardly a new requirement.
My guess is it's something from an obscure Chinese company.
By custom, I did not necessarily mean a new die fabricated. Many of the Asian converters are made with preset output voltages, and perhaps that is something they can preset  with lasers on the die. The other changes may involve wire bonding changes and perhaps the choice of package. It did seem to take them ages to get hold of the final converter ICs, so I don't think it was an existing part.

The slow delivery is another issue, and my suspicion there is they are doing the potting by hand in the US for the initial devices.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Delta on December 24, 2016, 09:42:38 am
Excellent work Frank.  Nice pretty graphs for the geeky engineers, and a nice simple video of trains and a timer for the "normal people".  Both result in the same conclusions: The claims of the BatterBros are nonsense.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: TheAmmoniacal on December 24, 2016, 10:26:09 pm
When doing tests on the Batteroo sleeve, make sure to keep an identical parallel. In order to measure the increased "performance" achieved using the Batteroo sleeve, you must compensate for the normal recovery of the cell.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: quad on December 25, 2016, 08:51:14 pm
I've been thinking about wireless keyboard testing. What is a good test protocol for this?

Would a Raspberry Pi with wireless keyboard work, as to not tie up someone's computer for a few weeks? Weigh down a key and use the scripts I'm working on the count the number of keystrokes. Display the time of the last keystroke pressed, so you can "set and forget"

What about having users install a keystroke counting software on their everyday computer... and log the time started, total number of keys, and total number of hours, and the time at the end of it. Usage patterns would be different - would this test be valid?

P.S Made some more progress on the Windows keyboard tester, mostly GUI stuff

(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=280641;image)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Towger on December 25, 2016, 09:57:31 pm
I am 99% sure you cannot just weigh down a key on a quality wireless keyboard. The processor should put it into sleep mode if it sees a stuck key.
A keyboard would often get stuff resting on it on a messy table.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 26, 2016, 04:30:06 am
I wonder why the train test Batteroo did, showed such different results, see here: https://www.facebook.com/revivebatteries/posts/1303252479741119 (https://www.facebook.com/revivebatteries/posts/1303252479741119) With the train model I used, the speed for both tests, with and without sleeve, was nearly identical. Too bad that Batteroo didn't publish the full movie or data so far.

So for better comparison, a reliable and honest person, with experience in programming, created a Python script (me  :) ), with OpenCV to extract the number of laps and lap time for each round, because this is a perfect example to evaluate OpenCV, something I wanted to do anyway. See here (https://github.com/batterootesting/OpenCV-tests/blob/master/lapcounter.py) for the full script. It was much easier than expected, because of all the useful functions in OpenCV. And the script analyzes the video faster than realtime.

It works like this: There are two rectangular areas, one at the top of the track and one at the bottom. If the train gets inside the bottom rectangle, the lap detection gets armed. When armed and it gets inside the top rectangle, the lap timer is started and it is disarmed. When it is at top again (after armed at bottom), the lap time is printed, and the lap timer is started for the next lap. This is very reliable, even when the detection if a train is inside a rectangle is not reliable, e.g. if it oscillates at the borders, and can measure very slow trains as well, without the need for an arbitrary hold-off time.

The detection if the train is inside a rectangle is easy: I just count the number of dark and bright pixels and if there are more dark pixels than bright pixels, it is inside (because the track is much brighter than the train). To determine the threshold for dark pixels and test the train detection, the script can be started in interactive mode. If it is inside a rectangle, the rectangle is drawn in green:

(http://i.imgur.com/xZV3UxP.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/4Uxd4eO.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/1xgkXHT.png)

For the threshold you can press the "h" key while the train is in one rectangle, and you'll get a histogram of both rectangles:

(http://i.imgur.com/h1JDZQs.png)

Just choose a value between the two peaks. This could be automated as well and more sophisticated functions of OpenCV could be used, like the train could be tracked on the whole track and it could be evaluated how smooth it moves (looks a bit more jerkily with the Batteroo sleeve), but this quick hack works really good to measure the basics.

With the startStop array at the beginning of the script, multiple test runs can be defined for one video.

I used the raw footage of the train video (glad I didn't delete it already) and created a full video of it, but compressed and scaled down a lot more, so that it doesn't need many GB, but it is the full 3:19 hour without timelapse. I've uploaded it here (http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/batteroo-full.mp4), 1.4 GB (no worries if you want to download it to play with OpenCV, my server has an unlimited bandwidth hosting plan, it just gets limited to 10 Mbit/s if the traffic gets too high). As in the Batteroo test, I created a spreadsheet with the following number: lap number, lap start time, lap end time, total lap time, feet per minute speed. Unlike Batteroo of course, I publish the spreadsheet, you can see it here (http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/batteroo-train.csv). The lap counts are the same as @samgab reported (+/-1). Diagram:

(http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/batteroo-train.png)

If anyone wants to measure something as well, maybe a drop out art student, feel free to use the script. No need for any extra hardware for a lap counter.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 26, 2016, 05:18:43 am
Would a Raspberry Pi with wireless keyboard work, as to not tie up someone's computer for a few weeks? Weigh down a key and use the scripts I'm working on the count the number of keystrokes. Display the time of the last keystroke pressed, so you can "set and forget"
A Raspberry Pi sounds good. But do the logging on a network attached storage or with a web service. It would wear the SD card and the Pi can even crash sometimes, if you write often the last time to the SD card. But exact time shouldn't really matter, because I guess it is a few weeks. So the Raspberry Pi could just control 2 LEDs: one for showing that it is working (should blink), and one for keyboard events. If the working status LED stops, restart the Raspberry Pi, if the other LED stops, the keyboard has stopped. Take a look at it once every day.

Weigh down a key most probably doesn't work, because I think only key-up and key-down events are sent. And easy way if you don't want to build a complicated servo mechanism, would be a 4051 analog mux and then solder it over the contacts of one key (should be possible on the back of the PCB without destroying it), in combination with a good old 555 timer, or just a transistor bistable multivibrator.

What about having users install a keystroke counting software on their everyday computer... and log the time started, total number of keys, and total number of hours, and the time at the end of it. Usage patterns would be different - would this test be valid?

No, this wouldn't be a controlled and reproducible test, because you don't know then it goes to sleep mode etc.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Stupid Beard on December 26, 2016, 05:32:04 am
Weigh down a key most probably doesn't work, because I think only key-up and key-down events are sent. And easy way if you don't want to build a complicated servo mechanism, would be a 4051 analog mux and then solder it over the contacts of one key (should be possible on the back of the PCB without destroying it), in combination with a good old 555 timer, or just a transistor bistable multivibrator.

I had a wireless apple keyboard a while ago. After I spilled tea on it, I tried to take it apart to fix the keys that were no longer working. Unfortunately the back of it is glued on and it's therefore nearly impossible to take off without destroying it. That may be model dependant or other people may have more luck removing it, but I don't think soldering anything to the contacts will be a viable option unless someone is happy to destroy their keyboard.

Probably better to rig up a motor with a cam of some kind on it that just rotates endlessly and presses a key once per rotation.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: razvanme on December 26, 2016, 05:35:23 am
No need. I can tell you for sure you have at least 3 events for keyboard.
KeyUp
KeyDown
KeyPress.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 26, 2016, 06:46:12 am
Probably better to rig up a motor with a cam of some kind on it that just rotates endlessly and presses a key once per rotation.
Or a servo motor. I forgot that I implemented this on the Raspberry Pi some time ago with one of its hardware PWM output:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/+FrankBussProgrammer/posts/EsFWxnETsGo

But I don't know how durable such a servo motor is, might not survive months of tests.

Another idea would be a solenoid. There are cheap ones on eBay and should survive for a long time.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Delta on December 26, 2016, 06:53:17 am
Break open a relay and bodge an arm onto the moving contact.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 26, 2016, 07:57:07 am
Another idea would be a solenoid. There are cheap ones on eBay and should survive for a long time.

A coil of wire and a nail. The keyboard will work as a return spring.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 26, 2016, 09:16:18 am
Perfect! Thanks Frank, now this is the kind of data I like to see! We can learn such a lot about Batteroo just from this chart alone!
(http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/batteroo-train.png)
We can see that without batteroo, it looks like a pretty smooth battery discharge curve, not much in the way of peaks and troughs. It's also quicker right from the beginning.
The curve with batteroo sleeve, as well as cutting out in half the time, is also a very peaky curve, a lot of noise. This tells us something about the way it delivers its power with this sort of load.
Excellent work! Thanks.  :-+ :-+ :-+
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: StillTrying on December 26, 2016, 09:37:36 am
I wonder why the train test Batteroo did, showed such different results, see here: https://www.facebook.com/revivebatteries/posts/1303252479741119 (https://www.facebook.com/revivebatteries/posts/1303252479741119) With the train model I used, the speed for both tests, with and without sleeve, was nearly identical.

I think it's just down to each trains' efficiency and current draw, their train being more efficient than yours allowing the batteryslave to stay at or reach 1.5V. When you're discharging a primary cell in 1 or 2 hours, small differences in the current draw lead to larger differences in the run time because the capacity is non linear.

Where are any AA tests, or pictures? If the AA batteryslaves are more powerful than the AAAs they should be better, if it's the same rated circuit in the AAs they're going to be worse, because of the higher currents expected of AAs.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 26, 2016, 09:48:26 am
I think it's just down to each trains' efficiency and current draw, their train being more efficient than yours allowing the batteryslave to stay at or reach 1.5V. When you're discharging a primary cell in 1 or 2 hours, small differences in the current draw lead to larger differences in the run time because the capacity is non linear.
Good point. Their train runs about 8 hours (without sleeves), compared to about 2 hours for my train. My train uses more than 200 mA, so this might be about 50 mA for their train, which means it doesn't work well with higher powered devices.
Title: Batteroo testing
Post by: djos on December 26, 2016, 10:02:26 am
Break open a relay and bodge an arm onto the moving contact.

I've got the RF and Servo shields for my RFduino's, they'd be perfect for this!
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 26, 2016, 10:04:00 am
I think it's just down to each trains' efficiency and current draw, their train being more efficient than yours allowing the batteryslave to stay at or reach 1.5V. When you're discharging a primary cell in 1 or 2 hours, small differences in the current draw lead to larger differences in the run time because the capacity is non linear.
Good point. Their train runs about 8 hours (without sleeves), compared to about 2 hours for my train. My train uses more than 200 mA, so this might be about 50 mA for their train, which means it doesn't work well with higher powered devices.

I tried to find out about those Thomas the Tank Engine trains, but there are dozens of variants of it over the years, so who knows which one they used. But some of them run on a pair of AA cells. So that might account for the long runtime. But we need to see all of the details! And we need the test to be repeated multiple times, to prove repeatablility. For that matter, I'd like to see results of your own test repeated multiple times and the results overlaid on that same lap time chart.  :-DMM
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Hensingler on December 26, 2016, 10:35:53 am
Good point. Their train runs about 8 hours (without sleeves), compared to about 2 hours for my train. My train uses more than 200 mA, so this might be about 50 mA for their train, which means it doesn't work well with higher powered devices.

Someone (here I think) already suggested the trains were these https://www.amazon.com/Fisher-Price-Thomas-TrackMaster-Station-Starter/dp/B0160SNY7Q/ (https://www.amazon.com/Fisher-Price-Thomas-TrackMaster-Station-Starter/dp/B0160SNY7Q/) which use 2 AAA batteries so that accounts for a factor 2, and running at lower current the batteries have an easier time, and the trains trade speed regulation for efficiency. I don't find a factor of 4 difference that surprising.

Incidentally I think our friend in Darwin has only posted photos of AAs and never mentioned AAAs which suggests to me he wasn't much responsible for that test and video.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 26, 2016, 10:41:22 am
Dave wrote he has an AA powered Percy train, which looks like it is from the Thomas the train series. This will be another good test. And right, my test should be repeated, too. And using different battery brands would be interesting, because there was a major difference between Energizer and Duracell. And some additional wagons would be interesting, because it would increase the required current.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: ez24 on December 26, 2016, 10:52:31 am
(http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/batteroo-train.png)
Excellent work! Thanks.  :-+ :-+ :-+

More proof that the batteroo saves wear and tear on motors.  :-+ :-+  Great sales point that the Darwinians can use to sell the batteroos.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 26, 2016, 12:48:40 pm
Dave wrote he has an AA powered Percy train, which looks like it is from the Thomas the train series. This will be another good test. And right, my test should be repeated, too. And using different battery brands would be interesting, because there was a major difference between Energizer and Duracell. And some additional wagons would be interesting, because it would increase the required current.

Yes, I have a AA Percy and a AAA version as well.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 26, 2016, 01:18:16 pm
Nice, do you plan to measure the lap times? Probably faster for you to do the Arduino and photodiode-under-the-track thing, instead of setup Python and OpenCV on Windows (might be more complicated than just the apt-"get install" you need on Linux) and adjust the script for your video. But if you upload a one shot video of the whole test and upload it somewhere in MP4 format in low quality, I can run my script on it.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: quad on December 26, 2016, 01:30:14 pm
I've set up a GitHub account for any Batteroo testing scripts! Here it is: https://github.com/batterootesting/

I thought we could keep our Batteroo testing software over there.

Any trusted EEVBlog members are welcome to become collaborators and/or I can share login credentials

Wireless keyboard testing project: https://github.com/batterootesting/wirelesskeyboard.   

The Linux version is coming along, it now captures start time & last keystroke time and you can get progress updates by hitting the space bar without updating the last keystroke time (when you eventually switch batteries, just press space bar). Not worrying about GUI for Linux.

Windows version I hit a problem, I think it's a threading issue when running the GUI loop and the Hook Keyboard loop and trying to update the keystroke info in real time. Too hard basket for now. For anyone interested in the exact issue, it's here: https://github.com/batterootesting/wirelesskeyboard/blob/master/Windows/tester.py on line 57

Anyway, it's progressing  :)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: ez24 on December 26, 2016, 01:37:24 pm
Yes, I have a AA Percy and a AAA version as well.

I hope you got one with a cargo car so you can add a heavy load and do a "load" test.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtCVqoa-FP4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtCVqoa-FP4)

To be honest I am having trouble - what is the difference between Percy and Thomas ?  Are they brothers?  I remember Thomas as a kid but I do not remember Percy.


Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 26, 2016, 01:47:48 pm
Any trusted EEVBlog members are welcome to become collaborators and/or I can share login credentials
Cool, please add me as a member to the github account (I think you might need to change it to organizational, should be still free), my github account: https://github.com/FrankBuss I'll create an OpenCV repository, for anything related to measuring things with OpenCV for Batteroo and upload the OpenCV script for lap time measurement. And maybe I can find the problem with the Windows script.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 26, 2016, 04:40:57 pm
To be honest I am having trouble - what is the difference between Percy and Thomas ?  Are they brothers?  I remember Thomas as a kid but I do not remember Percy.

Thomas The Tank Engine is an entire world (Sodor) with different train characters. Thomas, Percy, Gordon, Diesel, etc are all engines in this world.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 26, 2016, 07:42:18 pm
Any trusted EEVBlog members are welcome to become collaborators and/or I can share login credentials
Thanks for adding me. I created a new repository, see here:

https://github.com/batterootesting/OpenCV-tests

It contains the lap counter Python script, with a step-by-step manual how to use it. Could be enhanced with a nice GUI (OpenCV has some useful integrated functions, like anything required to use the mouse to draw rectangles), but should be already useful, not only for Batteroo sleeves testing.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 26, 2016, 09:18:20 pm
Windows version I hit a problem, I think it's a threading issue when running the GUI loop and the Hook Keyboard loop and trying to update the keystroke info in real time. Too hard basket for now. For anyone interested in the exact issue, it's here: https://github.com/batterootesting/wirelesskeyboard/blob/master/Windows/tester.py on line 57
Works now. I tested it and it was the same thread, but looks like Tk doesn't like to be called from within a pyHook event.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: quad on December 27, 2016, 06:29:40 am
We have a Windows 0.1 version! Thank you to Frank for fixing the not updating keystroke problem and adding the last keystroke time.

(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=280792;image)

I have latched the start button, and added a pause/resume toggle button. Also if you try close the window it will prompt you if you really want to quit.

It should work now as long as there isn't a power outage, Windows doesn't crash or restart to do updates or anything silly like that. Maybe I can add a log file and a resume from log file feature, but I need to have a think about how to implement that   

If anyone wants to play around with it, here is the easy to use binary release: https://sourceforge.net/projects/wireless-keyboard-batt-testing/ (https://sourceforge.net/projects/wireless-keyboard-batt-testing/)

Just extract the .zip and double click tester.exe -- it *should* work, but I have only tested on one other computer

Source code is at the GitHub page: https://github.com/batterootesting/wirelesskeyboard/tree/master/Windows (https://github.com/batterootesting/wirelesskeyboard/tree/master/Windows)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 27, 2016, 09:20:25 am
Haven't been following every post here. Who did that other (not Frank's) toy train video test?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: snik on December 27, 2016, 09:49:36 am
Haven't been following every post here. Who did that other (not Frank's) toy train video test?
Do you mean the test from Revive Batter(oo)ies Facebook Site ? It has done a "reliable and honest person with experience in electronics" :

Video : https://www.facebook.com/revivebatteries/videos/1303234933076207/ (https://www.facebook.com/revivebatteries/videos/1303234933076207/)
Post : https://www.facebook.com/revivebatteries/posts/1303252479741119 (https://www.facebook.com/revivebatteries/posts/1303252479741119)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 27, 2016, 09:51:44 am
Haven't been following every post here. Who did that other (not Frank's) toy train video test?

That related to something your old friend at Revive Batteries posted on facebook. No one knows who actually did the test or any real technical details about it at all.
https://www.facebook.com/revivebatteries/posts/1303252479741119 (https://www.facebook.com/revivebatteries/posts/1303252479741119)
https://www.facebook.com/revivebatteries/videos/vb.576137725785935/1303234933076207/?type=3&theater (https://www.facebook.com/revivebatteries/videos/vb.576137725785935/1303234933076207/?type=3&theater)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 27, 2016, 11:45:11 am
Haven't been following every post here. Who did that other (not Frank's) toy train video test?

Our friend Wayne from Darwin.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 28, 2016, 03:20:10 pm
Ok, I have 4xAAA Batterisers and just tried one on my two discharged batteries (cutout voltage is 0.91V) from the MP3 MuVo TX FM player.
I tried one flat battery without the Batteriser, and one with the Batteriser.
Test without the Batteriser the unit switched straight back off, so zero extra run time.
First Batteriser would not fit and I broke the contact clean off the PCB!
I hacked the case to make it kinda-sorta fit and the 2nd went in with great force (and stabbing myself on the pos terminal!).
It ran for a fairly impressive 45 minutes extra (seems to be no audio noise issues). That's about a 14% extra run time, or x0.14. So much for x8 or x5. Pretty much just as predicted.
I'll upload the raw clip to my 2nd channel.

UPDATE: I put the initial "dead" battery back into the unit and it has started playing. Perhaps it was a PEBKAC, me pressing the button too long and turning it back off. Perhaps it was marginal startup voltage threshold. But without the Batteriser the "dead" battery lasted an extra 30 minutes!

So it seems the Batteriser does it's basic job of boosting a flat battery when that same flat battery no longer works in a product.
So the fans will no doubt claim victory. However, the real test is how much longer it runs for. And my first answer is x0.14. Meh.
But it's important to note:
a) The battery did not fit in what I thought was a fairly lose compartment.
b) The positive tab clip broke off with ease.
c) Even after modifying the case it would not fit properly (length issue) and had to be jammed in at the right angle to prevent positive tab clip damage.
d) Yes, the battery gauge showed full bars until it just suddenly died. Not a desirable thing.
e) An identical "Dead" battery if left to recover and without the Batteriser gave an extra 9.5% or x0.095 battery life.

So the difference the Batteriser made was about 4.7% extra life, or x0.047  :--
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 28, 2016, 03:45:16 pm
Cheers for the initial result update.  :-DMM
EDIT: Yeah, I thought that seemed a bit odd that it wouldn't even power up after resting the battery for several days. In my experience with Alkaline battery powered devices, after the batteries die the first time, they always work again for a fair bit after being given a few days to recover, or even an hour or two.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 28, 2016, 04:20:56 pm
Remember, the "Dead" batetry without the Batteriser has lasted for 30 minutes extra compared to 45min with the Batteriser.
That's probably within a margin of error for battery capacity, I'd expect those time to vary a fair bit if the test is repeated.
But in any case you don't need the Batteriser in order to get extra battery life from your product, just sit the battery on the shelf for a while and let it recover.
The difference the Batteriser gave was an extra 4.7% or x0.047 battery life.  :--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa8j-Lje_2o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa8j-Lje_2o)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 28, 2016, 04:48:30 pm
EDIT: Yeah, I thought that seemed a bit odd that it wouldn't even power up after resting the battery for several days. In my experience with Alkaline battery powered devices, after the batteries die the first time, they always work again for a fair bit after being given a few days to recover, or even an hour or two.

Yeah, not sure what that was. Needs another few rounds of testing to see if it happens again.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: ez24 on December 28, 2016, 04:48:41 pm
In order not to break the Bateroo, insert the positive end like you tried but at the same time take a small blade and compress the negative spring and insert the Bat.  Then when the Bat is in, pull the blade out.  Your knife would do.  Save the Bats.

You will have to reverse the procedure to take them out.

Batteroo will have to insert a small blade with their Bats.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 28, 2016, 04:54:50 pm
In order not to break the Bateroo, insert the positive end like you tried but at the same time take a small blade and compress the negative spring and insert the Bat.  Then when the Bat is in, pull the blade out.  Your knife would do.  Save the Bats.
You will have to reverse the procedure to take them out.
Batteroo will have to insert a small blade with their Bats.

In the case of this product that was not possible as there is a partial plastic cover over the negative end of the battery.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: ez24 on December 28, 2016, 05:09:14 pm
In order not to break the Bateroo, insert the positive end like you tried but at the same time take a small blade and compress the negative spring and insert the Bat.  Then when the Bat is in, pull the blade out.  Your knife would do.  Save the Bats.
You will have to reverse the procedure to take them out.
Batteroo will have to insert a small blade with their Bats.

In the case of this product that was not possible as there is a partial plastic cover over the negative end of the battery.

Oh.  |O

An idea for a new invention - a device that helps install a Bat  :-DD

If they decide to continue making these, I imagine they will change the positive end and do away with the hooks.

I enjoyed the live feed, it was the first one I viewed.  It is mind boggling that I can see someone on the other side of the world in real time.  Amazing  :-+
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 28, 2016, 05:14:51 pm
So this is hilarious:
I take the battery that was discharged in the Batteriser, and it still measures 1.26V. So I put it in a desk temperature monitor and it works just fine as you'd expect with a low drain device.
So I just put it in my Thrunite Ti keychain torch and it works just fine!
Currently recording how long the torch will last on the battery that has all the juice squeezed out of it by the Batteriser!  :-DD

Of course there is an engineering explanation for this, but lets not throw Batteroo any more bones shall we  ;D
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on December 28, 2016, 05:31:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on December 28, 2016, 05:34:35 pm
So this is hilarious:
I take the battery that was discharged in the Batteriser, and it still measures 1.26V. So I put it in a desk temperature monitor and it works just fine as you'd expect with a low drain device.
So I just put it in my Thrunite Ti keychain torch and it works just fine!
Currently recording how long the torch will last on the battery that has all the juice squeezed out of it by the Batteriser!  :-DD

That is gold.  ;D   ;D   ;D


Quote
Of course there is an engineering explanation for this, but lets not throw Batteroo any more bones shall we  ;D
No.  Besides, Engineers don't know everything (well, that's what I've been hearing).
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: usagi on December 28, 2016, 06:51:22 pm
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.

they could still claim success, as "up to" includes zero.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Towger on December 28, 2016, 06:54:59 pm
I have seen the 'power management' on some high tech gadgets requiring a higher voltage to 'reset' before they restart, but once going keep on going for a while.

Have a look at the solder pads under the microscope, when Frank broke his off, another member pointed out it was an example of a classic dry joint, and Foxconn should have known better.

I hope you have the same song at the same volume going on the player during all tests.  Don't want the naysayers claiming there is a difference in power consumption between heavy rock and classical music!
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 28, 2016, 07:00:00 pm
But it's important to note:
a) The battery did not fit in what I thought was a fairly lose compartment.
b) The positive tab clip broke off with ease.
c) Even after modifying the case it would not fit properly (length issue) and had to be jammed in at the right angle to prevent positive tab clip damage.
d) Yes, the battery gauge showed full bars until it just suddenly died. Not a desirable thing.
e) An identical "Dead" battery if left to recover and without the Batteriser gave an extra 9.5% or x0.095 battery life.

So the difference the Batteriser made was about 4.7% extra life, or x0.047  :--

Exactly my experience. I was careful, because I did have only 2 sleeves for testing, and still broke off the positive tab clip from one of it. We can expect many end users will break it, too (and puncture their fingers :rant: ). And your MP3 player extra time percentage is very similar to my MP3 player test, which is no wonder, because probably similar cut-off voltage and current consumption.

Good idea with the extra column in the spreadsheet for the dead battery extra time without the sleeve. This will demonstrate that it has no advantage at all for many products.

If you are going to use your 53131A counter, do you plan to connect the GPIB interface? Would be nice to have a spreadsheet with the individual round times. The  Voltnuts Raspberry Pi distribution (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/metrology/raspberry-pi23-logging-platform-for-voltnuts/) supports some GPIB USB interfaces and has already Python test scripts for other Agilent gear, which should be possible to adapt to your counter easily. But maybe even easier to hookup an Arduino and print the Arduino system time (using millis(), don't need to run for more than 50 day :) ) on the serial port for each detected round.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 28, 2016, 07:33:07 pm
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.

I'd also add a 4th test, and it just occured to me durign my initial testing. That is, does the Batteriser actually extract all the energy from a battery as it claims?
The answer is no. I drained a battery using the Batteriser and it still had enough energy to run a torch (yet to verify the duration).
I find this utterly hilarious, we need another Batteriser design in order to exact all the unused energy left over from using the Batteriser!  :-DD
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 28, 2016, 07:35:49 pm
Good idea with the extra column in the spreadsheet for the dead battery extra time without the sleeve. This will demonstrate that it has no advantage at all for many products.

That didn't occur to me before, but it is an obvious test. The Batteriser is of no use if the battery naturally recovered and gives a similar extra life anyway.
In my case 30 minutes extra without the Batteriser, 45 minutes with the Batteriser, making it of marginal value, and possibly within the margin of test variability.

Quote
If you are going to use your 53131A counter, do you plan to connect the GPIB interface?

No, I don't have a proper GPIB setup, nor the time to get that all sorted and set up.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: TechnicalBen on December 28, 2016, 08:23:51 pm
So basically, if this was snake oil, it would be very good snake oil for cooking, moisturizing and attracting snakes. As it's oil, it does everything oil does. No problems...

... except it is marketed as a "cures all and makes you live 800% longer"? Yeah, not cool.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: PeterL on December 28, 2016, 08:41:33 pm
There is this recurring idea on the batteriser threads that batteroo once changed their 800% to 80%, but they did not.

They have said: "We can extend battery life up to 800%"
And they have said: "devices usually only use 20% of a battery, so 80% is left"

So the 80% does not refer to the same thing as the 800%

Now if the latter statement was actually true, and batteriser gave you all of the remaining 80% this would give an improvement of 80/20 = 400%. Still not 800%, but not an order of magnitude at least.
Or for the first statement to be possible a device would have to leave 89% of energy.

It's all a bit off a confusing maths trick, but I think we should have this clear.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: razvanme on December 28, 2016, 09:08:46 pm
Can we have the first Post with the claims / results? Or a new topic with one post that only Dave can edit.

Quote
Claims
- 800% extra life
     Not going to happen
- 80% more - maybe kindoff in some extreme situation not likely
- Extend battery life - Not really
- Less batteries used - Actually more batteries used, since they "extract" all the energy faster, it will take less time to discharge - So much for saving the dolphins / planet.

Passive devices
- Toy train - less time - possible it runs faster?  << insert youtube link >>
- Toy monkey -
Active devices
- MP3 player - no extra time - 
- Camera ----
- Wireless keyboard ---- 

PROS
.... Boosts to 1.5V
CONS
 - Cannot be used in flashlights
 - Tight fit
 - Breaks easily
 - Hot batteries ??
 - Gauge not working correctly


It just occurred to me that the "hot" complaints involved multiple batteries (candle light, flashlight). So it might get hot when used in series / parallel.


Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on December 28, 2016, 09:09:29 pm
There is this recurring idea on the batteriser threads that batteroo once changed their 800% to 80%, but they did not.

They have said: "We can extend battery life up to 800%"
And they have said: "devices usually only use 20% of a battery, so 80% is left"

So the 80% does not refer to the same thing as the 800%

Now if the latter statement was actually true, and batteriser gave you all of the remaining 80% this would give an improvement of 80/20 = 400%. Still not 800%, but not an order of magnitude at least.
Or for the first statement to be possible a device would have to leave 89% of energy.

It's all a bit off a confusing maths trick, but I think we should have this clear.

Mathematically, you are absolutely correct - but it needs to be spelled out quite clearly if the claims, conditions of the tests, results of the tests and conclusions are to be properly understood ... especially by those less familiar with electrical engineering terminology and assumed knowledge.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 28, 2016, 09:22:12 pm
The torch is still going 4hrs after being completely drained by the Batteriser!  :-DD

(http://i.imgur.com/HI2UrsN.png)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: razvanme on December 28, 2016, 09:23:45 pm
Wasn't this thread intended for discussion of test methods? The old thread is still there for debate about the Batterroo claims and so on.

True, but you go ahead and look through all the posts in this / the other thread to find the results / youtube links and so on. If I am a normal person and I want to see what is happening, I need to read the full thread?

The conclusions are scattered in the thread.

It still is a thread dedicated to testing, we just need to keep conclusions in one place. The google sheet results is a start. Where are the claims and results? You show me all the posts with that :)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: PA0PBZ on December 28, 2016, 09:55:43 pm
The torch is still going 4hrs after being completely drained by the Batteriser!  :-DD

To be fair you should have drained the battery with the same device before removing the sleeve, it is obvious that if you drain it with a high current device it will still deliver some output to a low current device. (not saying that the MP3 player is high current, just making a point here)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: g.lewarne on December 28, 2016, 09:58:23 pm
With lots of these tests now showing that "batteroo" drained batteries continue to function without the sleeve, sometimes for a significant amount of time, what are we seeing here?

Is the batteroo circuit "nopeing" out on the amount of current that is going through it from the battery side as the cell voltage goes down ?  could this explain the few report of extreme heat we have seen?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: max_torque on December 28, 2016, 09:59:07 pm
The problem with batteries is that they are devices that convert chemical energy into electrical energy.  And that physical process is rate dependent!

A "flat" battery is simply one where the rate of chemical conversion is less than the electrical load, where we consider "flat" to mean "insufficient output voltage".  So depending on your load, your battery can be flat despite still containing a huge un-used amount of chemical energy.

In the original thread i noted that  batteries must be re-loaded after a recovery period, with and without the batteroo in order to make sure that normal recovery processes were accounted for.  Unfortunately, that recovery process is complex, and affected by many factors, including temperature and length of time allowed for recovery (because what is happening is that Brownian motion is causing molecular mixing in the battery compounds)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 28, 2016, 10:12:40 pm
The problem with batteries is that they are devices that convert chemical energy into electrical energy.  And that physical process is rate dependent!
A "flat" battery is simply one where the rate of chemical conversion is less than the electrical load, where we consider "flat" to mean "insufficient output voltage".  So depending on your load, your battery can be flat despite still containing a huge un-used amount of chemical energy.

"huge" is not the right word. This is what Batteriser are playing on. Battery energy discharge is well proven, and whilst there can be a lot of life left in a battery (e.g. a "dead" battery from an MP3 player can run an LCD clock for another year) that is entirely dependent upon the product the "dead" battery is used in. And if you actually calculate the energy left in a "dead" battery, then it's actually not a HUGE amount left.
e.g. A nominal 1000mWh capacity battery could have 990mWh (99%) extracted from it, and it's still got 10mWh left in it. That is a TINY (not HUGE) amount of energy left, but it could still run a low power 10uW clock or other product for another 1000 hours (assuming no voltage dropout issue)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 28, 2016, 10:18:38 pm
The torch is still going 4hrs after being completely drained by the Batteriser!  :-DD
To be fair you should have drained the battery with the same device before removing the sleeve, it is obvious that if you drain it with a high current device it will still deliver some output to a low current device. (not saying that the MP3 player is high current, just making a point here)

I know, but it's still hilarious and a very pertinent point for consumers I think.
Reading the Batteroo marketing hype you'd think that the Batteriser extracts every last drop of energy from a battery. And a torch would not be considered a "low power" device by Joe Average like a remote control or a wall clock would for example.
It's yet another thing Batteriser will not tell you. They in fact tell you the opposite, they tell you to use the Batteriser and only then is the battery completely flat and can be thrown away.
They will not tell you the battery could still be useful, because that destroys the purpose of their marketing.
Likewise they will not tell you that the Batteriser will give you less life in many products, because the amazing technology the have (boost converter) is already built into most modern products.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 28, 2016, 10:21:11 pm
The torch is still going 4hrs after being completely drained by the Batteriser!  :-DD

To be fair you should have drained the battery with the same device before removing the sleeve, it is obvious that if you drain it with a high current device it will still deliver some output to a low current device. (not saying that the MP3 player is high current, just making a point here)

You're missing the point. Batteroo claims to use up 100% of a battery. Obviously it doesn't.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 28, 2016, 10:24:45 pm
With lots of these tests now showing that "batteroo" drained batteries continue to function without the sleeve, sometimes for a significant amount of time, what are we seeing here?

The complex world of electro-chemistry.

Quote
could this explain the few report of extreme heat we have seen?

No, that's a clear gross overload/short issue.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 28, 2016, 10:38:50 pm
They will not tell you the battery could still be useful, because that destroys the purpose of their marketing.
Likewise they will not tell you that the Batteriser will give you less life in many products

They also don't mention:
a) That it doesn't actually fit in many products and might break unless you use special tools to insert it.
b) That it could be dangerous in any critical products that require a working battery gauge (eg. smoke alarms, CO sensors).

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: PeterL on December 28, 2016, 11:03:03 pm
From the FAQ on batteroo.com:

(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=281303;image)
and
(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=281305;image)

First things I notice is:
1) Batteroo does not seem to know the difference between Li-Ion and primary Lithium cells.
2) The statement in their letter to not use the sleeves in LED lights is contradictory to their own FAQ

But together with this:
(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/?action=dlattach;attach=280795;image)

Maybe we can try to figure out which exact LED-candle this is about, and try it with batteroo+Lithium cell?

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on December 28, 2016, 11:05:42 pm
Quote
could this explain the few report of extreme heat we have seen?

No, that's a clear gross overload/short issue.
There is another possibility here. If the the Batteriser uses the intrinsic substrate diode to conduct reverse currents, then it may be vulnerable to latch-up particularly if the battery is a fresh 1.6V battery. This would particularly happen in a device with multiple batteries that was switched on as you added the last battery, or if the device had an electrolytic capacitor before the switch that could store a charge.

When a single Batteriser turns off due to a flat battery (or if the loosey-goosey sleeve makes bad contact with the battery during insertion), you can get reverse current through the Batteriser, unless it actually somehow turns off by going open circuit.

End result could be the same -  a short - if the IC gets hot enough.

Normally, you would probably add a reverse biased Schottky diode across the output to prevent the substrate diode from conducting.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: SeanB on December 28, 2016, 11:52:09 pm
Actually with an incandescent light torch the batteriser will kill the lamp pretty fast. the typical 2 cell torch uses a 2V6 lamp, rated for lifetime (50, 250 hours, 500 hours or 1000 hours depending on the actual current rating)  that will be significantly reduced with the overvoltage the Batterpoo provides. 

The 15% overvoltage will impact seriously on lamp life, not great to have a torch where the light output suddenly drops to zero, and you are not sure after the first time it happens whether the batteries are now totally drained or the bulb has blown. Buy a Batterpoo, buy a spare device and carry it around as well, just in case.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on December 29, 2016, 12:46:43 am
Wasn't this thread intended for discussion of test methods? The old thread is still there for debate about the Batterroo claims and so on.

Batteroo's claims are very relevant to this thread.  They give very specific objectives for the testing.  Those objectives have a direct impact on the types of testing that will need to be performed, how they are conducted and the measurements recorded.

Just as significant as Batteroo's contribution, we have additional operational scenarios that raise interesting questions and alternative metrics for evaluation.  One of these is the aforementioned flashlight with/without sleeve case - and another is the 'post Batteriser' energy test.  These - and any more that people can come up with - can become additional fronts in the debate on whether the Batteriser is a success or not, so performing the right tests and capturing the relevant data is important.

That last point of 'capturing relevant data' is also something that cannot be understated.  The initial train tests were initially reporting on total run time.  This was challenged as being not very informative and the total number of laps was extracted.  Further criticism was laid at the fact that the change in velocity was not provided - and that one measure of success was the duration of sustained velocity, not total run time.

These particular metrics have been able to be extracted by analysis of a full video, which is fortunate - but what if tests were made where such post production analysis was not possible.  It is better to explore all these ideas before spending hours and hours on tests that could have been so much more informative - if only.......
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 29, 2016, 01:07:05 am
Another thing I'd be interested in seeing is the batteroo shown in Flir thermal imaging video, to see the hotspots, and how hot it gets under various loads... That could be a very relevant factor, for safety and functionality of certain devices. If they're operating at 80% efficiency, give or take, then at higher current loads there's a fair bit of heat to be dissipated per cell.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: mc172 on December 29, 2016, 04:35:20 am
Is it just me that wants to see these things tested using some proper equipment, and without putting them in them in a load of random battery powered devices?

Unless you're playing the same white/pink noise during both tests then Bob can say that you played music with different spectral content hence the variation. Or even that the volumes were different. Some headphone manufacturers might make one model available in more than one nominal impedance. I obviously don't think that any of this is the case...

Why not simply use your BK Precision variable load and test using different constant loads? You'd have the discharge curves as conclusive evidence that you can compare with and without the sleeve directly, without endless conversation about all of these what ifs. I even seem to recall seeing you doing pretty much this in a video. I'd do it myself but I don't have any of these things to hand.

I also appreciate that you have to satisfy all of the clowns by demonstrating real-world battery life by comparing something simple, with and without, but there are so many variables to these complex devices, such as the satnav or the MP3 player that it doesn't fully answer the question.

I also, also appreciate that it's Christmas and you've busted a nut to get the videos up that you have.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: LabSpokane on December 29, 2016, 04:52:45 am
Wasn't this thread intended for discussion of test methods? The old thread is still there for debate about the Batterroo claims and so on.
Batteroo's claims are very relevant to this thread. 

The whole reason that the Batteriser is even worth discussing or testing *is* because of the outlandish and blatantly false claims made by Bros. Roohparvar.

The testing should be framed as:

claim : test : result
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 29, 2016, 04:59:42 am
Is it just me that wants to see these things tested using some proper equipment, and without putting them in them in a load of random battery powered devices?

We should do both. The normal end user doesn't care about some abstract characteristic curves, but if the sleeve doesn't have any advantage for many products, this will help when people decide if they should buy it. Unfortunately I bricked my RK8511 electronic load (meanwhile I fixed it, with a new power supply that can deliver the 25 A required for re-calibration), so I couldn't do a test with higher currents, but at least some numbers are out, see here (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/msg1096221/#msg1096221). Dave wrote that he will do tests with his electronic load as well, would be good to verify some of my numbers. I think it is very strange that it doesn't boost the output always to 1.5 V, but maybe I didn't measure it right? First time I did something like this.

Unless you're playing the same white/pink noise during both tests then Bob can say that you played music with different spectral content hence the variation. Or even that the volumes were different. Some headphone manufacturers might make one model available in more than one nominal impedance. I obviously don't think that any of this is the case...

Of course you should use the same test procedure for all tests with one device and I'm sure Dave does this. I played the same song on auto repeat, on max volume and with the same headphones (some pillows over the headphones helped to do still some work while the test was running :) ).

PS: does a SMU PC software have a button to measure and calculate an efficiency curve? I thought about building my own SMU (might need some time, because I already have to many hobby projects). Can't do 6 digits precision, high frequency etc., but better than 1% should be possible with cheap components and hobby-grade PCB layout. With the right software it could be very useful to characterize all sorts of components, maybe as an Arduino shield to allow writing all sorts of custom scripts for it. Couldn't find a finished and full featured DIY SMU project so far.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Ysjoelfir on December 29, 2016, 06:22:01 am
Thanks to Frank I got a Batterizer in the mail today. Testing with two incandescent light bulbs side by side right now.
I am quite excited about that thing so I just bodged together this test setup, but it should work to show what we want to know.
After the holidays I guess I will repeat that Test with better conditions, like a Lab that is not being reconstructed right now...

(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_test_1.jpg)


Kind-of-Edit: Before sending this I decided to take a look at the setup after around one hour, batteriser is already off, non batterised one is still reasonable bright. I wait for the finished video and will update you how long it lasted.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 29, 2016, 08:49:31 am
I just ran the MuVo MP3 player overnight with the Batteriser on a new cell and got 267 min compared to 314 min for a fresh cell, or -15%  :--
Very similar result to Frank's -17.9%

And the battery had enough juice left afterwards to recover to 1.36V and work on full brightness in a Lumintop Tool AAA torch.
http://www.lumintop.com/tool-aaa.html (http://www.lumintop.com/tool-aaa.html)

Also, the Thrunite torch is STILL going at 15 hours!

Yet another spectacular failure of the Batteriser.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 29, 2016, 09:05:16 am
Is it just me that wants to see these things tested using some proper equipment, and without putting them in them in a load of random battery powered devices?

We have been using sound engineering principles to prove the Batteriser will not perform as claimed. It convinces no one but other engineers which already know the Batetriser claims are BS.
The product test are the most important thing to do.

Quote
Unless you're playing the same white/pink noise during both tests then Bob can say that you played music with different spectral content hence the variation. Or even that the volumes were different. Some headphone manufacturers might make one model available in more than one nominal impedance. I obviously don't think that any of this is the case...

I'm using the one song repeated on a loop over and over at fixed volume into the same headphones. A very repeatable test from a discharge point of view.

Quote
Why not simply use your BK Precision variable load and test using different constant loads? You'd have the discharge curves as conclusive evidence that you can compare with and without the sleeve directly, without endless conversation about all of these what ifs. I even seem to recall seeing you doing pretty much this in a video. I'd do it myself but I don't have any of these things to hand.

I will, but the product test come first because as I said, no one but us cares about performance curves.

Quote
I also appreciate that you have to satisfy all of the clowns by demonstrating real-world battery life by comparing something simple, with and without, but there are so many variables to these complex devices, such as the satnav or the MP3 player that it doesn't fully answer the question.

Of course not, but it proves to Joe Average the product claims are BS.
Someone on IGG has already seen Frank's train video and immediately wanted their money back from Batteroo.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: LabSpokane on December 29, 2016, 09:10:01 am
Whew!  Thermodynamics is saved!  Well done, Dave.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: g.lewarne on December 29, 2016, 09:28:01 am
I just ran the MuVo MP3 player overnight with the Batteriser on a new cell and got 267 hrs compared to 314 hrs for a fresh cell, or -15%  :--
Very similar result to Frank's -17.9%

And the battery had enough juice left afterwards to recover to 1.36V and work on full brightness in Lumintop Tool AAA torch.
http://www.lumintop.com/tool-aaa.html (http://www.lumintop.com/tool-aaa.html)

Also, the Thrunite torch is STILL going at 15 hours!

Yet another spectacular failure of the Batteriser.

You mean minutes, not hours, surely ?


What we need to do now is reverse engineer the Thrunite torch boost converter and create our own EEVBlogeriser because, evidently, whatever magical smoke is powering it is superior
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: TechnicalBen on December 29, 2016, 09:29:48 am
I hope the tests have some impact. Just listened to a radio show over here covering similar hype over medical things back in the late 1700s and the new "scientific" methods of testing. Helped them throw out the "charlatans (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=history+of+the+word+charlatan)" who were "Mesmerizing (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=history+of+the+word+mesmerize)" people at the time.

They pointed out that often the results were rather real. People with nervous dispositions and aliments causing such things as depression soon "snapped out" of them. But probably due to the shock and excitement. These methods did not however have any effect on the claimed "all ailments, diseases and ills" that the pushers and peddlers sold.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: ez24 on December 29, 2016, 09:44:33 am

You mean minutes, not hours, surely ?


It can run 115 hours on low according to their specs so I ordered one   :-+

https://www.amazon.com/ThruNite-Ti3-Max120-Lumens-Flashlight/dp/B00LUO028U/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1482964764&sr=8-2&keywords=Thrunite (https://www.amazon.com/ThruNite-Ti3-Max120-Lumens-Flashlight/dp/B00LUO028U/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1482964764&sr=8-2&keywords=Thrunite)

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on December 29, 2016, 09:50:08 am
The general public are not going to take the time to try and understand characteristic curves - so focussing on doing laboratory experiments is only going to be seen as an elitist exercise hell bent on EE's justifying their existence.

By all means, let's do those tests, so that we can understand the device, it's capabilities and shortcomings - but without real world testing, such experiments aren't going to mean anything to a lot of people.  An engineer can follow a load curve and glean information from that - but your average member of the public won't.  They want to see that a typical product runs for 'X' hours with a Batteriser and 'Y' hours without.  Electronic loads are voodoo.

However, in consideration of those whose thinking is not EE oriented, but would like to run their own tests, I would like to make the following suggestion:
1. Specify the make and model of the product being used in the "real world" test
2. List the accessories used for the test and their relevant characteristics (eg headphones - type and impedance)
3. Detail the testing parameters - eg volume setting for MP3 player or brightness setting for variable brightness flashlight
4. In the case of an MP3 player, specify a standard track that anyone can download and set the player to repeat this track indefinitely.  This will ensure the dynamic range and spectral content of the testing track will be 100% consistent.
5. The brand and type of battery used ... and include the 'best before' or 'use by' date so we know how fresh it is.
6. Note the ambient temperature at the time of the test.
7. ** add to this list any other relevant points **

If you think this is being silly - then might I point out that if you did not take similar care in the performance of a 100% electrical engineering laboratory experiment, you would have a chorus of EEs dancing on your head with hobnail boots.

With the above information, you could have dozens, if not hundreds of non-engineering people able to reproduce these tests - and that is going to have far more sway in the broader community than (the perceived) bunch of nerdy engineers strutting around their labs going "hurrumph".  He who shall not be named has already fired a broadside in this direction, quoting a technical description in a public environment and calling out "Who understood that?".

Giving the general public things they understand is essential - and giving them the means to see for themselves will show them that electrical engineers are not trying to hide anything.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 29, 2016, 10:13:33 am
With the above information, you could have dozens, if not hundreds of non-engineering people able to reproduce these tests - and that is going to have far more sway in the broader community than (the perceived) bunch of nerdy engineers strutting around their labs going "hurrumph".  He who shall not be named has already fired a broadside in this direction, quoting a technical description in a public environment and calling out "Who understood that?".
Giving the general public things they understand is essential - and giving them the means to see for themselves will show them that electrical engineers are not trying to hide anything.

That's the whole idea of my testing spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18K9c2YAT0d0QABGYGpzItbvDcgfAQCRUtloEzzfXADU/edit?usp=sharing
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: mc172 on December 29, 2016, 10:22:25 am
We have been using sound engineering principles to prove the Batteriser will not perform as claimed. It convinces no one but other engineers which already know the Batetriser claims are BS.
The product test are the most important thing to do.

I don't disagree. Fair point - it's one I hadn't considered.

Quote
I'm using the one song repeated on a loop over and over at fixed volume into the same headphones. A very repeatable test from a discharge point of view.

I had no doubt, and agree. I was merely playing devil's advocate.

Quote
Of course not, but it proves to Joe Average the product claims are BS.
Someone on IGG has already seen Frank's train video and immediately wanted their money back from Batteroo.

Fair enough.

I mainly wrote what I did because I can see it coming - if there is any unknown factor in the results, Bob and his cronies will argue it in the kind of retarded way that they do (and probably use it as an excuse for forthcoming delays when they have to actually make thousands of these things). Therefore, they win as it confuses Joe Public within the first minute of the video. When people use words you don't understand, that makes them far more intelligent than you and therefore correct, right? :palm:
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Hensingler on December 29, 2016, 10:38:35 am
Is it just me that wants to see these things tested using some proper equipment, and without putting them in them in a load of random battery powered devices?

Possibly. Everyone with a technical clue has know batterisers were going to be worthless junk with practical application in only a few unusual cases. No amount of testing is going to change that. We knew they were going to be bad and 18 months on we get to find out how bad and so far it is pretty much as expected.

No 'proper equipment' test results are going to give me a reason to use a batteriser. Lots of random battery powered device testing will give the technically clueless reason not to buy batterisers and so save their money and the planet's resources. We should probably also be telling them to make use of LSD NiMH rechargeables. Even the syyenergy7 fool on youtube seems to have discovered those.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 29, 2016, 11:01:30 am
I did the train test again to fill out the missing fields in the spreadsheet, especially the extra time from dead battery, without the sleeve. So I started with a fresh battery, same brand as my first test, but this time it ran for 169 minutes, instead of 127 minutes, similar to my last test with Duracell instead of Energizer. I guess the reason might be that the train was new and it needed a few hours burn-in time. After the test, I let the battery recover for one hour, exactly as with the Batteroo test. Then it ran for another 31 minutes! Extra time with the sleeve was 4 minutes. Even if we take into account that the train might run longer after the burn-in, it is still a lot longer, albeit at a much slower speed, with Batteroo it was 2 to 5 times faster. This is expected from a boost converter.

As usual, I recorded the test run (only the second run, didn't expect the high difference with the first run). With my OpenCV script it was no effort to measure the individual lap times. I updated the data (http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/batteroo-train.csv) and the diagram:

(http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/batteroo-train2.png)

So if you want 4 minutes additional full speed instead of 31 minutes slow speed, after 2 hours without the sleeve, you should buy the Batteroo sleeve :)

The cutout voltage for the train is difficult to measure, because it is very low and at this voltage the interaction with the high internal resistance of the battery is a problem. So I used a power supply: the train motor stops at 0.6 V and starts again when increasing to 0.8 V. It might stop when on track a bit earlier, so I used the 0.8 V limit for the spreadsheet, which is what I could measure at the battery shortly after the train stopped, too. This would explain the bad performance of the Batteroo sleeve, because efficiency at this voltage is very bad.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: digsys on December 29, 2016, 11:13:19 am
What seems like 100 yrs ago, in the days of BBS and even pre-Viatel, and long before fancy rechargeables :-), I helped run techie BBS sites.
One of the hottest topics was lists of devices that you could swap between to achieve near 100% battery drain. We had 3 categories, H M L, and ave run-time.
You simply chose which devices YOU had and just swapped as each ran it's time. The planet really is becoming stupider ! :-)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: g.lewarne on December 29, 2016, 11:35:59 am
I just ran the MuVo MP3 player overnight with the Batteriser on a new cell and got 267 hrs compared to 314 hrs for a fresh cell, or -15%  :--
Very similar result to Frank's -17.9%

And the battery had enough juice left afterwards to recover to 1.36V and work on full brightness in Lumintop Tool AAA torch.
http://www.lumintop.com/tool-aaa.html (http://www.lumintop.com/tool-aaa.html)

Also, the Thrunite torch is STILL going at 15 hours!

Yet another spectacular failure of the Batteriser.
You mean minutes, not hours, surely ?
What we need to do now is reverse engineer the Thrunite torch boost converter and create our own EEVBlogeriser because, evidently, whatever magical smoke is powering it is superior

Nope, HOURS. It just finally died (in a brief flash of light) and it lasted 16hrs 55min.
I have timelapse footage and 2nd cam commentary of the entire thing.

Dave, re-read my quoted post of yours, specifically this part:
"I just ran the MuVo MP3 player overnight with the Batteriser on a new cell and got 267 hrs compared to 314 hrs for a fresh cell, or -15%"  that what I meant when I said minutes, not hours
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: automation_dude on December 29, 2016, 03:29:39 pm
I just watched Daves latest live stream of the Bateroo testing in the trains.  It wasn't until Dave was wrapping up and he mentioned testing the Batteroo in an active device, which I take it was the MP3 test, and a passive device which I presume is the train that it dawned on me that in order to light the LED on the front of the train there must have been some sort of active circuitry in the - passive - train to allow a AAA battery to light an LED. 

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 29, 2016, 03:47:39 pm
I just watched Daves latest live stream of the Bateroo testing in the trains.  It wasn't until Dave was wrapping up and he mentioned testing the Batteroo in an active device, which I take it was the MP3 test, and a passive device which I presume is the train that it dawned on me that in order to light the LED on the front of the train there must have been some sort of active circuitry in the - passive - train to allow a AAA battery to light an LED.

Likely it's just an LED without any active circuitry. Single cell, 1.6-0.9V, no active circuitry needed to run a basic LED for the purposes of this toy.

Edit: I suppose it depends on what you mean by "active" circuitry... Do a torroid, a transistor, and a resistor count as active? I suppose the transistor does make it active, technically?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: automation_dude on December 29, 2016, 04:36:25 pm
Samgab, regarding your edit - that is what I was wondering too, what is the definition of active?

I am wondering if any type of switching power supply whether it be buck or in this case boost would be considered as active, stepping up the 1.5 VDC from the battery to the LEDs forward voltage of approximately 3 V could be considered as active.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: jesuscf on December 29, 2016, 05:05:16 pm
Does the Batteroo "work" with rechargeable batteries? Anybody planing on testing it with rechargeable batteries?  That would be interesting...
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 29, 2016, 05:23:12 pm
Samgab, regarding your edit - that is what I was wondering too, what is the definition of active?

I am wondering if any type of switching power supply whether it be buck or in this case boost would be considered as active, stepping up the 1.5 VDC from the battery to the LEDs forward voltage of approximately 3 V could be considered as active.

Yeah. Taking a step back from all the finer points of active vs passive, and the note that comes with the Batteroo's; in their original videos, where Frank and Bob explain why they decided to make batterisers in the first place, Frank said that his kids were playing with toys and they had to keep replacing the batteries (or that was the gist of it), so he talked to Bob about how to make a device which would mean they could use all the energy in batteries... So kids toys were the original driver behind this device. That being the case, it should be ideally suited for most kids toys, ie: toy trains, with or without a little LED. 99% of kids battery powered toys these days would have some kind of active circuitry, at least an LED with associated driver components.

Edit, sorry, this is getting a little tangential from the TESTING theme of this thread. It was related to the testing of the toy trains though.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 29, 2016, 06:27:11 pm
Toy train test complete. Full video up on EEVblog in the coming hours. Batteroo were watching the testing live on Youtube BTW! (they contacted me, see other thread)
Over 2000 people watched this testing live!, so no funny business.

169 minutes and 508 laps without Batetriser
94 minutes and 351 laps with Batteriser
3 minutes and 10 extra laps on the "dead" battery with the Batteriser (Just under 2% extra life based on laps)

And as bonus, using the dead battery that was discharged WITH the Batteriser from new got an extra 5 laps after resting for several minutes.

Horrible result (for the Batteriser) :--
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Wytnucls on December 29, 2016, 06:45:01 pm
The sleeve might be beneficial on something like a travel electric shaver (Remington 2xAA) for instance, where performance is more important than longevity.
Of course, most of these devices, if properly designed, will come with an internal DC to DC converter already.
My old Remington 6DCF-2 doesn't though.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Towger on December 29, 2016, 06:46:58 pm
Any chance of some rough graphs or tables before you go walkabouts. Basic input/output voltages/current with a few shots from the thermal camera.  It would give much more interesting data than spending hours waiting for batteries to run down for each test.

That would still leave tests on noise, harmonics, shorts and there are reports of strange interactions when a number of Batterisers are used in series.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: snowl on December 29, 2016, 06:54:05 pm
It would be also interesting how much a sleeve will drain the battery without a toy.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 29, 2016, 07:36:47 pm
It would be also interesting how much a sleeve will drain the battery without a toy.

If I measured it correctly, it was about 2 microamps.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 29, 2016, 07:43:17 pm
Full train testing video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_a1YJ_yZug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_a1YJ_yZug)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 29, 2016, 08:11:46 pm
The sleeve might be beneficial on something like a travel electric shaver (Remington 2xAA) for instance, where performance is more important than longevity.

It might, but...I'd expect Remington to have a clue. Battery power isn't rocket science.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Wytnucls on December 29, 2016, 08:28:39 pm
They didn't. No PCB at all. Just battery connection to 3V DC motor.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Kalvin on December 29, 2016, 08:44:52 pm
Toy train test complete. Full video up on EEVblog in the coming hours. Batteroo were watching the testing live on Youtube BTW! (they contacted me, see other thread)
Over 2000 people watched this testing live!, so no funny business.

169 minutes and 508 laps without Batetriser
94 minutes and 351 laps with Batteriser
3 minutes and 10 extra laps on the "dead" battery with the Batteriser (Just under 2% extra life based on laps)

And as bonus, using the dead battery that was discharged WITH the Batteriser from new got an extra 5 laps after resting for several minutes.

Horrible result (for the Batteriser) :--

Without the Batteriser, the train completed 3.01 rounds in one minute.
With the Batteriser, the train completed 3.73 rounds in a minute.
So the train had 24% higher speed with the Batteriser, but the runtime was 44% less with the Batteriser!
No Bob, you cannot explain this with the wind drag ;)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 29, 2016, 09:09:34 pm
Full train testing video


Suggestion: If you were to upload the raw normal speed video to a web server somewhere and give Frank the link to download it, he might be able to work his software wizardry on it to obtain a graph of the lap times like he did with his test? Maybe, Frank?  ???
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 29, 2016, 10:01:40 pm
Inside the train.
As expected just a reversing switch and a bulb for the headlight. Classic passive device.
(http://i.imgur.com/ExoRF0x.png)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Kalvin on December 29, 2016, 10:13:03 pm
Inside the train.
As expected just a reversing switch and a bulb for the headlight. Classic passive device.

Wasn't the passive devices supposed to be exactly the devices the Batteriser should provide the optimal results and extend the battery life to the maximum, according to Bob. There must be something terribly wrong with your and Frank's test setup, as the Batteriser will reduce the battery life to almost half compared what it would be without the Batteriser. ;)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: AndyC_772 on December 29, 2016, 10:28:32 pm
There might be some worthwhile science to learn here. Why, if the dc-dc converter is (say) 80% efficient, are the run time and lap count reduced by as much as they are? Why are the results with the Batteriser so bad?

Perhaps I missed it, but do we have a characteristic plot of current draw and velocity vs voltage for Dave's train? Can we show from these characteristics why we might expect the Batteriser to have such a negative effect?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: digsys on December 29, 2016, 10:40:13 pm
Quote from: AndyC_772
  ... Why are the results with the Batteriser so bad?
... do we have a characteristic plot of current draw and velocity vs voltage for Dave's train? Can we show from these characteristics why we might expect the Batteriser to have such a negative effect?
I'd suggest, a more logical base test would be to first find out how much energy was left in each battery. 1 with batterpoo (bp for short), 1 without
I'd suspect there are higher peak currents w/bp, which result in the very early demise. I'd wait at least an hour to drain the remaining, at a low rate !
Then we could calculate efficiency / internal impedance / yadda yadda
If this was the case, a lithium cell comparison should be MUCH closer.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on December 29, 2016, 10:48:23 pm
Would a camera flashgun, a big one like a NIKON SB-700, be a worthwhile test? They are a pretty high drain device but also one that is not a continuous drain so the battery chemistry has some recovery time. It would test a device that photographers would use in a cold climate outdoors so the temperature effect on battery life could be included to see if Batteroo can add some benefit.

Alkaline batteries in flashguns tend to be removed because recycle time gets too long. So the Batteroo would be tested in circumstances where the battery isn't already completely exhausted.

Interesting idea.  Automating it would be interesting.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: chris_leyson on December 29, 2016, 11:20:54 pm
Quote
There might be some worthwhile science to learn here. Why, if the dc-dc converter is (say) 80% efficient, are the run time and lap count reduced by as much as they are? Why are the results with the Batteriser so bad?
Given that when driving a 3-pole brushed DC motor the peak currents are a lot higher than the RMS current, all depending on gear train friction and stiction, then there could be a peak current limiting effect. Also, the motor back EMF during commutation might effect the boost converter dynamic regulation. Motor current is not constant but pulsed at a few hundred Hz depending on gear box ratio and friction.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: bktemp on December 29, 2016, 11:29:06 pm
There might be some worthwhile science to learn here. Why, if the dc-dc converter is (say) 80% efficient, are the run time and lap count reduced by as much as they are? Why are the results with the Batteriser so bad?
Because the available amount of energy from a battery depends on the discharge current: If you draw more current, you get less energy out of it. That is exactly what a Batteriser is doing when it is trying to keep the output voltage at 1.5V.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 29, 2016, 11:46:03 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qPpvzo26Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qPpvzo26Q)

From a side-by-side testing of the toy train, the velocity was pretty constant due to the Batteriser.
But surprisingly the train without the Batteriser was constant too.

(http://i.imgur.com/vbWebLR.png)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: AndyC_772 on December 29, 2016, 11:55:48 pm
Because the available amount of energy from a battery depends on the discharge current: If you draw more current, you get less energy out of it. That is exactly what a Batteriser is doing when it is trying to keep the output voltage at 1.5V.

Agreed, sounds entirely plausible - though I'd be interested to see some more quantitative evidence to back up that theory. We all knew that the sleeve couldn't possibly meet the original claims made for it, but I for one am surprised at just how much worse the battery run time seems to be with it fitted.

There's material here for quite a good technical video here, IMHO. Start with a refresher about how the open-circuit voltage of a battery varies with remaining energy capacity. Plug in what we know about the characteristics of the load and of the Batteriser, then work out what we might theoretically expect in terms of the discharge rate of the battery in each case. See if theory and practice agree.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: CaptCrash on December 30, 2016, 12:00:04 am
rom a side-by-side testing of the toy train, the velocity was pretty constant due to the Batteriser.
But surprisingly the train without the Batteriser was constant too.

Im confused by your graph.

The graph is showing that both with and without the batteriser, that the train did 351/314 laps (numbers from video and approx in the graph), but in 540 minutes (from the graph) video shows 1:35 hours, 95 minutes.

Is the axis data screwed up?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Ysjoelfir on December 30, 2016, 12:15:44 am
My simple light bulb test mentioned here

Thanks to Frank I got a Batterizer in the mail today. Testing with two incandescent light bulbs side by side right now.

showed unexpected problems. The light bulbs powered by the batteriser keep on failing. I thought about a bad batch but until now the batterised bulbs died five times while the non-batterised bulb is not affected at all, keeps glowing as it should. I swapped the bulbs to see if I was just lucky with the still working bulb at the normal battery, but no, the bulb that has never been used on a batteriser blew up after around an hour being used on the batteriser, while the former "batterised" bulb is still glowing. strange. Has already somebody measured the noise coming from those things? are there major switching spikes that could potentially blow up the bulb?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: bktemp on December 30, 2016, 12:25:53 am
My simple light bulb test mentioned here

Thanks to Frank I got a Batterizer in the mail today. Testing with two incandescent light bulbs side by side right now.

showed unexpected problems. The light bulbs powered by the batteriser keep on failing.
That is not a problem, but a result showing the Batteriser isn't even useable for the old incandescent light bulb lamps!

Quote
Has already somebody measured the noise coming from those things? are there major switching spikes that could potentially blow up the bulb?
I don't think switching spikes will affect a light bulb, because of its large thermal mass.
But the higher output voltage can be a problem, because many light bulbs are only rated for 1.2V or 2.4V instead of 1.5V/3.0V.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 30, 2016, 12:27:38 am
Im confused by your graph.
The graph is showing that both with and without the batteriser, that the train did 351/314 laps (numbers from video and approx in the graph), but in 540 minutes (from the graph) video shows 1:35 hours, 95 minutes.
Is the axis data screwed up?

Yep, forget the minutes X axis, I was not thinking straight (don't work after midnight).
X axis is actually 30 second increments of x10 sped-up footage
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 30, 2016, 12:30:34 am
My simple light bulb test mentioned here
Thanks to Frank I got a Batterizer in the mail today. Testing with two incandescent light bulbs side by side right now.
showed unexpected problems. The light bulbs powered by the batteriser keep on failing. I thought about a bad batch but until now the batterised bulbs died five times while the non-batterised bulb is not affected at all, keeps glowing as it should. I swapped the bulbs to see if I was just lucky with the still working bulb at the normal battery, but no, the bulb that has never been used on a batteriser blew up after around an hour being used on the batteriser, while the former "batterised" bulb is still glowing. strange. Has already somebody measured the noise coming from those things? are there major switching spikes that could potentially blow up the bulb?

That's not unexpected. The constant 1.5V (maybe slightly higher) output voltage is too high for the bulb. It's probably a 1.2V rated bulb. In a normal battery the 1.5V drops pretty quickly hence not a problem.
Another way the Batteriser can be detriment instead of a benefit.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Hensingler on December 30, 2016, 12:33:01 am
My simple light bulb test mentioned here

Thanks to Frank I got a Batterizer in the mail today. Testing with two incandescent light bulbs side by side right now.

showed unexpected problems. The light bulbs powered by the batteriser keep on failing. I thought about a bad batch but until now the batterised bulbs died five times while the non-batterised bulb is not affected at all, keeps glowing as it should.

Incandescent lamp life is about inversely proportional to the applied voltage raised to the 13th power. A lamp running on 1.5v would have about 5% the life of the same lamp running on 1.2v. Another way for the batteriser to fail.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: SeanB on December 30, 2016, 12:34:57 am
My simple light bulb test mentioned here

Thanks to Frank I got a Batterizer in the mail today. Testing with two incandescent light bulbs side by side right now.

showed unexpected problems. The light bulbs powered by the batteriser keep on failing. I thought about a bad batch but until now the batterised bulbs died five times while the non-batterised bulb is not affected at all, keeps glowing as it should. I swapped the bulbs to see if I was just lucky with the still working bulb at the normal battery, but no, the bulb that has never been used on a batteriser blew up after around an hour being used on the batteriser, while the former "batterised" bulb is still glowing. strange. Has already somebody measured the noise coming from those things? are there major switching spikes that could potentially blow up the bulb?

No, it is just that a regular bulb for a 1 cell torch is designed for 50 hours at 1V2, and using 1V5 will give a life of around 10 hours at best, from the consistent overvoltage. Will kind of suck big time if you use it in a Maglite with the $20 bulbs, as they will have a very short and merry life. You will need to use a 2cell bulb in your tests, so that the lifetime is not affected, though they will be dimmer.

Torch bulbs are designed ( and have been that way for at least the last century since the first hand lamps were introduced) for a rated life at the voltage of a partly discharged battery, and the original designs were meant for use on a standard zinc carbon cell, with a reasonably flat 1V2 plateau over a large part of the discharge curve into the lamp load. This is from the internal resistance, and when you run the bulbs from a 1V5 voltage source, with a low internal resistance they get really overrun, and this increases evaporation of the filament at the weak spots, causing the failure.

If you have halogen lamps try them, they will last longer with this kind of load, but will still have a shorter life, but at least the high pressure and chloride fill will rebuild the hot spots on the filament and give a longer life.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: JonF on December 30, 2016, 12:46:20 am
Would a camera flashgun, a big one like a NIKON SB-700, be a worthwhile test?

I was thinking the same but then I remembered that the cheap flashguns are unreliable and even the expensive ones, when fired repeatedly, can melt :-)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 30, 2016, 12:52:13 am
From a side-by-side testing of the toy train, the velocity was pretty constant due to the Batteriser.
But surprisingly the train without the Batteriser was constant too.
That's something Batteroo could have posted, leaving out the flat line after the battery with the sleeve died, I'm sure they will quote you. It shows clearly that it is much better with the sleeves. Breaking news: "famous blogger David Jones admits that the Batteroo sleeve increases the performance, see the video and the the graph he created". How much did they pay you for this? :)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dr_frost_dk on December 30, 2016, 01:10:08 am
They closed their Facebook and Twitter in the last hours !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I bet they received LOTS of bad posts and tweets hehehehe

100000% this is due to dave's video on the train.

 :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD

https://www.facebook.com/Batteriser (https://www.facebook.com/Batteriser)
https://twitter.com/gobatteriser (https://twitter.com/gobatteriser)
EDIT: Must be old links they had on their Indiegogo campain....., well now we can see all the people wanting refund :)

EDIT: Good Live show dave, was up to about 05:00 last night hehehe

EDIT: Just posted the 45min timelapse video on their facebook page, but it will be posted if they "like" it hehehehehe, so no chance of that happening.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: cgroen on December 30, 2016, 01:16:14 am
Unfortunately not...:

https://twitter.com/GoBatteroo (https://twitter.com/GoBatteroo)
https://www.facebook.com/Batteroo/ (https://www.facebook.com/Batteroo/)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Ysjoelfir on December 30, 2016, 01:25:46 am
That's not unexpected. The constant 1.5V (maybe slightly higher) output voltage is too high for the bulb. It's probably a 1.2V rated bulb. In a normal battery the 1.5V drops pretty quickly hence not a problem.
Another way the Batteriser can be detriment instead of a benefit.

Sure, lightbulbs suffer greatly from overvoltage, nothing new here, but the ones I used were rated at 1V5 and the batterizer is outputting 1.51V RMS. So that SHOULD be ok, at least if those bulbs are definitely 1V5 rated and not "to use with 1V5 batteries", as I can only read the marking on the bulb itself which states 1,5V.

Even if they were not designed to run at a constant 1V5, they shouldn't just fail after around half an hour, should they? Also, I had two batches, three came with the package from frank, and just for comparison I bought another set of four at the local conrad store.

Either way, just for curiosity I digged out the scope (as I said, lab is being restructured right now, so just a few quick measurements...) and looked at what we have here.
First, no load connected. The Batterizer is switching between battery voltage (~1.48V) and around ~1.64V with around 10 kHz.
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_1.png)

another one with bandwidth limitation
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_2.png)

Switched on, measured directly at the load, connected with short cables: around 200mV of "noise"
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_4.png)

Let's zoom in a bit: switching between battery voltage, which breaks down to 1.39V under load and 1.61V with a frequency of around 40 kHz.
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_5.png)

there are tiny spikes reaching up to 1.67V
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_6.png)

A bit closer to measure the frequency: 40.48 kHz.
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_7.png)

A last one without the cursors, just for curiosity. Interesting waveform with nice tiny spikes at the rising edge.
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_8.png)
Title: Batteroo testing
Post by: 6581 on December 30, 2016, 01:32:08 am
Regarding flashguns
http://cdn-10.nikon-cdn.com/pdf/manuals/Speedlights/SB-700.pdf
Page 32 / B7: 10 minutes of cooling after 15 continuous firings...

I know from experience that's a bit over careful, but they're not designed to be fired continuously for long periods (at full power). So probably not ideal for battery life testing but could be interesting and quite easy to test "recycle" time with and without batteroos. If it fits.

(Edit: after seeing scope captures in previous post, I think no flashgun should suffer such nasty spikes and over voltage - I highly doubt that any manufacturers guarantee would cover damage caused by "modified" batteries.)
Title: Batteroo testing with flash gun
Post by: SeanB on December 30, 2016, 01:33:30 am
Would a camera flashgun, a big one like a NIKON SB-700, be a worthwhile test?

I was thinking the same but then I remembered that the cheap flashguns are unreliable and even the expensive ones, when fired repeatedly, can melt :-)

Most flash guns draw a large current ( well over 2A for a short time, like 4 seconds or so) when charging the capacitor up again, so probably after 5 flashes the batteriser sleeve will blow up, even with new cells, as the concrol circuit likely cannot handle this load.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on December 30, 2016, 01:53:44 am
That's not unexpected. The constant 1.5V (maybe slightly higher) output voltage is too high for the bulb. It's probably a 1.2V rated bulb. In a normal battery the 1.5V drops pretty quickly hence not a problem.
Another way the Batteriser can be detriment instead of a benefit.

Sure, lightbulbs suffer greatly from overvoltage, nothing new here, but the ones I used were rated at 1V5 and the batterizer is outputting 1.51V RMS. So that SHOULD be ok, at least if those bulbs are definitely 1V5 rated and not "to use with 1V5 batteries", as I can only read the marking on the bulb itself which states 1,5V.

Even if they were not designed to run at a constant 1V5, they shouldn't just fail after around half an hour, should they? Also, I had two batches, three came with the package from frank, and just for comparison I bought another set of four at the local conrad store.

Either way, just for curiosity I digged out the scope (as I said, lab is being restructured right now, so just a few quick measurements...) and looked at what we have here.
First, no load connected. The Batterizer is switching between battery voltage (~1.48V) and around ~1.64V with around 10 kHz.
These waveforms are expected.

The actual switching frequency will be high - perhaps 1.5MHz. It would be good if you can see what the frequency actually is. I don't think anyone has actually measured it yet. It is almost certainly between 1MHz and 2MHz and it will probably be most noticeable at a high load.

But the way they get the low idle current is that at low loads, they charge the output cap and then the converter goes to a near zero-current sleep until the voltage has dropped by 200mV. Then the converter wakes up again and runs at 1.5MHz again. It would probably normally have a sawtooth at a much lower frequency then 10kHz, but you had the load of the oscilloscope probe on the output.

One of the other things I am interested to see is how quickly the converter wakes. If you switch a high load on suddenly, how low does the voltage drop?

I don't even have a clue how much current the Batteriser can output yet so I don't know if a high current is 100mA or 1A. Due to the very low quiescent current, the wake up circuitry may be very slow, and if the voltage can drop to zero when the load is switched on, that would be a pretty big disaster.

If they did not have this sleep mode, the no load quiescent current would be quite high - probably 100's of uA or even several mA.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: bktemp on December 30, 2016, 02:17:43 am
These waveforms are expected.

The actual switching frequency will be high - perhaps 1.5MHz. It would be good if you can see what the frequency actually is. I don't think anyone has actually measured it yet. It is almost certainly between 1MHz and 2MHz and it will probably be most noticeable at a high load.
The converter seems to run always in PFM/burst mode (that is the 10Hz to 40kHz burst rate) using a much higher switching frequency (if I count correctly, the small spikes are about 0.8us apart -> 1.25MHz).
Because of the PFM mode the response to load changes is probably rather fast, because it only uses a comparator with hysteresis, therefore does not require any compensation network.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: PeterL on December 30, 2016, 02:21:28 am
That's not unexpected. The constant 1.5V (maybe slightly higher) output voltage is too high for the bulb. It's probably a 1.2V rated bulb. In a normal battery the 1.5V drops pretty quickly hence not a problem.
Another way the Batteriser can be detriment instead of a benefit.

Sure, lightbulbs suffer greatly from overvoltage, nothing new here, but the ones I used were rated at 1V5 and the batterizer is outputting 1.51V RMS. So that SHOULD be ok, at least if those bulbs are definitely 1V5 rated and not "to use with 1V5 batteries", as I can only read the marking on the bulb itself which states 1,5V.

Even if they were not designed to run at a constant 1V5, they shouldn't just fail after around half an hour, should they? Also, I had two batches, three came with the package from frank, and just for comparison I bought another set of four at the local conrad store.

A last one without the cursors, just for curiosity. Interesting waveform with nice tiny spikes at the rising edge.
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_8.png)
This last waveform shows how the batteriser switches, which is 7 times in this instance during the rising edge. After that de DC-DC converter goes to sleep, because the output voltage got to high.
During the rising edge, between the spikes you see little dents. That is clearly the point where the inductor is charged. The dents are slightly less then 1 us apart, which gives a switching frequency of 1.2Mhz or so.

Try zooming in further on the rising edge, and is should become clearer.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Watth on December 30, 2016, 02:24:38 am
Does the Batteroo "work" with rechargeable batteries? Anybody planing on testing it with rechargeable batteries?  That would be interesting...

And what kind of fiery death would happen if Average Abbie would try to recharge said rechargeable batteries while leaving the bateroo on?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Ysjoelfir on December 30, 2016, 02:59:57 am
The actual switching frequency will be high - perhaps 1.5MHz. It would be good if you can see what the frequency actually is. I don't think anyone has actually measured it yet. It is almost certainly between 1MHz and 2MHz and it will probably be most noticeable at a high load.
It is. I attached pictures of the actual switching.

Quote
One of the other things I am interested to see is how quickly the converter wakes. If you switch a high load on suddenly, how low does the voltage drop?

I don't even have a clue how much current the Batteriser can output yet so I don't know if a high current is 100mA or 1A. Due to the very low quiescent current, the wake up circuitry may be very slow, and if the voltage can drop to zero when the load is switched on, that would be a pretty big disaster.
I attached pictures with around 100mA, 500mA and 1A load.

This last waveform shows how the batteriser switches, which is 7 times in this instance during the rising edge. After that de DC-DC converter goes to sleep, because the output voltage got to high.
During the rising edge, between the spikes you see little dents. That is clearly the point where the inductor is charged. The dents are slightly less then 1 us apart, which gives a switching frequency of 1.2Mhz or so.

Try zooming in further on the rising edge, and is should become clearer.
Thanks for clearing that up, my knowledge of switching converters seems to be capable of improvement.

Here I zoomed into the actual switching, which happenes indeed with around 1.2MHz with no load.
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_switching1.png)

another picture, just a bit more zoomed in.
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_switching2.png)

Under load (500mA)
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_switching_loaded.png)

Wake up time with 100mA load ~40µs
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_100mA.png)

500mA, also around 40µs
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_500mA1.png)

fully recovered after around 100µs
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_500mA2.png)

1A load, 33µs wake up time, dropping down to 750mV
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_1A1.png)

fully recovered after around 60µs but it is struggling to keep up the voltage, idling at around 1.2V (sorry, forgot to move the horizontal cursor..)
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_1A2.png)

judging from those curves, can we assume that 1A load is to much and even 500mA is near the border of "to much"?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 30, 2016, 03:33:39 am
1A load, 33µs wake up time, dropping down to 750mV
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_1A1.png)

fully recovered after around 60µs but it is struggling to keep up the voltage, idling at around 1.2V (sorry, forgot to move the horizontal cursor..)
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_1A2.png)

judging from those curves, can we assume that 1A load is to much and even 500mA is near the border of "to much"?

Good measurements. This might be another big fail for Batteroo. One of their claims was that it provides smooth output voltage for devices with short peaks of high current, like cameras, so that they run longer. They won't run at all, because the camera shuts down after the first big drop :-DD

My simple light bulb test mentioned here

Thanks to Frank I got a Batterizer in the mail today. Testing with two incandescent light bulbs side by side right now.

showed unexpected problems. The light bulbs powered by the batteriser keep on failing. I thought about a bad batch but until now the batterised bulbs died five times while the non-batterised bulb is not affected at all, keeps glowing as it should. I swapped the bulbs to see if I was just lucky with the still working bulb at the normal battery, but no, the bulb that has never been used on a batteriser blew up after around an hour being used on the batteriser, while the former "batterised" bulb is still glowing. strange. Has already somebody measured the noise coming from those things? are there major switching spikes that could potentially blow up the bulb?

That's strange, light bulbs shouldn't be that picky. A normal battery outputs 1.6 V at the beginning, and 1.5 V rating doesn't mean it fails at slightly higher voltage. This (https://www.conrad.de/de/gluehlaempchen-015-w-sockele55-100-ma-15-v-klar-beli-beco-inhalt-1-st-1437400.html) is the article in the Conrad shop. Can you measure the voltage with your scope near the light bulbs?

I wonder what other devices might break because of too high voltage spikes. If there are flashlights with this or similar light bulbs, their owners won't be happy.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: drussell on December 30, 2016, 03:34:18 am
The light bulbs powered by the batteriser keep on failing. I thought about a bad batch but until now the batterised bulbs died five times while the non-batterised bulb is not affected at all, keeps glowing as it should. I swapped the bulbs to see if I was just lucky with the still working bulb at the normal battery, but no, the bulb that has never been used on a batteriser blew up after around an hour being used on the batteriser, while the former "batterised" bulb is still glowing. strange. Has already somebody measured the noise coming from those things? are there major switching spikes that could potentially blow up the bulb?

Quote
Sure, lightbulbs suffer greatly from overvoltage, nothing new here, but the ones I used were rated at 1V5 and the batterizer is outputting 1.51V RMS. So that SHOULD be ok, at least if those bulbs are definitely 1V5 rated and not "to use with 1V5 batteries", as I can only read the marking on the bulb itself which states 1,5V.

Even if they were not designed to run at a constant 1V5, they shouldn't just fail after around half an hour, should they? Also, I had two batches, three came with the package from frank, and just for comparison I bought another set of four at the local conrad store.

The actual average running voltage does play a huge role in bulb life, but so can flakey, modulating, dirty power.  If you've ever seen a flakey mains wall switch controlling a standard tungsten bulb lamp, it will burn out bulbs very quickly yet the flickering it causes is usually almost imperceptible even if you know to look for it.

The thermal mass of the filament is actually rather small but sufficient to not be noticed with our eyes' persistence of vision characteristics.  Fully smoothed DC, perhaps with polarity automatically reversed at turn-on to prevent one end of the filament from always breaking first should yield the absolute greatest run time.  Clean AC sine waves should be quite close behind due to their relatively gentle nature.  DIRTY fluctuating, modulating, spikey, dirty crap power will, indeed, put significantly more stress on the filament and can easily cause very short lifespans.

If you compare the batterised bulb to one running off 1.52v from a stable, clean PSU and you'll very likely find that the batteroo sleeve's output is the main culprit, not just simply the elevated voltage.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: bktemp on December 30, 2016, 03:40:43 am
Here I zoomed into the actual switching, which happenes indeed with around 1.2MHz with no load.
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_switching1.png)
Based on the voltage ramp during a burst of about 50mV/us and the measured output capacitor of 14uF, the current delivered by the boost converter is about 0.7A.
That matches your measurement.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 30, 2016, 03:51:54 am
The actual average running voltage does play a huge role in bulb life, but so can flakey, modulating, dirty power.  If you've ever seen a flakey mains wall switch controlling a standard tungsten bulb lamp, it will burn out bulbs very quickly yet the flickering it causes is usually almost imperceptible even if you know to look for it.

Interesting, maybe this is another reason they don't recommend using it with passive devices like light bulbs. It not only runs shorter, it actually destroys the devices in some cases.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: richnormand on December 30, 2016, 03:56:05 am
Would a camera flashgun, a big one like a NIKON SB-700, be a worthwhile test? They are a pretty high drain device but also one that is not a continuous drain so the battery chemistry has some recovery time. It would test a device that photographers would use in a cold climate outdoors so the temperature effect on battery life could be included to see if Batteroo can add some benefit.

Alkaline batteries in flashguns tend to be removed because recycle time gets too long. So the Batteroo would be tested in circumstances where the battery isn't already completely exhausted.

As long as you set the flash to max output every time I would guess. Mine has an automatic adjust feature that quench or limits the light output depending on the camera light and distance reading. In effect each flash energy and recharge is dependent on the scene and position.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 30, 2016, 03:59:53 am
that SHOULD be ok, at least if those bulbs are definitely 1V5 rated and not "to use with 1V5 batteries"

They're probably "to use with 1V5 batteries". Batteries is the main reason to make "1.5V" light bulbs.

In reality a battery will never run them at 1.5V. The ESR of the battery will probably start them at 1.4V and rapidly drop to 1.2V or less.

(measure it and see...)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 30, 2016, 05:37:15 am
The actual average running voltage does play a huge role in bulb life, but so can flakey, modulating, dirty power.  If you've ever seen a flakey mains wall switch controlling a standard tungsten bulb lamp, it will burn out bulbs very quickly yet the flickering it causes is usually almost imperceptible even if you know to look for it.

Interesting, maybe this is another reason they don't recommend using it with passive devices like light bulbs. It not only runs shorter, it actually destroys the devices in some cases.

I wonder if the switching just happens to be at a certain harmonic frequency which makes the filament vibrate, which causes it to break quickly?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: JonF on December 30, 2016, 05:59:28 am
On flashguns:

If they would kill a batteriser in fewer than 10 firings then I think that'd be a good test.
I think most flashguns have manual mode so scene dependant output power shouldn't be an issue (all my flashguns can do this).
There are cheap manual guns from the likes of Yongnuo that could be used to avoid damaging anything good with the spikes etc.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: photon on December 30, 2016, 07:44:37 am
Kudos to those replying to this topic.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 30, 2016, 07:50:33 am
I just watched Daves latest live stream of the Bateroo testing in the trains.  It wasn't until Dave was wrapping up and he mentioned testing the Batteroo in an active device, which I take it was the MP3 test, and a passive device which I presume is the train that it dawned on me that in order to light the LED on the front of the train there must have been some sort of active circuitry in the - passive - train to allow a AAA battery to light an LED.

Likely it's just an LED without any active circuitry. Single cell, 1.6-0.9V, no active circuitry needed to run a basic LED for the purposes of this toy.

Edit: I suppose it depends on what you mean by "active" circuitry... Do a torroid, a transistor, and a resistor count as active? I suppose the transistor does make it active, technically?

Update, as shown in Dave's photo of the train's innards, it's a bulb, not an LED (makes a lot of sense with it being simple and running on 1xAAA), so totally passive, no active circuitry at all.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 30, 2016, 08:27:55 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qPpvzo26Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qPpvzo26Q)

From a side-by-side testing of the toy train, the velocity was pretty constant due to the Batteriser.
But surprisingly the train without the Batteriser was constant too.

(http://i.imgur.com/vbWebLR.png)

Here's the same test, but charting the full runtime off Batteroo'd versus NON-Batteroo'd. I think it tells the full story more clearly:
(http://i.imgur.com/FEkQy33.gif)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 30, 2016, 08:44:41 am
Here's another way to look at the data: Laps per minute over time:
(http://i.imgur.com/Kf4SDpB.gif)
Edit: Slight fix to zero lap with no batteroo.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: cowana on December 30, 2016, 08:47:28 am
Very clear representation of the data there, good job :)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 30, 2016, 09:03:53 am
Very clear representation of the data there, good job :)

Wonder which one of the set Batteroo will publish?

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: djos on December 30, 2016, 09:04:56 am
Here's another way to look at the data: Laps per minute over time:
(http://i.imgur.com/Kf4SDpB.gif)
Edit: Slight fix to zero lap with no batteroo.

Nice graphing, shows their product for the snake oil that it is!
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 30, 2016, 09:12:29 am
From a side-by-side testing of the toy train, the velocity was pretty constant due to the Batteriser.
But surprisingly the train without the Batteriser was constant too.
That's something Batteroo could have posted, leaving out the flat line after the battery with the sleeve died, I'm sure they will quote you. It shows clearly that it is much better with the sleeves. Breaking news: "famous blogger David Jones admits that the Batteroo sleeve increases the performance, see the video and the the graph he created". How much did they pay you for this? :)

Yep, agreed. I'll repost it, so have removed links. The x-axis was wrong anyway.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 30, 2016, 09:13:50 am
Cheers. I suppose the question is, would little Johnny notice the difference in speed for that first hour and a half or so (with vs without Batteroo), and would Johnny want to keep playing with the toy in the second hour when it's slowed to 2-3 laps per minute, vs 3-4 laps per minute? Or would he ask mum for new batteries at that point anyway?
Also, I wonder what this would look like if the testing was done in bursts, 5 mins on, 60 mins off, repeat. To simulate real world usage more closely? This type of testing would obviously have to be automated somehow, as no-one would have the time or patience to do that sort of testing manually. This would give the chemistry in the Alkaline cells time to recover between bursts. I think in that scenario, the one without a sleeve would outperform the sleeved one by an even greater margin.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 30, 2016, 09:25:25 am
Cheers. I suppose the question is, would little Johnny notice the difference in speed for that first hour and a half or so (with vs without Batteroo), and would Johnny want to keep playing with the toy in the second hour when it's slowed to 2-3 laps per minute, vs 3-4 laps per minute? Or would he ask mum for new batteries at that point anyway?

The kid won't be paying attention after half an hour. He may leave it going but he's not counting the laps.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 30, 2016, 09:29:41 am
Here you go, much more informative.
I'll release this in a short unnumbered video on my main channel with a small bit of commentary rather than bury away on my 2nd channel, I think it's a very important passive device test.

(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=281730;image)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on December 30, 2016, 09:44:09 am
another picture, just a bit more zoomed in.
(http://fotos.ysjoelfir.de/foren/eevblog/batteriser_scope_switching2.png)
The period of the major spikes seems to be about 400nS so that would mean a 2.5MHz switching frequency.

The ringing at about 80MHz is concerning, although it could be in the probe circuit rather then the Batteriser. Not sure how another UL emissions test would go with a full load. I don't think Batteroo will be rushing to do the test, especially as that sleeve could make quite a good antenna. Looks like about 300mV p-p of switching noise. When you add it to the 200mV p-p burst mode saw tooth at low loads and the 10-20uS wake-up delay out of the sleep mode, the output of the Batteriser is starting to look pretty ugly, especially if you put it next to a plain battery.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 30, 2016, 09:44:36 am
And even more informative again, including the difference in velocity in percentage.
What kid is going to care about a 10% velocity difference vs almost double the run time and 150 laps extra?

(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=281732;image)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 30, 2016, 10:43:28 am
It turned into a pretty decent video with the commentary, so I'll now upload this a numbered video on the main channel.
Running out of time to do a full edited summary video on the testing before I head off on holiday, but I'll try.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Muttley Snickers on December 30, 2016, 10:58:22 am
Now that you have a number of datum reference points and a handy little setup could you please run an Energizer Ultimate Lithium and perhaps an equivalent alkaline to the copper tops in another brand, this information might come in handy sooner or later, anyway have an enjoyable break.

The entire concept was loco from the get go and ended in a derailed train wreck.   :)  :-+
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: rollatorwieltje on December 30, 2016, 11:28:49 am
It would be nice to do the test with a NiMH rechargeable as well, with and without Batteriser. I think the train is an interesting test, it's right on the edge where NiMH and Alkaline should perform similarly (poor internal resistance for alkaline versus overall lower capacity for NiMH).
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 30, 2016, 11:45:53 am
It would be nice to do the test with a NiMH rechargeable as well, with and without Batteriser. I think the train is an interesting test, it's right on the edge where NiMH and Alkaline should perform similarly (poor internal resistance for alkaline versus overall lower capacity for NiMH).

This. I'd love to see that exact same test done with a freshly charged AAA Eneloop.
(http://i.imgur.com/xUQPT7x.png)
-source: User HKJ's website, http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/CommonAAcomparator.php (http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/CommonAAcomparator.php)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Cerebus on December 30, 2016, 12:01:40 pm
And even more informative again, including the difference in velocity in percentage.
What kid is going to care about a 10% velocity difference vs almost double the run time and 150 laps extra?

(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=281732;image)

The % velocity difference axis doesn't really tell the truth. Currently it's 0..+12%, really it ought to be -infinity..0..+12% to account for the Batterooed train not moving while the other is. OK, that's a bit difficult to show but it really does want a clear visual cue to the fact that Batterooed train has stopped dead and the other is carrying on, otherwise a casual reader could easily take away the message that the Batterooed train is always faster.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: MLXXXp on December 30, 2016, 12:11:10 pm
This. I'd love to see that exact same test done with a freshly charged AAA Eneloop.

It might be an interesting test but the results would be irrelevant because Batteroo has stated many times, including in the current FAQ on their website, that the current product is not recommended for use with rechargeable batteries.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Hensingler on December 30, 2016, 12:24:59 pm
It might be an interesting test but results would be irrelevant because Batteroo has stated many times, including in the current FAQ on their website, that the current product is not recommended for use with rechargeable batteries.

For the purpose of advising the technically challenged what batteries they should be using it would be quite helpful. Frankly that is the only point to any testing because the technically competent knew batterisers were almost worthless junk 18 months before the first one shipped.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: MLXXXp on December 30, 2016, 12:42:31 pm
For the purpose of advising the technically challenged what batteries they should be using it would be quite helpful.

Testing a NiMH rechargeable without the Batteroo only, for comparison against an equivalent Alkaline, may be of some educational value but testing a rechargeable with a Batteroo installed is not a good use of valuable testing time at this point.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 30, 2016, 12:46:59 pm
This. I'd love to see that exact same test done with a freshly charged AAA Eneloop.

It might be an interesting test but the results would be irrelevant because Batteroo has stated many times, including in the current FAQ on their website, that the current product is not recommended for use with rechargeable batteries.

Yes, but my stance in relation to the Batteroo is to encourage people to stop using Alkaline cells and get LSD rechargables instead. Batteroo talk about saving the environment/landfill, and if that's so, selling Batteroos isn't the answer, but using rechargeables which can be cycled hundreds of times is a step in the right direction.
Many people who aren't into this type of stuff believe that because of the "1.2V" thing, 1: Eneloops etc won't work in their device (they almost certainly will), and 2: Eneloops or other LSD rechargeables won't perform as well (when in fact they actually perform a lot better in most use scenarios and devices).

So that's why I'd like to see bare (unsleeved) Eneloops to be included in comparison tests, to suggest to people a much better alternative to Batteroo OR using plain Alkalines. The results will speak for themselves.

And yeah, I'm not interested in seeing rechargables used in batteroo sleeves. No point.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: ez24 on December 30, 2016, 01:07:15 pm
Now that you have a number of datum reference points and a handy little setup could you please run an Energizer Ultimate Lithium and perhaps an equivalent alkaline to the copper tops in another brand, this information might come in handy sooner or later, anyway have an enjoyable break.

The entire concept was loco from the get go and ended in a derailed train wreck.   :)  :-+

Also install a dash cam so we can see the view from the cab
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 30, 2016, 01:51:24 pm
The % velocity difference axis doesn't really tell the truth. Currently it's 0..+12%, really it ought to be -infinity..0..+12% to account for the Batterooed train not moving while the other is. OK, that's a bit difficult to show but it really does want a clear visual cue to the fact that Batterooed train has stopped dead and the other is carrying on, otherwise a casual reader could easily take away the message that the Batterooed train is always faster.

Yeah, I figured that the graph stopping was obvious enough. Hopefully people get the point.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: JimRemington on December 30, 2016, 02:49:26 pm
How come I get "video is private"?
Not available on YouTube either.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on December 30, 2016, 03:05:55 pm
How come I get "video is private"?
Not available on YouTube either.
In the other thread Dave said he's pulling the video to add the bits about testing the batteroo after the original battery died and only getting a smidge more out of it; and then he'll reupload it.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: ez24 on December 30, 2016, 03:20:54 pm
 :box:
How come I get "video is private"?
Not available on YouTube either.

Only the Believers can view it - so if you cannot see it - it means you are not a Believer
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: jippie on December 30, 2016, 06:16:35 pm
In the Live feed I noticed that the little train wasn't moving at a nice and smooth speed. At first I thought it might be a video encoder or Youtube issue, but then Dave stepped into the picture and his movements were normal while the train was changing its speed all the time. Not sure how to describe it, it reminds me a bit of hickups. I noticed this well before the train stopped, but I can't recall whether this effect was with Batteroo, without Batteroo or in both tests. Anyone else noticed this too?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: roog on December 30, 2016, 06:58:14 pm
So that's why I'd like to see bare (unsleeved) Eneloops to be included in comparison tests, to suggest to people a much better alternative to Batteroo OR using plain Alkalines. The results will speak for themselves.

I also think this is important. Now that it looks like Batteroo aren't going to save the planet, some are still going to wonder how they can. Showing that rechargables are better than alkaline cells will refute Bateroo's environmental claim. Providing an alternative (especially a demonstrably better one) to Batteroo makes your position much stronger.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 30, 2016, 07:21:52 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl90m2KHbNk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl90m2KHbNk)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 30, 2016, 09:29:10 pm
And even more informative again, including the difference in velocity in percentage.
What kid is going to care about a 10% velocity difference vs almost double the run time and 150 laps extra?

(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=281732;image)

Typical engineer...   :palm:

I would have made the percentage difference axis go from 0% to 100%. It shows more 'truth' than the engineer-optimized 0% to 12% scale, ie. that the difference is tiny.

I'll give the video a  :-+ though. It's what the public needed.


Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: mikerj on December 30, 2016, 09:41:47 pm
We now have an application specific unit of energy: the 'lap minute'.  Measure the area under each curve and see what the difference is :)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 30, 2016, 09:50:19 pm
Typical engineer...   :palm:

I like to see my data points, sue me  :P
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 30, 2016, 10:05:42 pm
We need to know why the train/mp3 player do so badly with Batteriser.

If we take the amount of energy needed to get the train around the track as our unit of measure then the Batteriser is only about 60% efficient.

That's a plausible figure when you're working with low voltages and tiny components but is it really that bad after all the hype we've seen? No wonder Bob has been trying to keep them away from engineers.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: bktemp on December 30, 2016, 10:20:30 pm
We need to know why the train/mp3 player do so badly with Batteriser.

If we take the amount of energy needed to get the train around the track as our unit of measure then the Batteriser is only about 60% efficient.
The Batteriser/boost converter is more efficient than 60%, but it draws more current from the battery, increasing the internal losses. The amount of energy you get out of a battery decreases if you draw more current.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 30, 2016, 10:28:28 pm
The amount of energy you get out of a battery decreases if you draw more current.

That's true... I forgot about that.

It's only going to draw about 30% more though, is that enough to explain the difference? I guess it's a combination of everything.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on December 30, 2016, 11:04:27 pm
We need to know why the train/mp3 player do so badly with Batteriser.

Typical engineer ...  :palm:

We will get to that.  Real world tests needed to come first.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 30, 2016, 11:07:28 pm
We need to know why the train/mp3 player do so badly with Batteriser.
Typical engineer ...  :palm:

We will get to that.  Real world tests need to come first.

Scientific method  :)

1) Observation
2) Theory (if Dave's going away then we can theorize...)
...
3) Prediction
4) Experiment
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 30, 2016, 11:10:58 pm
We need to know why the train/mp3 player do so badly with Batteriser.
If we take the amount of energy needed to get the train around the track as our unit of measure then the Batteriser is only about 60% efficient.

From Frank Buss's testing.
The train will be higher current than shown here though, but it should be reasonably efficient. The problem is the extra current draw from the battery as the batt voltage drops and the converter is delivering constant power. Also, no thermal testing has been done, don't know the motor/gear properties etc, so we don't know how those play a role.

(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=279688)

Ballpark cals: Let's say a nominal 1000mAh AAA capacity. 2hr 49min run time = 350mA motor current.
Roughly confirmed here:
(http://i.imgur.com/eNKPviv.png)

350mA x 1.5V = 525mW constant power with the Batteriser.

From same Duracell datasheet capacity at 0.5W drops to about 550mAh
(http://i.imgur.com/y6D87rw.png)

Basically matches the runtime result we see
550mAh/1000mAh = 94min/169min
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: max_torque on December 30, 2016, 11:13:34 pm
We need to know why the train/mp3 player do so badly with Batteriser.

If we take the amount of energy needed to get the train around the track as our unit of measure then the Batteriser is only about 60% efficient.

That's a plausible figure when you're working with low voltages and tiny components but is it really that bad after all the hype we've seen? No wonder Bob has been trying to keep them away from engineers.

There is likely to be a signficant reduction in the efficiency of the train as well as the voltage increases!  Small, cheap, brushed motors have terrible hysteretic iron losses, that increases rapidly with motor speed.  It's not unusual to see a 15% reduction in efficiency from just a 5% "Overspeed"

One test that would be interesting would be to power the train with Daves Lab PSU (using a pair of long wires to allow it to continue to loop round the track a few times before getting twisted up!) and record the power consumption at various supply voltages!


The biggest irony is that because batteries are electrochemical, ie, the movement of Ions within the compounds of the battery create the electron flow, this is a electromechanical process and hence it is "rate" dependent.  Pull lots of electrons (high current) from the battery, and there is simply not enough time for Brownian motion to stir the chemicals to provide enough ions, so the battery goes "flat" (ie, output voltage falls).    The Bateroo, being a boost convertor, actually loads the battery with a higher average current (on a passive load) and so requires a higher rate of ionic movement, and hence actually renders a proportion of the electrochemical energy un-useable!  From the train test, it looks like, for a typical AAA battery, that un-useable proportion is larger than the un-used (due to insufficient voltage) portion without the Bateroo.....

What we would need to see if the discharge curves for these batteries at a range of different discharge rates. In all cases, i'd expect the lowest possible discharge rate to be able to extract the largest total energy from the battery.


Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: SaabFAN on December 30, 2016, 11:18:34 pm
I just ordered a set of Sleeves for D-Cells.
Let's see how well they work in the big MagLite that starts to get noticeably dimmer after just 2 hours of use :)

I'm also curious to see how well they handle a C/20 discharge of a D-Cell. They are rated for about 12000mAh so the current will be in the area of about 5A!

Have you tried High Current (C/10 and C/20) discharges yet?

Btw. I just realized: It might be entirely possible that this was their Plan - Make ridiculous claims, get all the engineers riled up and then sell the product to them so they can disprove the marketing-claims :D
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: daveake on December 30, 2016, 11:24:13 pm
Btw. I just realized: It might be entirely possible that this was their Plan - Make ridiculous claims, get all the engineers riled up and then sell the product to them so they can disprove the marketing-claims :D

And with the bonus that eventually some actual workable use-cases turn up from all the testing ...
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: SaabFAN on December 30, 2016, 11:30:59 pm

One test that would be interesting would be to power the train with Daves Lab PSU (using a pair of long wires to allow it to continue to loop round the track a few times before getting twisted up!) and record the power consumption at various supply voltages!

You could use some solder wick as wipers that connect to the battery-terminals aluminium-foil glued to each side of the tracks that is connected to wires.
That way you can have the train run continuously with the PSU or with the batteries in a battery-holder.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 30, 2016, 11:32:59 pm
And with the bonus that eventually some actual workable use-cases turn up from all the testing ...

Given that they just asked me to do formal contract testing for them, it get the impression they have done bugger-all testing. And that shows in their public examples. It can't be that hard to find a genuine product it would give good results in, especially given the years they have been working on this and the money invested.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankD on December 30, 2016, 11:35:16 pm
Hooking up a few coaches would have shortened the batterroochoochoo test considerably. A real train aficionado would have known this.  :-DD
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on December 30, 2016, 11:36:44 pm
You could use some solder wick as wipers that connect to the battery-terminals aluminium-foil glued to each side of the tracks that is connected to wires.
That way you can have the train run continuously with the PSU or with the batteries in a battery-holder.

You would not need a lot of time to get some characteristic readings.  Sliding contacts would be a nightmare.  Several turns of twisted wire is easy to work with and the connections would be rock solid.  You could even do 4 wire measurements.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 30, 2016, 11:44:55 pm
You would not need a lot of time to get some characteristic readings.  Sliding contacts would be a nightmare.  Several turns of twisted wire is easy to work with and the connections would be rock solid.  You could even do 4 wire measurements.

Don't know if this model train has a junction track part, but you can avoid wire twisting with an 8-shaped track.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 31, 2016, 12:21:09 am
From same Duracell datasheet capacity at 0.5W drops to about 550mAh

Batteriser is basically busted right there.

Even if Batteriser is 100% efficient/perfect: Boosting the voltage by X% will decrease available battery power by more than X%.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: TechnicalBen on December 31, 2016, 02:38:08 am
We need to know why the train/mp3 player do so badly with Batteriser.

If we take the amount of energy needed to get the train around the track as our unit of measure then the Batteriser is only about 60% efficient.

That's a plausible figure when you're working with low voltages and tiny components but is it really that bad after all the hype we've seen? No wonder Bob has been trying to keep them away from engineers.

There is likely to be a signficant reduction in the efficiency of the train as well as the voltage increases!  Small, cheap, brushed motors have terrible hysteretic iron losses, that increases rapidly with motor speed.  It's not unusual to see a 15% reduction in efficiency from just a 5% "Overspeed"

One test that would be interesting would be to power the train with Daves Lab PSU (using a pair of long wires to allow it to continue to loop round the track a few times before getting twisted up!) and record the power consumption at various supply voltages!


The biggest irony is that because batteries are electrochemical, ie, the movement of Ions within the compounds of the battery create the electron flow, this is a electromechanical process and hence it is "rate" dependent.  Pull lots of electrons (high current) from the battery, and there is simply not enough time for Brownian motion to stir the chemicals to provide enough ions, so the battery goes "flat" (ie, output voltage falls).    The Bateroo, being a boost convertor, actually loads the battery with a higher average current (on a passive load) and so requires a higher rate of ionic movement, and hence actually renders a proportion of the electrochemical energy un-useable!  From the train test, it looks like, for a typical AAA battery, that un-useable proportion is larger than the un-used (due to insufficient voltage) portion without the Bateroo.....

What we would need to see if the discharge curves for these batteries at a range of different discharge rates. In all cases, i'd expect the lowest possible discharge rate to be able to extract the largest total energy from the battery.

So your saying I need to plug in the Batterizer upside down to reduce the voltage draw and extend the battery performance... interesting.

(I hope you note the sarcasm! :D So they shot themselves in the foot with this one. :( )
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: PeterL on December 31, 2016, 04:09:10 am
On the long thread someone mentioned that a Canon Powershot camera could be a candidate for a batteriser, since these work notoriously bad on alkalines.

Digital camera's were also a point of attention in the 'zinniker report' (http://www2.ife.ee.ethz.ch/~rolfz/batak/ICBR2003_Zinniker.pdf (http://www2.ife.ee.ethz.ch/~rolfz/batak/ICBR2003_Zinniker.pdf))

So I made some current measurements with my old 'Canon PowerShot S2 IS', just to see what currents this actually draws.

The camera has a 'ready' mode in which it draws approx 300mA, then when you do something like taking a picture, or start to zoom, current go op to 400 or 500 mA, with spykes up to 700mA. Highest currents are when taking a flash photo, at which point current tops at 800mA.

Measurements were taken with a linear power supply, set to 5.5V or thereabout.  (the camera needs 4 AA's)
Some screenshots are attached below for those interested.

It would be interesting to see how the batteriser handles these currents and spykes.

I can't image the batteriser will fit in this compartment btw, see last picture.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: eeFearless on December 31, 2016, 04:33:10 am
Hi!

I'm new to the forum.  Interesting thread, but TL;DR.

I wonder if they had a different system design, if the thing could have added sufficient value.?

Pass-through voltage until the battery droops to 1.1V, then boost to only 1.2V as the battery drops to 0.6V?

An improvement, but still probably wouldn't have been worth it ... though ...


But, if you're really motivated by the environment, then use rechargeable batteries ...
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: 6581 on December 31, 2016, 05:08:10 am
They will not tell you the battery could still be useful, because that destroys the purpose of their marketing.
Likewise they will not tell you that the Batteriser will give you less life in many products

They also don't mention:
a) That it doesn't actually fit in many products and might break unless you use special tools to insert it.
b) That it could be dangerous in any critical products that require a working battery gauge (eg. smoke alarms, CO sensors).

Just in case anyone is interested - just replaced battery in a smoke detector and measured the open circuit voltage of the battery that was continuously (from new) in that detector since may/2012 (4,5 years) - it measured 8,02v. It didn't sound the beep to change (!!!), but obviously it was way over due. Battery was Varta Longlife alkaline, manufactured in 2011. My ZTS Mini MBT battery tester indicated "dead" (flashing 20% light):
https://www.ztsinc.com/minimbt.html (https://www.ztsinc.com/minimbt.html)

Smoke detector manufacturer Marelco (model unknown.) I didn't test it with the self test before taking the battery out, but after measuring open circuit voltage and using battery tester, went to place the battery back to the unit and the self test was ok (!!!) it sounded the alarm very, very loud. (Obviously I did put the new battery back in afterwards.)

New battery happens to be the same model - open voltage 9,66v, in device it WAS 9,66v and dropped to about 9,2 and then started climbing back up - during self test the battery voltage dipped perhaps 0,02v. I believe there's a cap inside and proper testing would require discharging it. Thought this might be interesting. :-)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 31, 2016, 05:31:23 am
And with the bonus that eventually some actual workable use-cases turn up from all the testing ...

Given that they just asked me to do formal contract testing for them, it get the impression they have done bugger-all testing. And that shows in their public examples. It can't be that hard to find a genuine product it would give good results in, especially given the years they have been working on this and the money invested.

seriously..? By "they" you mean Batteroo? They're talking to you now?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: rollatorwieltje on December 31, 2016, 05:34:28 am

Just in case anyone is interested - just replaced battery in a smoke detector and measured the open circuit voltage of the battery that was continuously (from new) in that detector since may/2012 (4,5 years) - it measured 8,02v. It didn't sound the beep to change (!!!), but obviously it was way over due.
8.02V is nowhere near dead. A 9V battery is just 6 cells in series, it's dead when it's near 6V (when you consider 1V per cell as cutoff). Granted, you don't want to run them completely down in a smoke alarm. My smoke alarms start beeping when it drops below 7.4V, that's still more than 1.2V per cell.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: drussell on December 31, 2016, 05:37:18 am
Pass-through voltage until the battery droops to 1.1V, then boost to only 1.2V as the battery drops to 0.6V?

This was all discussed at length in the other thread....

A booster for rechargeables to mimic carbon-zinc/alkaline would be more useful...
A boost/buck converter with an output of 1.2 volts could extend the life of carbon-zinc/alkaline cells in some products where a rechargeable works satisfactorily, etc...

The product they built, however, is virtually useless.

Given that they just asked me to do formal contract testing for them, it get the impression they have done bugger-all testing. And that shows in their public examples. It can't be that hard to find a genuine product it would give good results in, especially given the years they have been working on this and the money invested.

Indeed...  Despite the fact that they have kept saying that they have tested it in many, many devices and they supposedly fit in almost all devices and provide great gains in longevity in all these devices, as expected, the reality is nothing of the sort!  :)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: drussell on December 31, 2016, 05:40:14 am
seriously..? By "they" you mean Batteroo? They're talking to you now?

Yup...   :-DD

http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/msg1101276/#msg1101276 (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/msg1101276/#msg1101276)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Poe on December 31, 2016, 06:24:44 am
The amount of energy you get out of a battery decreases if you draw more current.

That's true... I forgot about that.

It's only going to draw about 30% more though, is that enough to explain the difference? I guess it's a combination of everything.

My Olympus SP350 only lasts 50 flash pictures on a fresh set of batteries (<30min). 

Most two cell, non-LED based flash cameras are like this. 

Would be interesting to see how it handles this massive load considering the miniature size of their magnetics.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on December 31, 2016, 06:34:22 am
I updated the spreadsheet. I did the test with the MP3 player again, this time fresh battery without Battery until it was dead, then waiting for 2 days, like for the Batteroo test, but using this battery again without the Batteroo sleeve. Extra time was 71 minutes, compared to 109 minutes with Batteroo. So Batteroo has a little bit of use for this device, maybe because of the high cutout voltage of 1.1 V. Dave's MP3 player extra time was 30 minutes and 45 minutes with Batteroo, and cutout voltage 0.9 V. Of course, doesn't matter much if you compare this with the 10 times higher initial time with a fresh battery, still far away from the 8x claim. And the drastically reduced time if you use Batteroo from the beginning with a fresh battery doesn't help either.

And I added the tests from Ysjoelfir: more than 8 hours without Batteroo, multiple tests with Batteroo, where the light bulbs lasted between 60 and 90 minutes until they were destroyed.
Title: Batteroo testing
Post by: 6581 on December 31, 2016, 06:53:23 am

Just in case anyone is interested - just replaced battery in a smoke detector and measured the open circuit voltage of the battery that was continuously (from new) in that detector since may/2012 (4,5 years) - it measured 8,02v. It didn't sound the beep to change (!!!), but obviously it was way over due.
8.02V is nowhere near dead. A 9V battery is just 6 cells in series, it's dead when it's near 6V (when you consider 1V per cell as cutoff). Granted, you don't want to run them completely down in a smoke alarm. My smoke alarms start beeping when it drops below 7.4V, that's still more than 1.2V per cell.
Well aware of that (6 cells in series) - although we all probably agree that open circuit voltage is not a good measure of the energy left in a battery... just saying that after 4,5 years one should definitely change the battery. Didn't recycle it either - it may still find its way to some less safety critical application.

Edit: sorry, probably going too far off topic.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: ez24 on December 31, 2016, 07:02:50 am
Hooking up a few coaches would have shortened the batterroochoochoo test considerably. A real train aficionado would have known this.  :-DD

I asked that the cargo wagon be connected and have a load so a load test could be done.  I wonder why the testers don't use the cars that come with the train because that is what a child would do  ie a child would do a load test.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: StillTrying on December 31, 2016, 07:43:26 am
You'd need a miracle to get 4 batteroo slaves in and out of there.

(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=281909)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dcac on December 31, 2016, 07:51:52 am
For reference, it would be interesting to run the train test with a good quality NiMH rechargeable AAA battery, without the batter wasterisers! as they will only have the same negative effect as on the Alkalines.

NiMH has comparable mAh to Alkaline, though the voltage is lower, in the beginning, but it would even out at the end of the run. And the NiMH could possibly last longer than Alkaline. 
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dcac on December 31, 2016, 08:00:56 am
You'd need a miracle to get 4 batteroo slaves in and out of there.


I have an old Canon Powershot A640 which also uses 4 AA and they fit as snugly as cartridges in a gun. I use black Envelopes in it, seems to last forever.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 31, 2016, 08:23:47 am
NiMH has comparable mAh to Alkaline, though the voltage is lower, in the beginning, but it would even out at the end of the run. And the NiMH could possibly last longer than Alkaline.

Realistically... it's looking like NO battery/device is going to last longer with Batteriser than without it.

Passive devices: So far have only lasted 50% to 60% as long as a bare battery.

Active devices: No possible gain, probably a loss because a) Batteriser isn't 100% efficient and b) Betteriser isn't optimized for each individual device's power needs like the built-in circuitry is.

Also: Batteriser doesn't appear to be using up 100% of the Battery's available power. Dave ran a torch for 16 hours on a Battery that Batteriser had finished with.

Fail, fail, fail.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Stuart Coyle on December 31, 2016, 09:05:27 am
I just did a back of the envelope energy calculation based on Dave's train test. I ignore the static friction and only take into account kinetic friction, as the train only starts once. The work the train has to do to keep a constant velocity is the friction force F times the distance travelled S, (Yes, yes I know its an integral but this is an envelope with limited space...). So in the Batterizer case we get only about 351/508 * 100% = 70% of the energy.

Ah, but there is also kinetic energy! With the Batterizer the train runs 10% faster. So the energy (mv^2)/2 is 1.1^2 = 1.21 times as much as the non batterizer case.

This overall gain or loss of energy (-30% vs +20%), depending on the friction force and the mass of the train. In the case in the video it seems that friction dominates, and it would be a loss. Kinetic energy would be a very small proportion of total energy over such a long test. A measurement of kinetic friction and mass of the train would clarify this.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: djos on December 31, 2016, 09:09:32 am
You'd need a miracle to get 4 batteroo slaves in and out of there.

(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=281909)

Those little gaps joining each of the cells could allow them to be installed if you align the sleeves up with them.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 31, 2016, 09:23:49 am
NiMH has comparable mAh to Alkaline, though the voltage is lower, in the beginning, but it would even out at the end of the run. And the NiMH could possibly last longer than Alkaline.
Realistically... it's looking like NO battery/device is going to last longer with Batteriser than without it.
Passive devices: So far have only lasted 50% to 60% as long as a bare battery.
Active devices: No possible gain, probably a loss because a) Batteriser isn't 100% efficient and b) Betteriser isn't optimized for each individual device's power needs like the built-in circuitry is.

I maintain that it's certainly still possible. Just need a combination of a low dropout voltage, low enough current draw to not be a problem, and those losses being less than the converter losses.
There should certainly be products out there both active and passive that fulfill this requirement, but not a huge number.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 31, 2016, 09:27:22 am
From same Duracell datasheet capacity at 0.5W drops to about 550mAh
Batteriser is basically busted right there.
Even if Batteriser is 100% efficient/perfect: Boosting the voltage by X% will decrease available battery power by more than X%.

Basically, yep!
And batteriser actually admit this with them saying you can get either a performance increase (with commensurate loss of run time), or extra run time, you can't have both.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: drussell on December 31, 2016, 09:29:01 am
Those little gaps joining each of the cells could allow them to be installed if you align the sleeves up with them.

Sure...  Wedge them right in there...     :-DD

Wedge them right in there so tight that they short between each other and whatever electrochemical energy is in there tries to burst out in a rage of angry pixies trying their best to blow up a cell or just generally burst into flames...  :)

Does anyone have a link to a consolidated list of all those safety claims they were making, touting how much safer your childrens' toys would be with Batteroo Sleeves on them, etc?   :scared:
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on December 31, 2016, 09:29:48 am
I asked that the cargo wagon be connected and have a load so a load test could be done.  I wonder why the testers don't use the cars that come with the train because that is what a child would do  ie a child would do a load test.

It's just more variability in friction etc, and more things that can go wrong with the test  (a wheel snag causing uncoupling etc).
I have a 6yo and he generally likes to run just the engines.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: djos on December 31, 2016, 10:02:56 am
Those little gaps joining each of the cells could allow them to be installed if you align the sleeves up with them.

Sure...  Wedge them right in there...     :-DD

Wedge them right in there so tight that they short between each other and whatever electrochemical energy is in there tries to burst out in a rage of angry pixies trying their best to blow up a cell or just generally burst into flames...  :)

Does anyone have a link to a consolidated list of all those safety claims they were making, touting how much safer your childrens' toys would be with Batteroo Sleeves on them, etc?   :scared:

As long as we catch it on video to show just how useless they are.  :popcorn:
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on December 31, 2016, 10:07:40 am
I asked that the cargo wagon be connected and have a load so a load test could be done.  I wonder why the testers don't use the cars that come with the train because that is what a child would do  ie a child would do a load test.

It's just more variability in friction etc, and more things that can go wrong with the test  (a wheel snag causing uncoupling etc).
I have a 6yo and he generally likes to run just the engines.

Now that's proper real-world testing.  Performed just how a typical user would use the DUT!
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: mc172 on December 31, 2016, 11:10:01 am
And batteriser actually admit this with them saying you can get either a performance increase (with commensurate loss of run time), or extra run time, you can't have both.

That statement (from them) is actually false, as you can't even choose which you get!
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: mintsoft on December 31, 2016, 11:43:50 am
It's just more variability in friction etc, and more things that can go wrong with the test  (a wheel snag causing uncoupling etc).
I have a 6yo and he generally likes to run just the engines.
And that right there is an authority on the subject!
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on December 31, 2016, 12:13:27 pm
From same Duracell datasheet capacity at 0.5W drops to about 550mAh
Batteriser is basically busted right there.
Even if Batteriser is 100% efficient/perfect: Boosting the voltage by X% will decrease available battery power by more than X%.

Basically, yep!
And batteriser actually admit this with them saying you can get either a performance increase (with commensurate loss of run time), or extra run time, you can't have both.
And I think that's exactly where their whole marketing falls apart and is probably doomed to fail -  they start off by saying it offers either this benefit or that benefit with no explanation, which will just confuse the avarage consumer, who is already clueless about the issues.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: BrianHG on December 31, 2016, 05:19:19 pm
Ok, all these tests are being done with premium Duracell/Energizer.  I would like to see the tests redone with brand new, super cheap alkaline batteries, the 10cent / battery, the really light ones which have barely any alkaline in them.  I would consider this a valid test since many may buy a batteriser just so they can now use the cheapest low cost batteries with them.  Now I expect the batteriser to perform even worse here, leading to even more wasted battery purchasing and then throwing all those additional batteries in the garbage even sooner creating a larger negative environmental impact.

Based on environmental issues, I wonder if we can get the batteriser taxed in some countries where there may be strict regulations on such material wasting devices.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on December 31, 2016, 05:47:17 pm
It's just more variability in friction etc, and more things that can go wrong with the test  (a wheel snag causing uncoupling etc).
I have a 6yo and he generally likes to run just the engines.
And that right there is an authority on the subject!
It probably goes a lot faster with just the engine.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: sleemanj on December 31, 2016, 11:15:05 pm
EC-Projects has been doing some testing, just appeared in my Youtube subs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8-7NWbZgBE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8-7NWbZgBE)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXPFvRSpEYc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXPFvRSpEYc)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on January 01, 2017, 12:02:53 am
Interesting videos. So it doesn't make sense to use it in a flashlight with an incandescent light bulb either, as expected, and it fails in the clocks, too. I wonder why the radio controlled clock doesn't synchronize, maybe too much EMI interference from the sleeve?

Good to see the better quiescent current measurement, my multimeter must have been confused by the pulses, looks like it is 14.4 uA, not 2 uA.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: madires on January 01, 2017, 12:13:40 am
Interesting videos. So it doesn't make sense to use it in a flashlight with an incandescent light bulb either, as expected, and it fails in the clocks, too. I wonder why the radio controlled clock doesn't synchronize, maybe too much EMI interference from the sleeve?

That was my thought also. The radio clock should be happy with the 1.5V per sleeve and doesn't draw much current. IIRC, EMI is already on the to-do list. Anyone with the proper T&M gear for EMI?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: bktemp on January 01, 2017, 12:30:31 am
I wonder why the radio controlled clock doesn't synchronize, maybe too much EMI interference from the sleeve?
Most radio controlled clock receivers are very sensitive to ripple on the power supply. Most modules for use with a microcontroller have, or suggest a RC lowpass filter of 100ohms+10-100uF on the supply voltage. Battery powered clocks probably skip this, because the battery voltage is considered as a clean power supply.

EMI measurements are probably difficult because of the load dependent burst rate: The low frequency ripple can be anywhere between 10Hz and 100kHz.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: nctnico on January 01, 2017, 12:47:53 am
There should certainly be products out there both active and passive that fulfill this requirement, but not a huge number.
I have not read the entire thread so forgive me if someone already suggested this:
It seems the loss of the Batteroo is way more than what you'd expect based on efficiency alone. IMHO what would be a good (scientific) approach is to measure the ESR of several batteries and chemistries over a wide frequency range (say 10Hz to 1MHz) and also measure what kind of (pulsed?) load the Batteroo is to the battery using various load currents & voltages. Someone already mentioned the ESR of the battery makes things worse with pulsed loads and I think that would be a good place to start looking. This test should also reveal if there is any chance of the Batteroo working as promised or not.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Delta on January 01, 2017, 12:49:14 am
I would like to see (and hear) these things tested on an AM/FM radio.

I run my trusty Tecsun on 3x AA rechargables, and when it's charging via USB, AM is pretty much unlistenable due to the switching noise from most USB PSUs... (Apple ones seem to be the worst, incidentally....)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: BrianHG on January 01, 2017, 01:08:11 am
I would like to see (and hear) these things test on an AM/FM radio.

I run my trusty Tecsun on 3x AA rechargables, and when it's charging via USB, AM is pretty much unlistenable due to the switching noise from most USB PSUs... (Apple ones seem to be the worst, incidentally....)

Good point, I bet the batterizer designers never considered radio interference.  I wonder if it has FCC approvals...  I remember in my car around 15 years ago, when I ran my 12vdc to 120vac inverter, my FM radio reception of far off radio stations would mute in and out due to interference from the internal switching supply, and the device was even sealed in a metal case...
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: madires on January 01, 2017, 01:12:20 am
The AM/FM radio is another good idea! I do my EMI tests with a shortwave receiver usually ;)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on January 01, 2017, 03:23:39 am
Good point, I bet the batterizer designers never considered radio interference.  I wonder if it has FCC approvals... 

Yes, a FFC test was done, with a 1 kOhm resistor:

https://www.batteroo.com/downloads/Batteroo_Report_FCC.pdf (https://www.batteroo.com/downloads/Batteroo_Report_FCC.pdf)

I've done a test with a 1 kOhm resistor as well, but only for the output voltage, and ripple was 200 mV:

http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/msg1096136/#msg1096136 (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/msg1096136/#msg1096136)

So EMI might be no problem, but the high ripple, which EcProjects noticed, too in his videos.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: LabSpokane on January 01, 2017, 03:25:27 am
I would like to see (and hear) these things test on an AM/FM radio.

I run my trusty Tecsun on 3x AA rechargables, and when it's charging via USB, AM is pretty much unlistenable due to the switching noise from most USB PSUs... (Apple ones seem to be the worst, incidentally....)

Good point, I bet the batterizer designers never considered radio interference.  I wonder if it has FCC approvals...  I remember in my car around 15 years ago, when I ran my 12vdc to 120vac inverter, my FM radio reception of far off radio stations would mute in and out due to interference from the internal switching supply, and the device was even sealed in a metal case...

I and others pointed this out many moons ago. Anything with a spurious signal over 15kHz falls under part FCC 15. This renders most switch mode devices subject to FCC regulation and means the Batteroo must comply with Part B. It would be interesting to see if the FCC approval label is listed on the package and the device.

Conducted emissions are regulated as well, which is likely whats affecting the clock. Here's a good article on EMC compliance for Batteroo to reference on switch mode supplies:  http://www.digikey.com/en/articles/techzone/2012/jun/understanding-electromagnetic-compatibility-standards-for-switch-mode-power-supplies (http://www.digikey.com/en/articles/techzone/2012/jun/understanding-electromagnetic-compatibility-standards-for-switch-mode-power-supplies)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: drussell on January 01, 2017, 04:42:52 am
It seems the loss of the Batteroo is way more than what you'd expect based on efficiency alone.

Why do you say the losses are more than expected?  It seems just as expected to me.

- The inefficiency of the converter itself is going to waste a huge amount of power while doing the boosting.
- The power delivered to most loads is going to be at its highest for the whole time it runs because of the constant 1.5v supplied to it, using far more power than it normally would with plain cells.
- Each cell itself is going to be discharged at a much faster rate because of these factors, leading to significantly reduced total cell life.

This is why manufacturers don't put boost converters in things like toy trains.  :)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Hensingler on January 01, 2017, 05:09:00 am
This is why manufacturers don't put boost converters in things like toy trains.  :)

In the best quality toy trains they would but they would also design the motor to be efficient at the boosted voltage.

Most radio controlled clock receivers are very sensitive to ripple on the power supply.

What does the clock work on where he is? Probably WWVB at 60kHz with 70kW output for the whole of the united states. You are trying to pick up a tiny signal on an internal ferrite rod antenna then stick a pair unshielded inductors carrying 10s of mAs of current spikes a couple of inches away - what do you think is going to happen?

His complaints about the radio not working well on low batteries is probably because they couldn't accept the noise from a switch mode boost converter to provide a stable voltage.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on January 01, 2017, 07:49:05 am
Good point, I bet the batterizer designers never considered radio interference.  I wonder if it has FCC approvals... 

Yes, a FFC test was done, with a 1 kOhm resistor:

https://www.batteroo.com/downloads/Batteroo_Report_FCC.pdf (https://www.batteroo.com/downloads/Batteroo_Report_FCC.pdf)

I've done a test with a 1 kOhm resistor as well, but only for the output voltage, and ripple was 200 mV:

http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/msg1096136/#msg1096136 (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/msg1096136/#msg1096136)

So EMI might be no problem, but the high ripple, which EcProjects noticed, too in his videos.
The FCC test was probably done on a prototype with a different IC, and assuming a fresh battery was used, the converter was probably not even switching. It would only start switching when the battery voltage is below 1.5v.

For the converter to be running continuously rather then in burst mode, it would have to be done at probably about 10% or more of the maximum current rating - perhaps 100mA or more. The greatest emissions would be at the maximum current rating and could be at a minimum battery voltage that can sustain that current.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: obrien on January 01, 2017, 11:54:26 am
Every designer of battery powered device must account for the fact that batteries do not provide the nominal voltage under the load.. They either include the boost converter in the device, or design the device so it does work with lower voltages. By using unexpected converter can be actually harming the performance of the device.

E.g. this train contains the DC motor which was probably designed for optimal performance on voltages lower than 1.5V. By feeding it 1.5V it is probably past its optimum point resulting in it being less efficient. That can be the true reason why it stopped so much earlier, the loses in boost converter were probably minor with comparison of motor running on higher than expected voltage..

Anyway I would love to see a proper performance report on wide spectrum of devices :) Expensive to do though..
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: nctnico on January 01, 2017, 12:23:26 pm
It seems the loss of the Batteroo is way more than what you'd expect based on efficiency alone.

Why do you say the losses are more than expected?  It seems just as expected to me.

- The inefficiency of the converter itself is going to waste a huge amount of power while doing the boosting.
- The power delivered to most loads is going to be at its highest for the whole time it runs because of the constant 1.5v supplied to it, using far more power than it normally would with plain cells.
- Each cell itself is going to be discharged at a much faster rate because of these factors, leading to significantly reduced total cell life.
These points have merit but without data to back them up they are just speculation. It needs some serious testing to see what the exact cause of the poor efficiency is so it can be determined what kind of loads would benefit from the Batteroo sleeve and which don't.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Smokey on January 01, 2017, 01:30:58 pm
The sleeve might be beneficial on something like a travel electric shaver (Remington 2xAA) for instance, where performance is more important than longevity.
...

You may say that now until you have your trimmer die half way through, leaving you with a half trimmed face... I'm going to have to say I'd rather have the warning sign of the motor slowing down.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: djacobow on January 01, 2017, 03:52:28 pm
Better a half trimmed face than a half cut whisker with an electric shaver attached to it.

The sleeve might be beneficial on something like a travel electric shaver (Remington 2xAA) for instance, where performance is more important than longevity.
...

You may say that now until you have your trimmer die half way through, leaving you with a half trimmed face... I'm going to have to say I'd rather have the warning sign of the motor slowing down.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on January 01, 2017, 03:53:08 pm
A couple of spare batteries would fix that.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: drussell on January 01, 2017, 07:49:26 pm
These points have merit but without data to back them up they are just speculation.

Fair enough... 

I await the full, proper, performance characteristic information which Batteroo promised about a year ago.... 

The fact that we are having to do their testing for them, well... :palm:

Quote
It needs some serious testing to see what the exact cause of the poor efficiency is so it can be determined what kind of loads would benefit from the Batteroo sleeve and which don't.

I'm not sure why you can't fathom how the overall efficiency would, on average, be so terribly horrible... and I honestly don't believe you're a Batteroo apologist shill or anything, however...

The first person to demonstrably, verifiably, show any product actually benefiting from a Batteroo Sleeve receives my gratitude in the form of $10 CAD sent to them via PayPal to offset the beer consumption that must have accompanied such an arduous adventure as finding the one in a zillion niche product where it actually makes sense to use one of these humorously deceptively marketed quackery-sleeves ...

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: SeanB on January 01, 2017, 08:31:46 pm
The first person to demonstrably, verifiably, show any product actually benefiting from a Batteroo Sleeve receives my gratitude in the form of $10 CAD sent to them via PayPal to offset the beer consumption that must have accompanied such an arduous adventure as finding the one in a zillion niche product where it actually makes sense to use one of these humorously deceptively marketed quackery-sleeves ...

I cannot show you it, but I guess Bob's wallet has benefited from the use of these, to some extent.

Mine, however, is in a sad state. If you wish to make the $10CAD donation, send it to Dave instead. Tell him to have a beer ;)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: DrGeoff on January 01, 2017, 09:36:41 pm
Does this Batteriser continue to use power to regulate the output voltage when the device is switched off?
If so, wouldn't this make is useless as it drains the battery continuously?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: digsys on January 01, 2017, 10:11:09 pm
Quote from: DrGeoff
Does this Batteriser continue to use power to regulate the output voltage when the device is switched off?
If so, wouldn't this make is useless as it drains the battery continuously?
YES, It stays on under ALL conditions, it has NO smarts. The Quiescent current is app 14uA though, so not terrible. No good for devices that run for years
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on January 01, 2017, 10:20:18 pm
Why do you say the losses are more than expected?  It seems just as expected to me.

- The inefficiency of the converter itself is going to waste a huge amount of power while doing the boosting.
- The power delivered to most loads is going to be at its highest for the whole time it runs because of the constant 1.5v supplied to it, using far more power than it normally would with plain cells.
- Each cell itself is going to be discharged at a much faster rate because of these factors, leading to significantly reduced total cell life.
These points have merit but without data to back them up they are just speculation.

Informed speculation, based on the laws of physics. It's not going to be the Easter Bunny stealing the electrons.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on January 01, 2017, 10:24:07 pm
You may say that now until you have your trimmer die half way through, leaving you with a half trimmed face... I'm going to have to say I'd rather have the warning sign of the motor slowing down.

That happened to me once. It's not just that you'll look silly afterwards, the hairs actually get trapped in the screen and you have to rip it off your face. Ouch!

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: BrianHG on January 01, 2017, 10:29:27 pm
The first person to demonstrably, verifiably, show any product actually benefiting from a Batteroo Sleeve receives my gratitude in the form of $10 CAD sent to them via PayPal to offset the beer consumption that must have accompanied such an arduous adventure as finding the one in a zillion niche product where it actually makes sense to use one of these humorously deceptively marketed quackery-sleeves ...

How about if I create a battery powered hand warmer to place inside my gloves, battery included...
All losses introduced by the batteriser are given off as heat, and since I'm powering a resistor with mechanical thermal switch as the heating element to generate the heat, there should be a net 0 loss.  The batteriser basically adds the regulated switching supply my resistor heater circuit is missing improving the design.  This means with my resistor heater element tuned to warm my hands down to  -20 deg.C.  As the battery drains, it will only partially warm my hands without the batteriser.  (Yes, I know the hand warmer will drop dead at 1 point with the batteriser, but, all known inefficiencies due to the voltage step up converter is given off as useful heat to my hand since the battery is in my gloves as well...)

Have I earned your 10$?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: ElektroQuark on January 01, 2017, 10:40:04 pm
Has anyone measured the resistance of the sleeve? It's now part of the "virtual" internal resistance of the battery.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Caca on January 01, 2017, 11:17:17 pm
Good point, I bet the batterizer designers never considered radio interference.  I wonder if it has FCC approvals... 

Yes, a FFC test was done, with a 1 kOhm resistor:

https://www.batteroo.com/downloads/Batteroo_Report_FCC.pdf (https://www.batteroo.com/downloads/Batteroo_Report_FCC.pdf)

I've done a test with a 1 kOhm resistor as well, but only for the output voltage, and ripple was 200 mV:

http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/msg1096136/#msg1096136 (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/msg1096136/#msg1096136)

So EMI might be no problem, but the high ripple, which EcProjects noticed, too in his videos.

This test is nice and all but if I read it correctly it's only radiated emissions and since all the conections in batteriser are really short it wouldn't radiate much, measuring the conducted interference might be much more interesting.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: mikerj on January 02, 2017, 12:01:42 am
It seems the loss of the Batteroo is way more than what you'd expect based on efficiency alone.

Why do you say the losses are more than expected?  It seems just as expected to me.

- The inefficiency of the converter itself is going to waste a huge amount of power while doing the boosting.
- The power delivered to most loads is going to be at its highest for the whole time it runs because of the constant 1.5v supplied to it, using far more power than it normally would with plain cells.
- Each cell itself is going to be discharged at a much faster rate because of these factors, leading to significantly reduced total cell life.
These points have merit but without data to back them up they are just speculation. It needs some serious testing to see what the exact cause of the poor efficiency is so it can be determined what kind of loads would benefit from the Batteroo sleeve and which don't.

These points are not speculation, they are facts based on basic physics.  I suspect what you are trying to say is that each effect should be quantified, which is a different thing entirely.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: nctnico on January 02, 2017, 12:18:14 am
These points have merit but without data to back them up they are just speculation.
Fair enough... 

I await the full, proper, performance characteristic information which Batteroo promised about a year ago.... 

The fact that we are having to do their testing for them, well... :palm:
That is what is holding me back from pulling out the network analyser to measure various batteries and getting some Batteroos to test with. I'd like to have some justification for spending my time.
Quote
Quote
It needs some serious testing to see what the exact cause of the poor efficiency is so it can be determined what kind of loads would benefit from the Batteroo sleeve and which don't.
I'm not sure why you can't fathom how the overall efficiency would, on average, be so terribly horrible...
Dave's toy train test is pretty devastating ( http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-963-batteriser-batteroo-passive-toy-test/ (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-963-batteriser-batteroo-passive-toy-test/) ). He gets about 31% less in travelled distance (=number of laps) from the toy train which has the Batteroo. That is a massive difference and I'm curious to figure out where the energy went. Maybe that knowledge comes in handy one day when designing a battery powered product.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: HighVoltage on January 02, 2017, 12:54:13 am
That is a massive difference and I'm curious to figure out where the energy went. Maybe that knowledge comes in handy one day when designing a battery powered product.
Most likely the higher current pull from the battery is responsible for that.
As soon as the Batteroo starts regulating to try to keep the voltage at 1.5V, it will pull a constantly higher current.
But it is a surprise to me as well, of how bad the Batteroo performs in the real world.
As shown in one of the videos, it is not even capable of keeping the 1.5V constant.
 
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Hensingler on January 02, 2017, 02:56:43 am
That is a massive difference and I'm curious to figure out where the energy went. Maybe that knowledge comes in handy one day when designing a battery powered product.

The train has speed regulation. Without batteriser it's speed does not drop nearly as much as we know the battery voltage must have. The extra average 20% voltage from the batteriser is wasted, the batteriser losses are wasted and increased battery load from wastes decreases it's capacity. A triple whammy of fail producing results I don't find surprising.

If the batteriser had a buck switcher outputting maybe 1v it might well increase the number of laps this train could do on a battery.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: JiggyNinja on January 02, 2017, 05:23:04 am
The first person to demonstrably, verifiably, show any product actually benefiting from a Batteroo Sleeve receives my gratitude in the form of $10 CAD sent to them via PayPal to offset the beer consumption that must have accompanied such an arduous adventure as finding the one in a zillion niche product where it actually makes sense to use one of these humorously deceptively marketed quackery-sleeves ...

How about if I create a battery powered hand warmer to place inside my gloves, battery included...
All losses introduced by the batteriser are given off as heat, and since I'm powering a resistor with mechanical thermal switch as the heating element to generate the heat, there should be a net 0 loss.  The batteriser basically adds the regulated switching supply my resistor heater circuit is missing improving the design.  This means with my resistor heater element tuned to warm my hands down to  -20 deg.C.  As the battery drains, it will only partially warm my hands without the batteriser.  (Yes, I know the hand warmer will drop dead at 1 point with the batteriser, but, all known inefficiencies due to the voltage step up converter is given off as useful heat to my hand since the battery is in my gloves as well...)

Have I earned your 10$?
If you're designing your own product, you design your own power supply instead of relying on whatever garbage Batteroo used in their circuit. That way the power regulation is specifically tuned for your load instead of dealing with whatever Batteroo thinks is good enough for a generic, unspecified load.

TL;DR for the rest: It's clear that Batteroo has been a scam from the very beginning. What's next?

It is an awful state of affairs that the various real engineers here and elsewhere have had to put 1,000x more effort into DEBUNKING this useless piece of shit than Batteroo ever put into justifying their claims. Their banner spec was not more consistent performance or a minor boost to battery life, it was 8X LONGER!!!!, and their derivation (if it can be called that) of that figure was not "grossly oversimplified", it was fraudulently ignorant. And on top of that, their numbers weren't even consistent! They were saying 8x longer in some spots, and "80% unused energy" in another, which is 1/5th used. Those two numbers don't match. The defenders only offer strawmen, double standards, and moving goalposts in response to thorough criticism.

In a just world, just FrankBuss's results were infinitely more thorough and honest than anything they ever showed. In a just world, we would only have to throw those results back in their face and say "Your move". Unfortunately, we do not live in a just world.

There is quite literally no excuse for their behavior during their entire campaign. An honest campaign would have shown a proof-of-concept using normal-size components getting their 8X LONGER!!!! banner spec, then said "we want money to work on miniaturizing this". After all, if they can't get the performance they need out of existing modern components, there's no way in hell their weird, esoteric production process for making smaller components could beat ones that aren't restrained by size.

They didn't do that. They had nothing solid, and all their explanations at the beginning were voodoo engineering instead of anything legit. If they didn't know it was a heap of shit they were selling at the beginning, they would have found out very quickly when they tried to actually implemented it. The results from Dave and others are so unambiguous that there can be no dispute that Batteroo know that it's a dud. Given their vagueness from the beginning, I'm 95% sure it was never anything more than a con  anyway.

The question then should probably turn to legal remedies. They are making money off of fraud. IANAL, but the US does have lemon laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_law) that might form the basis of a backlash against this, and I'm sure other countries will have similar consumer protection laws. They've probably never been used against a crowdfunding campaign, but everything's got to start somewhere. If this was a high-profile enough campaign it might be a good test case. That might depend on whether crowdfunding backers are considered "consumers" or "investors" though. I believe there are less protections for investors, which would provide way too huge of a loophole for these slimy bastards to ooze through.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: nctnico on January 02, 2017, 06:23:38 am
That is a massive difference and I'm curious to figure out where the energy went. Maybe that knowledge comes in handy one day when designing a battery powered product.
The train has speed regulation.
I doubt that because it would increase the price without any purpose. I just checked the video again and the train runs faster with the Batteroo so if the train has any kind of speed regulation it works poorly.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: drussell on January 02, 2017, 06:51:53 am
I doubt that because it would increase the price without any purpose. I just checked the video again and the train runs faster with the Batteroo so if the train has any kind of speed regulation it works poorly.

It doesn't have electronic speed regulation, just the way the motor is made mechanically makes it want to operate towards a certain RPM range...
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on January 02, 2017, 07:07:50 am
I doubt that because it would increase the price without any purpose. I just checked the video again and the train runs faster with the Batteroo so if the train has any kind of speed regulation it works poorly.

It doesn't have electronic speed regulation, just the way the motor is made mechanically makes it want to operate towards a certain RPM range...

It's also a function of the reduction gearbox, with the motor turning at high rpm and the train moving very slowly.
We saw inside the train, and as you guys are saying, there's no circuitry, it's just a cell, a motor, and a reduction gearbox (plus a tiny incandescent bulb).
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: RandomTask on January 02, 2017, 07:32:39 am

The question then should probably turn to legal remedies. They are making money off of fraud. IANAL, but the US does have lemon laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_law) that might form the basis of a backlash against this, and I'm sure other countries will have similar consumer protection laws. They've probably never been used against a crowdfunding campaign, but everything's got to start somewhere. If this was a high-profile enough campaign it might be a good test case. That might depend on whether crowdfunding backers are considered "consumers" or "investors" though. I believe there are less protections for investors, which would provide way too huge of a loophole for these slimy bastards to ooze through.

At most, a US court would require them to revise their claim "language" and force them to refund $$ to anyone who filed a complaint claiming they were misled.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: obrien on January 02, 2017, 07:47:31 am
...
It's also a function of the reduction gearbox, with the motor turning at high rpm and the train moving very slowly.
...
I would bet the motor is designed to be optimal somewhere around 1.3-1.0V as it is the most typical range for battery. So when we feed it 1.5 constantly it does go faster but it's way less efficient, which result in very fast discharge. I do not believe the loses in batteroo itself can explain such a drastically poor performance.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dr_frost_dk on January 02, 2017, 09:06:59 am
...
It's also a function of the reduction gearbox, with the motor turning at high rpm and the train moving very slowly.
...
I would bet the motor is designed to be optimal somewhere around 1.3-1.0V as it is the most typical range for battery. So when we feed it 1.5 constantly it does go faster but it's way less efficient, which result in very fast discharge. I do not believe the loses in batteroo itself can explain such a drastically poor performance.

The flashlight test got about the same result in runtime
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXPFvRSpEYc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXPFvRSpEYc)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: JiggyNinja on January 02, 2017, 09:19:10 am
I do not believe the loses in batteroo itself can explain such a drastically poor performance.
Why can't they? Their claims have been such transparent bullshit from the beginning I can easily believe that they did no significant engineering for this, and just slapped together some assortment of components with OK-ish values so that it kind-of "works", even though it doesn't provide good performance. If the inductor's resistance is high, the ferrite is lossy, and the switch has high saturation voltage, I can easily see this thing getting 60-70% or worse at higher current draws. FrankBuss's graph a few pages back only goes up to 120 mA and seems to have respectable efficiency, but that's going to get worse as the current goes up.

Combine that with the fact that a higher voltage usually has a naturally higher current draw on most loads, added to the increased current draw to feed the booster as the battery voltage drops, it's easy to see how the battery craps out so much sooner with it than without.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: obrien on January 02, 2017, 09:24:08 am
...
The flashlight test got about the same result in runtime
...
Interesting, I have not seen this video. Well then not only it has a false claims, but they also put together a shitty converter..

Maybe they kinda expect to make money only in very short term until it gets publicly busted, so they did not even invest in anything which isn't visible? Lol
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on January 02, 2017, 08:47:34 pm
Maybe they kinda expect to make money only in very short term until it gets publicly busted, so they did not even invest in anything which isn't visible? Lol

It's the only explanation now. They spent a year bullshitting and trying not to ship anything. They must have got a final cash injection from somewhere and decided to give up.

Although...there's some new green colored packaging being shown on their web page. Let's hope they haven't got some retail or shopping-channel deal.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: BrianHG on January 02, 2017, 11:37:17 pm
I'm beginning to wonder why they even bothered to design and put any circuit in the device at all, they would have made more profit with just a mechanical battery holder...  I've seen the 'wireless' anti-static wrist band which Dave debunked awhile back...
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: ogden on January 02, 2017, 11:42:40 pm
I can easily see this thing getting 60-70% or worse at higher current draws. FrankBuss's graph a few pages back only goes up to 120 mA and seems to have respectable efficiency, but that's going to get worse as the current goes up.


Converter efficiency measurements like in EEVblog #957 could tell the story.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on January 02, 2017, 11:54:25 pm
I'm beginning to wonder why they even bothered to design and put any circuit in the device at all, they would have made more profit with just a mechanical battery holder...  I've seen the 'wireless' anti-static wrist band which Dave debunked awhile back...

They could have just put in a capacitor and called it a "battery conditioner".
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: BrianHG on January 03, 2017, 02:29:34 am
They could have just put in a capacitor and called it a "battery conditioner".

LOL  In some cases, like IR remote controls with too small a cap for the IR bursts, this would actually make the batteriser a functioning product...  :-DD
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: drussell on January 03, 2017, 05:15:40 am
How about if I create a battery powered hand warmer to place inside my gloves, battery included...
...
Have I earned your 10$?

LOL, nice try but I should have been clear that I mean existing products.  :)

Most people here could easily design and build an item which would take advantage of the Batteroo Sleeve's silly characteristics and show a net gain.  These do not count!  It has to be something that was not intentionally designed to "game the system."  :)

P.S.  Even though your hands might be warmer for the time it DID operate with a Batteriser, because the energy was being extracted more quickly from the cell(s) it would probably provide less total heat with the Batteriser than without, humorously enough...  That could make for an interesting test for anyone with a good calorimeter.  :)

I'm beginning to wonder why they even bothered to design and put any circuit in the device at all, they would have made more profit with just a mechanical battery holder...

That is why this whole saga has been so thoroughly entertaining...  Nobody is quite sure whether these PHD engineer "GENIUSES" are really as clueless as they appear or if it is all an elaborate, intentional ploy to slurp money out of unsuspecting masses with their vague, evasive marketing wankery. 

Why did they never publish any data if they are so SMRT and their product is so great?  This whole thing makes no sense, which is why we've all been watching!  :popcorn:

Quote
I've seen the 'wireless' anti-static wrist band which Dave debunked awhile back...

There was nothing there to debunk.  :palm:

That one is simply a language-barrier mistranslation.  The manufacturer / packager meant "sans cord", meaning it is the wrist strap part only.  Cord not included.  They didn't mean it magically works "wirelessly".  They're not stupid.  :)

There are plenty of times where you want to buy extra wrist straps or by just buy extra cords (or make ones, or have devices or stations that already exist with a hookup for your strap) so you can have each person around a facility have a wrist strap on, then just plug in when they get to that device, workbench, etc. etc.

They just meant wrist strap only, not "wireless" in our common usage of the word...  This kind of wording error is very, very common and while it may occasionally cause some confusion, in cases like this it wasn't intended to deceive.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: JiggyNinja on January 03, 2017, 05:57:58 am
Yes there was!

Look again: http://www.ebay.com/itm/182403945201 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/182403945201)

That is the ebay seller's wankery...  NOT THE PRODUCT.

(Not that THAT isn't :palm: worthy, though...)

This is seriously off-topic...
MICROCENTER (http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.aspx?Ntt=static&Ntk=all&sortby=match&N=4294966702&myStore=true) is selling this shit too, it's not just anonymous Chinese ebay sellers.

And like helius brought up, explain why they don't have a stud for a grounding cord. Go on, we'll wait.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: NoItAint on January 03, 2017, 10:04:30 am
These sleeves don't do any step-down regulation?

I have an old 9v pre-amp that can't handle the ultra lithium (not-rechargeable) because the initial voltage is too high

(http://www.thomasdistributing.com/ultralife-9v-lithium-batteries_pics/9v-lithium-comparison.gif)

Maybe if they ever come out with a 9v model, that regulates the voltage both ways I might have a use for one. :)

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Delta on January 03, 2017, 10:20:41 am
These sleeves don't do any step-down regulation?

I have an old 9v pre-amp that can't handle the ultra lithium (not-rechargeable) because the initial voltage is too high

Maybe if they ever come out with a 9v model, that regulates the voltage both ways I might have a use for one. :)

Old pre-amp designed for battery supply + switching power supply = disaster.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on January 03, 2017, 10:22:41 am
MOD NOTE: This is thread is ONLY to discuss Batteroo test results. If you want to discuss Batteriser/Batteroo in general, use the main thread:
http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/ (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/)


This new thread is dedicated to test procedures and results of the Batteroo sleeve. There is a spreadsheet which lists the performance gain you can get from Batteroo for different products, see here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18K9c2YAT0d0QABGYGpzItbvDcgfAQCRUtloEzzfXADU/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18K9c2YAT0d0QABGYGpzItbvDcgfAQCRUtloEzzfXADU/edit?usp=sharing)

If you have a Batteroo, please test your products with it, instructions are at the top of the spreadsheet (no test gear needed) and then send Dave the results to dave@eevblog.com and he'll add them to the spreadsheet.


Could we please be mindful of the purpose of this thread.  I come here to check on testing progress - not to trawl through the same stuff that has - and is - being posted on the original 'debunk' thread.

Thank you in advance.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Luminax on January 03, 2017, 05:25:08 pm
New device came up on the other thread, the Vivitar S216. Now to see if anyone around has one in possession hmmm...
Unfortunately I can't find one on my local shopping channel... might have to dig around a bit
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: drussell on January 03, 2017, 05:35:28 pm
New device came up on the other thread, the Vivitar S216. Now to see if anyone around has one in possession hmmm...
Unfortunately I can't find one on my local shopping channel... might have to dig around a bit

S126, not S216....

Already mentioned above...  :popcorn:
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Luminax on January 03, 2017, 05:45:15 pm
Right, my bad... still not available though... although F126 is and it's priced at MYR 380 (conversion rate 1 USD = MYR 4.49 and 1 AUD = MYR 3.25).
If it is as bad as people peg it to be then :palm:
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on January 03, 2017, 06:33:30 pm
Could we please be mindful of the purpose of this thread.  I come here to check on testing progress - not to trawl through the same stuff that has - and is - being posted on the original 'debunk' thread.
Thank you in advance.

Yes please everyone, only testing related stuff belongs in here.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: jmaja on January 03, 2017, 09:06:53 pm
Has someone measured the efficiency at higher currents? The plot shown in this thread goes only to 100 mA, thus clearly less than e.g. the train is using.

Although I have hard time understanding the interest in this product, which is so clearly something that simply can't work.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: bktemp on January 03, 2017, 10:40:29 pm
Has someone measured the efficiency at higher currents? The plot shown in this thread goes only to 100 mA, thus clearly less than e.g. the train is using.
Based on the measurements already done, my guess would be the curves will not change much up to the maximum current the boost converter can supply (<1A for a fully charged battery, probably much less for an almost empty battery).
Unlike conventional current mode PWM converters, the boost converter used in the Batteriser seems to operate always 100% peak current, then turn completely off until the output voltage gets too low.
Therefore the efficiency should be fairly constant over the full current range, only decreasing towards low currents because of the current consumed by the boost converter itself.

The increased voltage drop in the battery due to the higher current will probably have a much larger effect.
On the one hand, for characterising the Batteriser a constant well regulated input voltage is a good idea because it makes the test repeatable, on the other hand, it is different than the actual usage where you have a current dependent voltage drop in the battery.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: McBryce on January 05, 2017, 12:32:02 am
<anal_pedantic_mode>
In the train test they are not an exact comparison because the batteroo train has the added weight of the batterizer device. To do an exact comparison an equivalent weight should be added to the train that doesn't have a batterizer attached.
</anal_pedantic_mode>

McBryce.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: 6581 on January 05, 2017, 01:04:03 am
<anal_pedantic_mode>
In the train test they are not an exact comparison because the batteroo train has the added weight of the batterizer device. To do an exact comparison an equivalent weight should be added to the train that doesn't have a batterizer attached.
</anal_pedantic_mode>

McBryce.

I know you're not completely serious here, but I'd disagree anyway. Added weight is batteroos disadvantage that shouldn't be compensated. IMO
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: McBryce on January 05, 2017, 01:11:28 am
Of course I wasn't serious, but the test is to compare the power output of the two devices, so the added weight means that the train running times/laps are not 100% comparable because the trains have different weights.

McBryce.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: HighVoltage on January 05, 2017, 01:25:23 am
The weight of the Batteroo is probably so insignificant that it would be difficult to measure this out, unless we do lots of tests and do a statistical analysis, especially since the train did not go through acceleration and de-accelaration steps.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on January 05, 2017, 01:57:07 am
<anal_pedantic_mode>
In the train test they are not an exact comparison because the batteroo train has the added weight of the batterizer device. To do an exact comparison an equivalent weight should be added to the train that doesn't have a batterizer attached.
</anal_pedantic_mode>

McBryce.

 :palm:

The test is to see if the train goes longer with Batteroo.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Watth on January 05, 2017, 01:57:46 am
Of course I wasn't serious, but the test is to compare the power output of the two devices, so the added weight means that the train running times/laps are not 100% comparable because the trains have different weights.

McBryce.

Batteroo sleeves are red, which makes the train (look) faster (sports cars are often red, ask Ferrari). To be fair, you should paint unbatterooed batteries red.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: JiggyNinja on January 05, 2017, 02:09:30 am
Of course I wasn't serious, but the test is to compare the power output of the two devices, so the added weight means that the train running times/laps are not 100% comparable because the trains have different weights.

McBryce.
No it wasn't, it was to test how long they lasted with and without the device. The extra size and weight is simply the cost of using the "enhancement" device, and if it's benefit isn't good enough to offset its own cost then it's Batteroo's loss.

It's a fair test not because the weight is insignificant, but because the extra size and weight is inherent to using the Batteroo. Even if the sleeve was heavy, the only fair test is to not handicap the unmodified train.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: CJay on January 05, 2017, 03:39:22 am
Of course I wasn't serious, but the test is to compare the power output of the two devices, so the added weight means that the train running times/laps are not 100% comparable because the trains have different weights.

McBryce.

Batteroo sleeves are red, which makes the train (look) faster (sports cars are often red, ask Ferrari). To be fair, you should paint unbatterooed batteries red.

Maybe that's where the performance gains come from, it's a go faster stripe
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dexters_lab on January 07, 2017, 12:42:20 am
i forgot there was a separate thread for testing so i'll repost my last two messages here in case they were missed on the other thread:


The ic could be the same, but the layout looks different to the AAA Batteriser:
http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/msg1097209/#msg1097209 (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/msg1097209/#msg1097209)
It would be interesting to see if the circuit is identical.
The pinout looks similar, but the AA Batteriser has 2 inductors.
Could you measure if both inductors are connected in parallel or if there are two independent boost conveters? You probably have to remove one inductor when doing the measurement, because both inductors are connected to the same input voltage.

the inductors are NOT in parallel looks like each one has it's own connection to the IC
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Hensingler on January 07, 2017, 01:07:07 am
the inductors are NOT in parallel looks like each one has it's own connection to the IC

You measured they are not connected? Assuming pin 1 is top left pins 3 and 6 and 4 and 5 being common would explain AAA and AA layouts. If pins 3 and 6 are not common then maybe it is some kind of bi-phase converter.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dexters_lab on January 07, 2017, 01:17:47 am
the inductors are NOT in parallel looks like each one has it's own connection to the IC

You measured they are not connected? Assuming pin 1 is top left pins 3 and 6 and 4 and 5 being common would explain AAA and AA layouts. If pins 3 and 6 are not common then maybe it is some kind of bi-phase converter.

i measured them, there's actually about 51kohm between 3 and 6 with only the IC in circuit
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: bktemp on January 07, 2017, 02:02:19 am
Thanks for measuring.
If the second channel behaves identical to the single channel one on the AAA Batteriser, the maximum output current should be around 1.5A.

Some measurements would be interesting:
Operate both channels at the same time, are they interleave or is the second channel only enabled at higher output currents?

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dexters_lab on January 08, 2017, 03:12:36 am
i found 30 mins or so today to do a little testing and measuring.

Setup is as follows:

PSUA (Supply), HP 6632B, CV mode supplying the Batteriser input voltage
PSUB (Load), HP 6632B, CC mode loading/sinking the Batteriser output fixed at 125mA

Both PSUs have the sense wires connected, PSUA has them inside the beige box to the banana posts, PSUB has them to the back of the banana plugs. So there will be some losses in the bits in between like plugs, clip, wire to the batteriser etc (see the attached pic).

A: PSUA +
B: PSUA -
C: PSUB +
D: PSUB -

E: Black Wire: Common (B & D) to - battery terminal on Batteriser PCB
F: White Wire: + Battery terminal on Batteriser PCB
G: Red Wire: Output terminal on Batteriser PCB
H: The Batteriser PCB

Initial observations:
Above 1.45v the batteriser just passes through the V_In to V_Out with negligible losses
Below 1.45v the batteriser seems to turn on and provide an increasing boost to V_Out as the V_In drops
At 125mA load the batteriser wont startup below 0.6v, but it will continue to run if it's running and you then reduce the V_In, the lowest i measured to was 0.5v, i figured there would be little point less than that anyway. If it doesn't start up, it just passes through V_In to V_Out.

I should have a little time tomorrow to do some more, if anyone has a specific suggestion or spotted a mistake i've made let me know. Hopefully it should correlate to other peoples measurements!

Values have been rounded!
V_in   I_in   V_out   I_out   V_Boost
1.50   0.13   1.49   0.126   -0.02
1.45   0.13   1.44   0.126   -0.02
1.40   0.15   1.47   0.126   0.07
1.35   0.16   1.46   0.126   0.11
1.30   0.16   1.45   0.126   0.14
1.25   0.16   1.44   0.126   0.18
1.20   0.16   1.42   0.126   0.22
1.15   0.17   1.40   0.126   0.25
1.10   0.17   1.38   0.126   0.28
1.05   0.18   1.36   0.126   0.31
1.00   0.19   1.34   0.126   0.34
0.95   0.19   1.31   0.126   0.37
0.90   0.20   1.29   0.126   0.39
0.85   0.21   1.26   0.126   0.41
0.80   0.21   1.23   0.126   0.43
0.75   0.22   1.20   0.126   0.45
0.70   0.23   1.16   0.126   0.46
0.65   0.24   1.13   0.126   0.47
0.60   0.26   1.08   0.126   0.49
0.55   0.27   1.05   0.126   0.49
0.50   0.29   1.00   0.126   0.50
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: sync on January 08, 2017, 03:25:44 am
I think your efficiency calculation is wrong.
V_in   I_in   V_out   I_out   V_Boost   %Eff
1.50   0.13   1.49   0.126   -0.02   100.1
(1.49 * volt * (0.126 * ampere)) / (1.5 * volt * (0.13 * ampere)) = approx. 0.96276923
Quote

1.00   0.19   1.34   0.126   0.34   67.0
(1.34 * volt * (0.126 * ampere)) / (1 * volt * (0.19 * ampere)) = approx. 0.88863158
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Kean on January 08, 2017, 03:49:16 am
I think your efficiency calculation is wrong.

Agreed.
Using those measurements for I_out=126mA, I calculate
Min(%Eff)=85.2% at V_in=1.35V
Max(%Eff)=96.3% at V_in=1.5V
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on January 08, 2017, 03:54:59 am
i found 30 mins or so today to do a little testing and measuring.

Setup is as follows:

PSUA (Supply), HP 6632B, CV mode supplying the Batteriser input voltage
PSUB (Load), HP 6632B, CC mode loading/sinking the Batteriser output fixed at 125mA

Both PSUs have the sense wires connected, PSUA has them inside the beige box to the banana posts, PSUB has them to the back of the banana plugs. So there will be some losses in the bits in between like plugs, clip, wire to the batteriser etc (see the attached pic).

You should solder the sense wires to the Batteriser. I measured 1.418 V for 1 V input, at 100 mA. 78 mV difference compared to your measurement is a bit high, maybe I did something wrong, too, but to be sure it should be done right. I guess there is some variation, which might be a good idea to measure, too, but 5% (relative to 1.5 V) is a bit high. My multimeter should measure much better than 1%.

And maybe post a CSV file or a Google spreadsheet, then it is easier for others to use your data, draw graphs etc. My data:

http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/batteroo.csv (http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/batteroo.csv)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on January 08, 2017, 04:09:26 am
i found 30 mins or so today to do a little testing and measuring
:-+


V_in  I_in  V_out I_out  V_Boost  %Eff
1.25  0.16  1.44  0.126   0.18    76.6


This is really the most important voltage range, it's 80%(ish) of a normal battery's life.

75% efficient on a fairly light load? Oh, dear...

Edit: Nope, your sums are wrong. (1.44*0.126)/(1.25*0.16) = 90% efficient.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on January 08, 2017, 04:10:09 am
Thank you dexters_lab... Perhaps the same type of testing repeated but at various different load levels, like 500mA, 1A, 1.5A, 2A... See how it performs under some real load! Cheers!
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Marcel_X on January 08, 2017, 04:36:00 am
Values have been rounded!
V_in   I_in   V_out   I_out   V_Boost   %Eff
1.50   0.13   1.49   0.126   -0.02   100.1
1.45   0.13   1.44   0.126   -0.02   100.1
1.40   0.15   1.47   0.126   0.07   84.8
1.35   0.16   1.46   0.126   0.11   79.4
1.30   0.16   1.45   0.126   0.14   77.1
1.25   0.16   1.44   0.126   0.18   76.6
1.20   0.16   1.42   0.126   0.22   76.9
1.15   0.17   1.40   0.126   0.25   74.5
1.10   0.17   1.38   0.126   0.28   72.1
1.05   0.18   1.36   0.126   0.31   68.6
1.00   0.19   1.34   0.126   0.34   67.0
0.95   0.19   1.31   0.126   0.37   65.0
0.90   0.20   1.29   0.126   0.39   63.3
0.85   0.21   1.26   0.126   0.41   61.1
0.80   0.21   1.23   0.126   0.43   59.3
0.75   0.22   1.20   0.126   0.45   56.8
0.70   0.23   1.16   0.126   0.46   54.3
0.65   0.24   1.13   0.126   0.47   51.9
0.60   0.26   1.08   0.126   0.49   49.1
0.55   0.27   1.05   0.126   0.49   46.5
0.50   0.29   1.00   0.126   0.50   43.6


Thanks for measuring. Corrected the last column for you.
Results are similar to Frank's measurements.

V_in   I_in   V_out   I_out   V_Boost Eff%
1.50   0.13   1.49   0.126   -0.02    96.3
1.45   0.13   1.44   0.126   -0.02    96.3
1.40   0.15   1.47   0.126   0.07     88.2
1.35   0.16   1.46   0.126   0.11     85.2
1.30   0.16   1.45   0.126   0.14     87.8
1.25   0.16   1.44   0.126   0.18     90.7
1.20   0.16   1.42   0.126   0.22     93.2
1.15   0.17   1.40   0.126   0.25     90.2
1.10   0.17   1.38   0.126   0.28     93
1.05   0.18   1.36   0.126   0.31     90.7
1.00   0.19   1.34   0.126   0.34     88.9
0.95   0.19   1.31   0.126   0.37     91.4
0.90   0.20   1.29   0.126   0.39     90.3
0.85   0.21   1.26   0.126   0.41     88.9
0.80   0.21   1.23   0.126   0.43     92.3
0.75   0.22   1.20   0.126   0.45     91.6
0.70   0.23   1.16   0.126   0.46     90.8
0.65   0.24   1.13   0.126   0.47     91.3
0.60   0.26   1.08   0.126   0.49     87.2
0.55   0.27   1.05   0.126   0.49     89.1
0.50   0.29   1.00   0.126   0.50     86.9

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on January 08, 2017, 04:40:01 am
Thanks for measuring. Corrected the last column for you.
Results are similar to Frank's measurements.

OK, now we need a graph of that with overlaid graphs at different currents.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dexters_lab on January 08, 2017, 05:00:24 am


Thanks for measuring. Corrected the last column for you.
Results are similar to Frank's measurements.

V_in   I_in   V_out   I_out   V_Boost Eff%
1.50   0.13   1.49   0.126   -0.02    96.3
1.45   0.13   1.44   0.126   -0.02    96.3
1.40   0.15   1.47   0.126   0.07     88.2
1.35   0.16   1.46   0.126   0.11     85.2
1.30   0.16   1.45   0.126   0.14     87.8
1.25   0.16   1.44   0.126   0.18     90.7
1.20   0.16   1.42   0.126   0.22     93.2
1.15   0.17   1.40   0.126   0.25     90.2
1.10   0.17   1.38   0.126   0.28     93
1.05   0.18   1.36   0.126   0.31     90.7
1.00   0.19   1.34   0.126   0.34     88.9
0.95   0.19   1.31   0.126   0.37     91.4
0.90   0.20   1.29   0.126   0.39     90.3
0.85   0.21   1.26   0.126   0.41     88.9
0.80   0.21   1.23   0.126   0.43     92.3
0.75   0.22   1.20   0.126   0.45     91.6
0.70   0.23   1.16   0.126   0.46     90.8
0.65   0.24   1.13   0.126   0.47     91.3
0.60   0.26   1.08   0.126   0.49     87.2
0.55   0.27   1.05   0.126   0.49     89.1
0.50   0.29   1.00   0.126   0.50     86.9


thanks, i always make a goof somewhere, i'll edit my post!
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: razvanme on January 08, 2017, 06:41:32 am
V_in   I_in   V_out   I_out   V_Boost
....................
1.05   0.18   1.36   0.126   0.31
1.00   0.19   1.34   0.126   0.34
0.95   0.19   1.31   0.126   0.37
....................


The patent mentioned ~1.34 volts on the majority of devices as cutoff if I remember correctly. Meaning if the battery is at 1V (depending on load) it will not work anymore. So until 0.8V the energy left is "untapped" . So much for "extract all energy".
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dexters_lab on January 08, 2017, 09:24:56 pm
Testing at 100, 250 & 500ma complete

You should solder the sense wires to the Batteriser. I measured 1.418 V for 1 V input, at 100 mA. 78 mV difference compared to your measurement is a bit high, maybe I did something wrong, too, but to be sure it should be done right. I guess there is some variation, which might be a good idea to measure, too, but 5% (relative to 1.5 V) is a bit high. My multimeter should measure much better than 1%.

i opted not to change my setup, the sense wires are soldered into my banana plugs on PSUA, you might be able to see the small white sense wire tucking into the back of the plug in the pic, it would mean cutting them or fiddling around the back of the PSU to attach other sense wires and i don't really want to do that. What i did do though is reduce the length of my wires to the batteriser, made sure everything had a good connection etc and started again from scratch, so there should be a small improvement in the losses.

So my sheet now has 100mA, 250mA & 500mA, i also un-rounded the numbers and corrected the efficiency calculation and dropped them into a google spreadsheet.

Note row 64, 0.502v input at 500mA load caused the batteriser to shut down

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1U5cLitpeP6SIjv9UzhVOiniEQ6ENosAY_12V6MUlb7E/edit?usp=sharing

E&OE, YMMV etc  ;D
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on January 08, 2017, 09:52:48 pm
Of course I wasn't serious, but the test is to compare the power output of the two devices, so the added weight means that the train running times/laps are not 100% comparable because the trains have different weights.

I'm pretty sure the Batteriser weight would be within the normal weight tolerance of the batteries themselves.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: JiggyNinja on January 09, 2017, 08:51:46 am
Charts of Dexter's data attached!

Actually looks far more interesting than I thought it'd be. The Input/Output voltage graphs for all 3 graphs have the exact same shape, so exact that after making the first two I had to double-check the tables to make sure I hadn't copy+pasted something wrong.

Of course, this is running off of a high-grade power supply, and as we all know from Batteroo, you can't simulate a battery with a power supply because that ignores the batteries internal resistance.

Never mind the fact that adding the IR into the model will make the sleeve perform far worse than these ideal characterizations. Don't worry yourself over such a minor detail.  :palm:
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on January 09, 2017, 12:41:15 pm
i opted not to change my setup, the sense wires are soldered into my banana plugs on PSUA, you might be able to see the small white sense wire tucking into the back of the plug in the pic, it would mean cutting them or fiddling around the back of the PSU to attach other sense wires and i don't really want to do that. What i did do though is reduce the length of my wires to the batteriser, made sure everything had a good connection etc and started again from scratch, so there should be a small improvement in the losses.

You don't need to cut anything, you could just use a multimeter to measure it. The problem with your setup is that you don't know how much it is wrong. As you can see in Dave's video, it can be 0.2 V for 100 mA, depending on contact resistance etc. :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li0XKnpOZyM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li0XKnpOZyM)

But probably it is not that much for your setup, because the voltages are very similar for different loads, which is consistent with my tests. Sorry for nitpicking again :)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on January 09, 2017, 02:31:52 pm
Yes, I really do appreciate the testing and it's yielded some interesting results, but from experience, you can get pretty inaccurate results due to voltage drop if the sense wires aren't exactly at the point of measurement. It's really the whole point of having sense wires.

But having said that, I was quite impressed by the performance of the sleeve under this test up to 500mA at least. Good efficiency curves. Thanks to the user JiggyNinja who created graphs. I'm still curious to see how it does with a real load on it. Lots of devices powered by AA cells will draw 1A, 2A, and upwards.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: TechnicalBen on January 10, 2017, 10:25:40 am
Of course I wasn't serious, but the test is to compare the power output of the two devices, so the added weight means that the train running times/laps are not 100% comparable because the trains have different weights.

I'm pretty sure the Batteriser weight would be within the normal weight tolerance of the batteries themselves.

You can turn the train upside down, have a roller "road" (track on a spindle also upside down). Though technically, due to the testing location, by some reference frames, the test was already upside down! ;)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dexters_lab on January 10, 2017, 09:18:20 pm
I took the time out just now to re-wire the setup so i now have the two PSUs connected with the sense wires right onto the batteriser PCB, i verified it with my bench DMM and can't see any appreciable difference from my bench PSU display so this should be as good as i can get it with the equipment i have.

This is the new sheet with additional data for 750mA and new more accurate data for the 100, 250 and 500ma range

i removed the entries when the batteriser shuts down, so you'll see the 750mA data only goes to .649v as that is the lowest i could go.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1U5cLitpeP6SIjv9UzhVOiniEQ6ENosAY_12V6MUlb7E/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1U5cLitpeP6SIjv9UzhVOiniEQ6ENosAY_12V6MUlb7E/edit?usp=sharing)

Note i have removed the links to the previous results
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: JiggyNinja on January 11, 2017, 12:44:45 am
Charts!
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on January 11, 2017, 03:53:02 am
Charts!

I hope you don't mind, I had a little play and did a couple of overlaid charts which show all current rates overlaid:
(http://i.imgur.com/js1dhNk.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/P0np6R8.png)

I think the results, the batteroo performance, looks pretty good from this data.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dexters_lab on January 11, 2017, 04:12:03 am
is there anyone else doing similar testing to confirm/reproduce?

Dave is still swanning around his private beach so not likely to see anything from him for a while
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: bktemp on January 11, 2017, 04:26:54 am
The results look plausible: Since the boost converter always works in PFM mode, the duty cylce and peak current are constant over the load range, therefore there should be almost no change in efficiency like the typical curve you see in the more common PWM mode boost converter specs. The slight drop at high current and low input voltage is probably the voltage drop at the input wires, because you didn't connect the sense wires directly at the Batteriser pcb.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dexters_lab on January 11, 2017, 04:41:46 am
The slight drop at high current and low input voltage is probably the voltage drop at the input wires, because you didn't connect the sense wires directly at the Batteriser pcb.

i fixed that and re-measured
http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/msg1110445/#msg1110445 (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/msg1110445/#msg1110445)

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on January 11, 2017, 06:56:48 am
is there anyone else doing similar testing to confirm/reproduce?

Looks close to my measurements. My efficiency is about 4 percent points lower, but I used the AAA sleeves and I guess the AA sleeves have bigger inductors.

Over 90% for the AA sleeve over a large range of current and input voltages is pretty good. They could make good money selling the chip, only, at Digikey.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Hensingler on January 11, 2017, 07:23:42 am
Over 90% for the AA sleeve over a large range of current and input voltages is pretty good. They could make good money selling the chip, only, at Digikey.

But regulation is poor, ripple is terrible and who wants 1.5v out?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on January 11, 2017, 07:28:48 am
But regulation is poor, ripple is terrible

A bigger inductor and more capacitance on the output should fix that. Batteriser is really constrained by size.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on January 11, 2017, 07:42:32 am
Now why couldn't batteroo have just provided technical datasheets containing this sort of data in the first place? Would have placated a lot of the detractors somewhat...
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on January 11, 2017, 08:40:34 am
Now why couldn't batteroo have just provided technical datasheets containing this sort of data in the first place? Would have placated a lot of the detractors somewhat...

No it wouldn't.

90% efficiency still leads to less than 1x battery lifetime, they were claiming 8x.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on January 11, 2017, 09:23:30 am
Now why couldn't batteroo have just provided technical datasheets containing this sort of data in the first place? Would have placated a lot of the detractors somewhat...

No it wouldn't.

90% efficiency still leads to less than 1x battery lifetime, they were claiming 8x.

That's a slightly misleading statement.

The instantaneous power efficiency is not the only factor to be used in determining battery life.  There is the rather well discussed parameter of "run time".  These two must be considered together.

Having said that, though, the "run time" certainly has not been the celebrated success that Batteroo were claiming.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dexters_lab on January 11, 2017, 09:36:49 am
Now why couldn't batteroo have just provided technical datasheets containing this sort of data in the first place? Would have placated a lot of the detractors somewhat...

i am not sure it would, we knew from the get-go that when a battery is down to around 1v there is bugger all energy left in the battery to make use of and claims from batteroo about device battery cut off voltages was nonsense. Their dc-dc converter could be 99.99% efficient and we'd still be telling them they are talking bollocks.

there is also another reason they couldn't give us data... back then they didn't have the silicon to test!
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: JiggyNinja on January 11, 2017, 09:59:44 am
Charts!

I hope you don't mind, I had a little play and did a couple of overlaid charts which show all current rates overlaid:
How dare you take what I took from someone else and do something different to the thing that I did!

Quote
I think the results, the batteroo performance, looks pretty good from this data.
It's important to remember that Dexter is testing with a power supply feeding the input. The real performance, factoring in the internal resistance of a battery, will be worse.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dexters_lab on January 11, 2017, 10:26:13 am
Charts!

I hope you don't mind, I had a little play and did a couple of overlaid charts which show all current rates overlaid:
How dare you take what I took from someone else and do something different to the thing that I did!

Quote
I think the results, the batteroo performance, looks pretty good from this data.
It's important to remember that Dexter is testing with a power supply feeding the input. The real performance, factoring in the internal resistance of a battery, will be worse.

indeed, my tests are simply the overall efficiency of their converter with a steady-state load and supply

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Hensingler on January 11, 2017, 12:21:55 pm
Quote
I think the results, the batteroo performance, looks pretty good from this data.
It's important to remember that Dexter is testing with a power supply feeding the input. The real performance, factoring in the internal resistance of a battery, will be worse.

The internal resistance of the battery will be there without batteriseroos. The peaky nature of the batteriseroo current draw where it runs at its maximum current capability to charge the output capacitor +200mV then sleeps till it discharges will make internal resistance losses much worse for low current applications.

Anyone think they know what that does with battery chemistry? Is 0.5A pulses which average 10mA worse than 10mA dc?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on January 11, 2017, 01:42:21 pm
... what that does with battery chemistry? Is 0.5A pulses which average 10mA worse than 10mA dc?

A very good question.

While we might have a really good understanding of the principle of operation of the Batteroo sleeve - the claims made for it come down to a fundamental issue of battery chemistry.  That is the limiting factor here - not the electronics.  (Using the 80/20 rule, I'm looking at the 80% of common cases.)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on January 11, 2017, 01:48:08 pm
Huh  :-//
I thought the Batteriser gave a constant 1.5V out regardless of input voltage?
(http://i.imgur.com/js1dhNk.png)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on January 11, 2017, 02:37:18 pm
If I had a sleeve or two, I'd run some discharge curves on my graphing smart charger/analyzer alongside bare Alkaline cells of the same type.
Perhaps, 50mA, 100mA, 250mA, 500mA, 1A, and 2A discharge curves.
Then I'd do a chart with those discharge curves alongside the plain Alkaline cell curve, and an eneloop curve, so we can see which is the best method at different constant current loads, side by side.
But my analyzer can't do a constant power load or a constant resistance load, or a programmed load with dips and spikes in load.
The BK Precision 8500 programmable DC electronic load can do all of that, except maybe not the pulsed load (edit: Okay, the transient setting is for doing pulsed loads. Cool. Daves BK 8601 would be ideal).
Charts of the outputs of some of that testing with that would be interesting.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: HKJ on January 11, 2017, 06:51:21 pm
Huh  :-//
I thought the Batteriser gave a constant 1.5V out regardless of input voltage?

Definitely not, it is not just a boost converter, it has some more in it.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: HKJ on January 11, 2017, 06:54:42 pm
If I had a sleeve or two, I'd run some discharge curves on my graphing smart charger/analyzer alongside bare Alkaline cells of the same type.
Perhaps, 50mA, 100mA, 250mA, 500mA, 1A, and 2A discharge curves.

I have done that, but I do not expect to publish anything before the coming weekend, then I will add it to my comparator: http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/CommonAAcomparator.php (http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/CommonAAcomparator.php)

It is possible to stretch a battery 4 times (or maybe more) with a batteriser, but it requires a product that stops working below 1.3V.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on January 11, 2017, 06:58:37 pm
It is possible to stretch a battery 4 times (or maybe more) with a batteriser, but it requires a product that stops working below 1.3V.

I can't see anyone getting anywhere near that.........

I would like to see what data leads you to that conclusion.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: HKJ on January 11, 2017, 07:12:14 pm
It is possible to stretch a battery 4 times (or maybe more) with a batteriser, but it requires a product that stops working below 1.3V.

I can't see anyone getting anywhere near that.........

I would like to see what data leads you to that conclusion.

You need a product that stops working when the voltage drops below 1.3 volt, I do not not believe many product are that badly constructed.

As I wrote above I will publish my data in the weekend, both test with batteries and with a power supply (I used a Keithley 2460 with 4 terminal connection as battery) . The result will be as curves with hundreds of samples (Easy to do with computer control). You can see more about how I do stuff on my website.


Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on January 11, 2017, 07:52:10 pm
It is possible to stretch a battery 4 times (or maybe more) with a batteriser, but it requires a product that stops working below 1.3V.

I can't see anyone getting anywhere near that.........

I would like to see what data leads you to that conclusion.

You need a product that stops working when the voltage drops below 1.3 volt, I do not not believe many product are that badly constructed.

As I wrote above I will publish my data in the weekend, both test with batteries and with a power supply (I used a Keithley 2460 with 4 terminal connection as battery) . The result will be as curves with hundreds of samples (Easy to do with computer control). You can see more about how I do stuff on my website.

Fantastic, can't wait to see that data, charts etc. The comparitor will be great because we'll be able to directly compare it to any number of NiMH, Alkaline, etc cells; even those li-ion "AA" cells with built in charger and DC/DC buck converter.

Incidentally, that comparitor is a fantastic tool, I just wonder, how difficult would it be to make it so there are three selections rather than two? If it is really difficult, no worries, but if it's relatively simple, that would be a great improvement, to be able to compare three different batteries/cells side by side... Anyway, it's still really useful as it is. I only ask because I have no idea how the web design for that is done.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: HKJ on January 11, 2017, 08:38:47 pm
Incidentally, that comparitor is a fantastic tool, I just wonder, how difficult would it be to make it so there are three selections rather than two? If it is really difficult, no worries, but if it's relatively simple, that would be a great improvement, to be able to compare three different batteries/cells side by side... Anyway, it's still really useful as it is. I only ask because I have no idea how the web design for that is done.

There is a few issues with that. Each curve is its own image and I stack them when you select more currents/batteries. This means I would need 50% more data space. I always regenerate all the curves when doing a new review, the 50% extra generation time would be irritating. The layout also works best with two sets.
What I would more like to add was some sort of filters, this would be useful, especially in the LiIon comparator (Due to the many batteries in it), but I am always low on time and postpone it.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dexters_lab on January 11, 2017, 10:51:35 pm
Huh  :-//
I thought the Batteriser gave a constant 1.5V out regardless of input voltage?

none of mine are fixed, they all exhibit the same variable output behaviour

Frank, can you confirm if your AAA batterisers are a fixed output voltage or does the output voltage change depending on input?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on January 12, 2017, 12:42:54 am
Huh  :-//
I thought the Batteriser gave a constant 1.5V out regardless of input voltage?

none of mine are fixed, they all exhibit the same variable output behaviour

Are you sure you're seeing a true voltage, that the lower voltage isn't a measurement error because of output ripple?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: HKJ on January 12, 2017, 12:49:41 am
Are you sure you're seeing a true voltage, that the lower voltage isn't a measurement error because of output ripple?
As I wrote earlier: It is more than just a boost converter.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on January 12, 2017, 01:20:55 am
As I wrote earlier: It is more than just a boost converter.

Yes, I just wanted to be sure there's no measurement error.

I don't see why the output would be a curve, that makes no sense in a boost circuit.  :-//





Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Zbig on January 12, 2017, 01:27:01 am
As I wrote earlier: It is more than just a boost converter.

Yes, I just wanted to be sure there's no measurement error.

I don't see why the output would be a curve, that makes no sense in a boost circuit.  :-//

It seems they've made some attempt to address the battery gauge issues after all.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Cerebus on January 12, 2017, 02:53:14 am
Are you sure you're seeing a true voltage, that the lower voltage isn't a measurement error because of output ripple?
As I wrote earlier: It is more than just a boost converter.

I'd think rather less than just a boost converter. A normal boost converter would have a voltage reference - this just seems to use the battery as a voltage reference i.e. it's just an amplifier, there's no regulation going on at all.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: JiggyNinja on January 12, 2017, 04:01:37 am
Are you sure you're seeing a true voltage, that the lower voltage isn't a measurement error because of output ripple?
As I wrote earlier: It is more than just a boost converter.

I'd think rather less than just a boost converter. A normal boost converter would have a voltage reference - this just seems to use the battery as a voltage reference i.e. it's just an amplifier, there's no regulation going on at all.
With the exception of the very top end of the range, to output voltage is higher than the input voltage. Whatever anyone else can say of it, it is a boost converter. Just because it uses a different form of feedback than is typical does not make it any more or less than other converters, just different.

Given that the input/output voltage relationships are almost perfectly identical over the range of loads tested, I think it's a given that there's some kind of feedback there. I'm just not sure if they decay is designed or an accidental part of some other feature (like the PFM operation).
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: HKJ on January 12, 2017, 04:57:54 am
Just because it uses a different form of feedback than is typical does not make it any more or less than other converters, just different.

Ok, one test.
The output voltage looks like it is optimized for the job, not like a standard boost converter. If Rob's theory that a lot of devices stops working below 1.3V was correct, it would be useful, but as we all know this is not the case and the usefulness of it is very doubtful in most devices.

(http://lygte-info.dk/pic/Batteries2013Primary/Batteroo%20AA/batteroo%2015ohm%20voltage%20sweep.png)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: cowana on January 12, 2017, 05:29:14 am
Ok, one test.

Wow, that's a huge amount of data conveyed really clearly by that graph - nice logging! It does really look like an interesting device (although a million miles from extending battery life by 8 times...)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: jippie on January 12, 2017, 06:22:03 am
Just because it uses a different form of feedback than is typical does not make it any more or less than other converters, just different.

Ok, one test.
The output voltage looks like it is optimized for the job, not like a standard boost converter. If Rob's theory that a lot of devices stops working below 1.3V was correct, it would be useful, but as we all know this is not the case and the usefulness of it is very doubtful in most devices.

(http://lygte-info.dk/pic/Batteries2013Primary/Batteroo%20AA/batteroo%2015ohm%20voltage%20sweep.png)

I'm curious about how the switcher frequency / duty cycle changes over the input range. Might be possible to simpy pick that up with a coil near the inductor.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: HKJ on January 12, 2017, 07:33:44 am
I'm curious about how the switcher frequency / duty cycle changes over the input range. Might be possible to simpy pick that up with a coil near the inductor.

I will not say much about it now, but it looks like it is around 2.5MHz
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on January 12, 2017, 08:14:04 am
Frank, can you confirm if your AAA batterisers are a fixed output voltage or does the output voltage change depending on input?

This is the data:

http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/batteroo.csv (http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/batteroo.csv)

I don't have them anymore, but when I measured it, it was the same behaviour, nearly no voltage change when load changed, and a similar curve as you measured, just a bit higher. For 100 mA:

(http://i.imgur.com/f2P5ScH.png)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on January 12, 2017, 09:01:22 am
I'd say that is a design decision to have the boosted discharge curve like that, to try to enable the battery gauge function? At least, they could swing it that way... Perhaps it also keeps the efficiency higher by reducing the amount of boost and current drawn from the cell as its input voltage decreases, compared to trying to keep the voltage fixed at exactly 1.5V as the source cell voltage decreases.  ESR would ensure the cell would die even quicker if they kept the voltage at 1.5V, thus exponentially increasing the current drawn from the cell as the voltage decreased. It seems like a pretty good design, it's just a shame there was so much dishonesty, lack of real info, false claims, and marketing BS which went along with it. And of course it's trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist (and failing).
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amyk on January 12, 2017, 12:36:44 pm
Are you sure you're seeing a true voltage, that the lower voltage isn't a measurement error because of output ripple?
As I wrote earlier: It is more than just a boost converter.

I'd think rather less than just a boost converter. A normal boost converter would have a voltage reference - this just seems to use the battery as a voltage reference i.e. it's just an amplifier, there's no regulation going on at all.
I was going to say that --- instead of a constant Vref it just appears to be some ratio of the input. I don't think I remember any instances but has anyone else ever supplied a dumb boost converter IC with somewhat less than its specified minimum voltage and seen the line regulation? I suspect this might be a similar story.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Wytnucls on January 12, 2017, 06:02:41 pm
Usually, Vout is constant, set by an external voltage divider and an internal voltage ref (~1.25V), down to a Vin min of 0.5V.
What happens as Vin reduces, is that the efficiency decreases dramatically, especially with high loads, until a sharp shutdown at Vin 0.5V.
It looks like their IC has done away with the external divider, instead being optimized for a sliding Vout to reduce loss of efficiency.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dexters_lab on January 12, 2017, 06:03:27 pm
Frank, can you confirm if your AAA batterisers are a fixed output voltage or does the output voltage change depending on input?

This is the data:

http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/batteroo.csv (http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/batteroo.csv)

I don't have them anymore, but when I measured it, it was the same behaviour, nearly no voltage change when load changed, and a similar curve as you measured, just a bit higher. For 100 mA:

(http://i.imgur.com/f2P5ScH.png)

thanks Frank, i thought i was going mad there for a bit with everyone (including) Dave questioning it!
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amyk on January 12, 2017, 10:53:01 pm
Those graphs with the X-axis reversed look somewhat uncomfortable. :-// They're more like the typical output voltage vs. current graph.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: JiggyNinja on January 13, 2017, 12:35:23 am
Usually, Vout is constant, set by an external voltage divider and an internal voltage ref (~1.25V), down to a Vin min of 0.5V.
What happens as Vin reduces, is that the efficiency decreases dramatically, especially with high loads, until a sharp shutdown at Vin 0.5V.
It looks like their IC has done away with the external divider, instead being optimized for a sliding Vout to reduce loss of efficiency.
There are lots of chips that use an internal feedback network to give a fixed output voltage. And once you have an internal network, it's not really crazy to think that you could design one with this input/output characteristic.

That's not enough to conclude that is is designed though. Batteroo have slung so much bullshit that it's not worth bothering about.
thanks Frank, i thought i was going mad there for a bit with everyone (including) Dave questioning it!
I highly doubt Dave was questioning your result. I read it as sarcastic.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: drussell on January 13, 2017, 03:50:13 am
Giving a output voltage that scales somewhat with input voltage isn't exactly fancy technology.  You basically just add one resistor to your feedback divider string that goes to the input voltage to get part of your net feedback value from there.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on January 13, 2017, 06:15:38 am
Giving a output voltage that scales somewhat with input voltage isn't exactly fancy technology.  You basically just add one resistor to your feedback divider string that goes to the input voltage to get part of your net feedback value from there.

Yep.

I'm suspicious that some people here are putting this down to design. I suspect it's just dumb luck - replacing a voltage reference with a resistor divider made the chip cheaper.

Has anybody investigated the origins of chip yet? I'm also skeptical that Batteroo designed it. They know know from the beginning their 8x claims are bullshit so why waste time/effort/money making a new chip when there's dozens of Chinese manufacturers making suitable devices? I can go on eBay right now and buy a 35 cent booster module (http://www.ebay.com/itm/201542969731) that produces 5V output from a single AA, right down to 0.7V input (measured by me). Batteroo's 1.5V output is easy compared to that. :popcorn:

(no, they won't do much more than light up a single LED with 0.7V input...to be really useful you need 3xAA source)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: HKJ on January 13, 2017, 06:41:56 am
I'm suspicious that some people here are putting this down to design. I suspect it's just dumb luck - replacing a voltage reference with a resistor divider made the chip cheaper.

It might be dumb luck or on design, the voltages matches fairly well with the purpose that makes it likely the chip is designed for it.
It might be a design from scratch or a few design changes to an existing design.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Mr.B on January 13, 2017, 06:57:20 am
Has anybody investigated the origins of chip yet?

Has anybody heard from Zeptobars?
I thought I read somewhere here that he had been sent some by the same forum member who sent them to Frank.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dexters_lab on January 13, 2017, 07:06:38 am
wasn't someone going to be decapping the IC?

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Mr.B on January 13, 2017, 07:14:56 am
Zeptobars
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on January 13, 2017, 09:57:09 am
Zeptobars

https://www.patreon.com/zeptobars (https://www.patreon.com/zeptobars)

Cool, $2.50 for decapping a chip and the images are pretty good. @Ysjoelfir , if you don't need the broken sleeve of the two sleeves I sent you, please send it to him.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Mr.B on January 13, 2017, 10:04:47 am
Found where I had read it...

http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/msg1102968/#msg1102968 (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/msg1102968/#msg1102968)

I don't know where @drussell got the information from.
Perhaps earlier in that massive thread.

Ah, found it... Dave mentioned it here:
http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/msg1094759/#msg1094759 (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/msg1094759/#msg1094759)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: HKJ on January 16, 2017, 05:27:43 am
My review of the batteroo is up: http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/Batteroo%20AA%20UK.html (http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/Batteroo%20AA%20UK.html)

Performance with a Duracell alkaline:

(http://lygte-info.dk/pic/Batteries2013Primary/Batteroo%20AA/Batteroo%20AA-Capacity.png)

One curve in my review is not finished yet, the review will be update with it is finished.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on January 16, 2017, 06:07:28 am
My review of the batteroo is up: http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/Batteroo%20AA%20UK.html (http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/Batteroo%20AA%20UK.html)



Thanks for your testing. I guess I'll stick with my eneloop Pro's:
(http://i.imgur.com/mrgETFC.png)
-Source: http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/CommonAAcomparator.php (http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/CommonAAcomparator.php)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Delta on January 16, 2017, 09:58:22 am
Thank you very much for that testing!  A couple of suggestions if i may:

Replace the graph. Remove the Eneloop curve.   Have curves at each of you chosen currents for BOTH the sleeve and the bare cell.

State the exact type of Duracell AA that is used in the "Batteroo AA" on your comparison drop-down.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on January 16, 2017, 10:12:55 am
My review of the batteroo is up: http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/Batteroo%20AA%20UK.html (http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/Batteroo%20AA%20UK.html)

Awesome work  :clap:

WTF, is the Batteriser output voltage really this bad? 1.85V output peak?

(http://lygte-info.dk/pic/Batteries2013Primary/Batteroo%20AA/1.4V150ohm.png)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: samgab on January 16, 2017, 10:15:31 am
The comparitor allows individual comparisons, by current, using another plain Duracell Alkaline as the other cell:
(http://i.imgur.com/RwbmJ29.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/uFNTQSZ.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/zKxe1qV.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/lhSWt6A.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/Rj9Owz9.png)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on January 16, 2017, 12:00:35 pm
WTF, is the Batteriser output voltage really this bad? 1.85V output peak?

(http://lygte-info.dk/pic/Batteries2013Primary/Batteroo%20AA/1.4V150ohm.png)

This explains why all the 1.5 V incandescent light bulbs Ysjoelfir tested were destroyed after some time. I guess these small light bulbs can follow the peaks very good, because they are so small and not slow like bigger lamps. Might reduce life time of the cheaper LED lamps with no regulation as well.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on January 16, 2017, 12:08:11 pm
This explains why all the 1.5 V incandescent light bulbs Ysjoelfir tested were destroyed after some time. I guess these small light bulbs can follow the peaks very good, because they are so small and not slow like bigger lamps. Might reduce life time of the cheaper LED lamps with no regulation as well.

For sure.
Average looks to be about 1.65V at this current?
The Batteriser can't even do it's basic job of being a regulator!
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on January 16, 2017, 12:18:15 pm
Can't say that surprises me.  It would seem consistent with the drooping output as the battery voltage falls.

Looks to me like they didn't bother with any type of voltage reference - maybe just a resistor "network" for a "close enough" implementation.


... and at around 11KHz for those transients, there's potential for other problems.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on January 16, 2017, 01:02:11 pm
... and at around 11KHz for those transients, there's potential for other problems.

I don't get that either. Why would you switch at 11KHz with such small magnetics?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: JiggyNinja on January 16, 2017, 01:48:31 pm
... and at around 11KHz for those transients, there's potential for other problems.

I don't get that either. Why would you switch at 11KHz with such small magnetics?
I believe earlier in the thread some other person zoomed in really close on the ripple and found that the switching frequency was something like 1.2MHz or 2.5MHz. The weird...ripple, for lack of a better word...that you are measuring must be some larger-scale artifact of the control circuit.

I have no clue what would actually do that though. That's bizarre.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on January 16, 2017, 02:02:36 pm
The weird...ripple, for lack of a better word...that you are measuring must be some larger-scale artifact of the control circuit.
That makes sense - as an explanation for the observed waveform ... but you have to wonder about it as an artefact of the design... especially as a design that has been implemented in the final product.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: janekm on January 16, 2017, 04:19:29 pm
The weird...ripple, for lack of a better word...that you are measuring must be some larger-scale artifact of the control circuit.
That makes sense - as an explanation for the observed waveform ... but you have to wonder about it as an artefact of the design... especially as a design that has been implemented in the final product.

That specific waveform looks a little weird so it'd be hard to explain without quite a lot of additional research, but it is very common for ultra-low-power DC/DC converters to have really terrible regulation, that's basically how they perform the trick of being low power (typically, they will only turn on the switching circuitry once the output voltage reaches a certain lower threshold, and that threshold will be quite far below the regulated output voltage in order to keep the switcher out of the loop for as long as possible).
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: HKJ on January 16, 2017, 05:43:22 pm
WTF, is the Batteriser output voltage really this bad? 1.85V output peak?

I have only seen it when using a power supply as power, not with a battery. i.e. it might be related to the working conditions:
Low Z capacitor on the input side.
Startup with load connected.

But I have not investigated it.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on January 16, 2017, 05:46:15 pm
... and at around 11KHz for those transients, there's potential for other problems.
I don't get that either. Why would you switch at 11KHz with such small magnetics?
I believe earlier in the thread some other person zoomed in really close on the ripple and found that the switching frequency was something like 1.2MHz or 2.5MHz. The weird...ripple, for lack of a better word...that you are measuring must be some larger-scale artifact of the control circuit.

Yep, must be.
Could be classic LDO type feedback loop oscillation.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: twice11 on January 16, 2017, 05:52:38 pm
In the linked review:

(http://lygte-info.dk/pic/Batteries2013Primary/Batteroo%20AA/1.4V150ohm.png)

Wait a second, that doesn't really make sense. I guess it is supposed to be a curve taken from the 150ohm discharge cycle. As usual, the batterizer does not "turn on" until the voltage drops below Vbatt=1.3V, so the output at Vbatt=1.4V should be a flat line. Did you create this graph by increasing the voltage back to 1.4V after the battery was down to below 1.3V? If yes, it seems the batterizer has a big turn-off hysteresis, and actually boosts its 0.2V offset even to the 1.4V battery voltage to obtain 1.6V, but at some point the control loop gets completely out of control spiking up to 1.8V, possibly triggering some OVP or finally latching the thing off until the voltage drops below 1.3V again.

As others already set, this output voltage explains the blown lightbulbs. And the PTC characteristic of a lightbulb with its big inrush current might actually cause the battery voltage to momentarily drop below 1.3V during turn-on, and then recover to 1.4V or even higher when the filament is hot. A rule-of-thumb says that the operating resistance of an incandescent bulb is around 10 times the cold resistance.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on January 16, 2017, 05:58:30 pm
... and at around 11KHz for those transients, there's potential for other problems.

I don't get that either. Why would you switch at 11KHz with such small magnetics?
They don't switch at 11kHz. The only switching is at 2.5MHz.

To get power efficiency at low loads, they use a burst mode which means the Batteriser regularly goes to a low current sleep mode and in that mode, there is no regulation. A comparitor wakes the Batteriser up when the voltage drops below a threshhold. When Linear Technology do this, the use a comparator threshold below 50mV. The Batteriser wakeup comparator seems to be set at 200mV. The voltage drop can be much more then that because there seems to be a 10uS delay before the Batteriser starts to wake. A properly designed Batteriser would have an output capacitor big enough to cover for the slow wake-up time - something like 470uF, but obviously they cannot get a 470uF cap to fit. It is all about compromise - the faster the wakeup comparator is, the more quiescent current it will draw.

With only 14uF output capacitance on the AAA battery, I would expect a 1A load that is suddenly connected to an unloaded Batteriser to cause a output voltage drop to perhaps 0.6V before it can start to recover if the load is connected during a sleep period.

Based on other designs that use Boost mode, any load below 5% to 10% of peak current is probably using Boost mode with the ugly sleep-wake waveform. Over 10% load, the Batteriser should be in constant regulated mode, so the output should look much smoother.

I have no idea what is causing the 1.8V+ peaks before the Boost mode goes to sleep. Perhaps the chip design has a few design problems? Or do they deliberately force the output to 1.9V before sleep?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: twice11 on January 16, 2017, 06:15:04 pm
I have no idea what is causing the 1.8V+ peaks before the Boost mode goes to sleep. Perhaps the chip design has a few design problems? Or do they deliberately force the output to 1.9V before sleep?

It just occurred to me: Did HKJ check the input voltage to the batterizer (from the Lab Supply / Cap)? Possibly the input already has stability issues, so the jump from 1.6V (1.4 + 0.2 boost amount) to 1.8V is not caused by the batteroo boost sleeve, but by the benchtop PSU supplying it.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: HKJ on January 16, 2017, 06:30:59 pm
It just occurred to me: Did HKJ check the input voltage to the batterizer (from the Lab Supply / Cap)? Possibly the input already has stability issues, so the jump from 1.6V (1.4 + 0.2 boost amount) to 1.8V is not caused by the batteroo boost sleeve, but by the benchtop PSU supplying it.

No, I did expect the Keithley 2460 to have it fairly well under control with a 4 terminal connection.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: twice11 on January 16, 2017, 07:08:46 pm
It just occurred to me: Did HKJ check the input voltage to the batterizer (from the Lab Supply / Cap)? Possibly the input already has stability issues, so the jump from 1.6V (1.4 + 0.2 boost amount) to 1.8V is not caused by the batteroo boost sleeve, but by the benchtop PSU supplying it.

No, I did expect the Keithley 2460 to have it fairly well under control with a 4 terminal connection.

That's a reasonable assumption, but my intuitive reaction to the mention of four-wire connection is that it does not help stability of the control loop, as the external buffer cap, wire resistance and wire inductance get part of the loop. The spikey current consumption and on/off toggling of the Batteroo boost sleeve seem to make it a quite evil load to the supply.

On the other hand, if these extreme voltage spikes would be caused by supply instability, they can't serve as explanation for the blown flashlight bulbs.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: JiggyNinja on January 16, 2017, 10:45:43 pm
The weird...ripple, for lack of a better word...that you are measuring must be some larger-scale artifact of the control circuit.
That makes sense - as an explanation for the observed waveform ... but you have to wonder about it as an artefact of the design... especially as a design that has been implemented in the final product.
Just because I said it was an artifact of the design doesn't mean I meant it was a intentional or desirable part of the design.

I don't think it's PFM hysteresis like some other posters are speculating. That would be a sawtooth waveform, and someone else already posted a shot exactly like that several pages back. That's how the switching frequency was discovered, by counting the individual switch events on the positive slope of the sawtooth.

I think Dave nailed it with something causing the control loop to oscillate. It's too irregular to be anything intentional.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on January 16, 2017, 11:44:57 pm
Just because I said it was an artifact of the design doesn't mean I meant it was a intentional or desirable part of the design.
I didn't mean to imply that.  I was just saying that such a waveform makes you wonder... It's not something you would expect in a production unit.

Quote
I think Dave nailed it with something causing the control loop to oscillate. It's too irregular to be anything intentional.
I agree.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on January 18, 2017, 03:05:26 pm
My review of the batteroo is up: http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/Batteroo%20AA%20UK.html (http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/Batteroo%20AA%20UK.html)

Awesome work  :clap:

WTF, is the Batteriser output voltage really this bad? 1.85V output peak?

(http://lygte-info.dk/pic/Batteries2013Primary/Batteroo%20AA/1.4V150ohm.png)

Quick test on the AA version

150ohm load (resistor box), and a 1.4V Rigol DP832 PSU input.

(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=285873;image)

And with no load @ 1.4V PSU input
(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=285867;image)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on January 18, 2017, 06:17:37 pm
I can confirm similar but not as bad behavior with a 1.4V input, 150ohm load (resistor box), and a Rigol DP832 PSU input.
I really don't think it is instability. It is "by design" intentional behaviour. At 150 Ohms load, the regulator is going to sleep (to save current) and waking again. This is a common method converters use if they are attempting to have a high efficiency over a wide current range.

You can read about it in this Linear Technology datasheet (Burst mode).

http://cds.linear.com/docs/en/datasheet/35392fc.pdf (http://cds.linear.com/docs/en/datasheet/35392fc.pdf)

Other converter manufacturers (like Seiko Instruments) use exactly the same method to get efficiency over a wide range. the difference between LT, Seiko and Batteroo is that Batteroo let the voltage drop much lower then the other manufacturers before turning the regulator ON. That might be a tradeoff between quiescent current and p-p burst mode waveform. The less often the regulator wakes when no load, the less quiescent current.

What happens with a low impedance battery is it allows high peak currents so the regulator ON time is much shorter then for a higher impedance battery.

Basically you cannot have a switching converter running continuously at 2.5MHz and switching current capability of several amps and have a quiescent current of less then 10uA. The way you achieve this is by turning the regulator off  for most of the time at less then 10% load.

150 ohms is a current of 10mA. On the waveform, I am seeing about .1V drop for 80uS. Assuming the regulator is off for this period, that means the output caps of the AA battery Batteriser total 0.01 X 80uS / 0.1V = 8uF.

The no load graph shows a 0.15v drop over 0.155 second, so with a 10uF output capacitor, the actual load current for the "no load" test was 8uF x 0.15/0.155 = 7.7uA. Assuming that is not the scope probe current, it means most of this is due to the regulator chip in the Batteriser (the output voltage sensor circuit).

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: JiggyNinja on January 19, 2017, 06:21:18 am
That explains the waveforms Dave posted from his Rigol. They are sawtooth waves, showing the ramp up when the converter is on then the gradual fading as the converter is off.

That does NOT explain the original, blue waveform. It is much too distorted to be an intentional kind of burst mode. Given that the output voltage is horribly distorted with the low input resistance, and perfect with an actual battery, it must be some kind of instability in the control loop.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: HKJ on January 19, 2017, 06:31:45 am
That does NOT explain the original, blue waveform. It is much too distorted to be an intentional kind of burst mode. Given that the output voltage is horribly distorted with the low input resistance, and perfect with an actual battery, it must be some kind of instability in the control loop.

I am getting more and more suspicious about my power supply, maybe it did not deliver as stable voltage is I expected. I hope to look at it later and if necessary update the curves.
Anyway the curves with the alkaline do not have any instability from any power supply.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: mc172 on January 19, 2017, 09:00:54 am
Setup is as follows:

PSUA (Supply), HP 6632B, CV mode supplying the Batteriser input voltage
PSUB (Load), HP 6632B, CC mode loading/sinking the Batteriser output fixed at 125mA

Do you need a special flavour of power supply (such as your lovely HPs) to do this, or is there a way of doing this with most lab supplies in constant current mode?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on January 19, 2017, 10:14:36 am
That does NOT explain the original, blue waveform. It is much too distorted to be an intentional kind of burst mode. Given that the output voltage is horribly distorted with the low input resistance, and perfect with an actual battery, it must be some kind of instability in the control loop.

I am getting more and more suspicious about my power supply, maybe it did not deliver as stable voltage is I expected. I hope to look at it later and if necessary update the curves.
Anyway the curves with the alkaline do not have any instability from any power supply.
The most likely explanation of the 1.9V peak after the Batteriser regulator goes to sleep is that the source power supply has a problem - if it goes over 1.5V, then the power supply voltage goes straight through to the Batteriser output - by design.

The really interesting waveform to see is the supply current because when the regulator is on, it is probably drawing 200mA to  a couple of amps regardless of load. When the Batteriser regulator goes to sleep, the battery current drops instantly from perhaps amps to zero. With this kind of burst regulator, the ON period for the switching circuit probably never gets below 5% duty cycle. It is not a nice type of load for a power supply and it would make a lot of sense always monitoring the power supply voltage along with the output voltage. A simple fix would be to add a big electrolytic cap across the power supply output.

One of the consequences of this high pulse current power sourcing from the battery is that it will work pretty inefficiently with batteries with a high impedance. You will probably get a better life with quality NiMh batteries rather then really cheap batteries.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on January 19, 2017, 08:05:16 pm
A simple fix would be to add a big electrolytic cap across the power supply output.
I'd hope that a PSU already has a big electrolytic cap across its output.

If the Batteriser is switching the load at high frequency then the problem will be the inductance in the wires. Add lots of ceramic caps in parallel (faster response) very close to the Batteriser input. Or a couple of ceramic caps in parallel for speed and an electrolytic for capacity. You could also thread the power cable through a ferrite ring a couple of times.


Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on January 19, 2017, 11:05:02 pm
I'd hope that a PSU already has a big electrolytic cap across its output.

Can't be too big or your current limiting circuitry would be a waste of space.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dexters_lab on January 20, 2017, 07:07:12 am
Setup is as follows:

PSUA (Supply), HP 6632B, CV mode supplying the Batteriser input voltage
PSUB (Load), HP 6632B, CC mode loading/sinking the Batteriser output fixed at 125mA

Do you need a special flavour of power supply (such as your lovely HPs) to do this, or is there a way of doing this with most lab supplies in constant current mode?

yes they have to be designed that way, they are not unique but they are a bit unusual in being able to do this

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on January 20, 2017, 01:35:16 pm
I can confirm similar but not as bad behavior with a 1.4V input, 150ohm load (resistor box), and a Rigol DP832 PSU input.
I really don't think it is instability. It is "by design" intentional behaviour. At 150 Ohms load, the regulator is going to sleep (to save current) and waking again. This is a common method converters use if they are attempting to have a high efficiency over a wide current range.

Correct. I though it didn't have any oscillation with the Alakline but did with the PSU & NiMh, but that's because my Alakline was too high a voltage (1.5V) and the regulator simply wasn't on at all.
Repeating test with 1.3V alkaline shows the same oscillation.
So yes, it's the chip going into a sleep type mode and the caps charging.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on January 20, 2017, 05:04:28 pm
Is it possible to better simulate a battery with a PSU by simple using a series resistor to simulate the ESR of a battery? Of course, the resistor needs to be adjusted depending of the output voltage, but can be fixed for a given output voltage, unless the load gets too high. But might be more complicated if you want to do it right. Looks like there is some demand for this, because there is a neat battery simulator device:

http://www.tek.com/tektronix-and-keithley-dc-power-supplies/keithley-series-2281s-battery-simulator (http://www.tek.com/tektronix-and-keithley-dc-power-supplies/keithley-series-2281s-battery-simulator)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: HKJ on January 21, 2017, 02:46:48 am
Is it possible to better simulate a battery with a PSU by simple using a series resistor to simulate the ESR of a battery? Of course, the resistor needs to be adjusted depending of the output voltage, but can be fixed for a given output voltage, unless the load gets too high. But might be more complicated if you want to do it right. Looks like there is some demand for this, because there is a neat battery simulator device:

http://www.tek.com/tektronix-and-keithley-dc-power-supplies/keithley-series-2281s-battery-simulator (http://www.tek.com/tektronix-and-keithley-dc-power-supplies/keithley-series-2281s-battery-simulator)

The problem with both a resistor and that supply is impedance, batteries has fairly low impedance at high frequency, this means many devices only have a small input capacitor, they assume the battery handles it. This is difficult to simulate with a power supply, especially with long test leads.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: JiggyNinja on January 24, 2017, 02:30:33 am
I can confirm similar but not as bad behavior with a 1.4V input, 150ohm load (resistor box), and a Rigol DP832 PSU input.
I really don't think it is instability. It is "by design" intentional behaviour. At 150 Ohms load, the regulator is going to sleep (to save current) and waking again. This is a common method converters use if they are attempting to have a high efficiency over a wide current range.

Correct. I though it didn't have any oscillation with the Alakline but did with the PSU & NiMh, but that's because my Alakline was too high a voltage (1.5V) and the regulator simply wasn't on at all.
Repeating test with 1.3V alkaline shows the same oscillation.
So yes, it's the chip going into a sleep type mode and the caps charging.
Are you sure they're the same? Frank posted this screenshot waayyyy back on page 4, and it's exactly what would be expected from a charge/drain cycle with hysteresis (a near-perfect sawtooth shape).

(http://www.frank-buss.de/batteroo/ripple-100-ohm.png)

The image you posted a couple pages back is qualitatively very different. This one is much more distorted.
(http://lygte-info.dk/pic/Batteries2013Primary/Batteroo%20AA/1.4V150ohm.png)

That does not look like cyclic periods of charging and draining, it is much more distorted than that. What is the source of this image? What conditions was it measured under?

Which one are you getting from your batteries?

EDIT: I saw the graphs you posted on the last page, and they're the same type as Frank's, and different from the blue one.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: HighVoltage on January 29, 2017, 11:03:04 pm
OK, I got my 4 x AA Batteriser sleeves last week and here is my first test.

I have very simply used the MAYNUO M9812 in battery testing mode with following parameters:

- 400 mA constant current
- 0.5V Cut Off voltage


The batteries use are:
- Duracell Industrial
- Model: LR6


Test 1:
- Single AA battery discharged
- 1.605 V (no load voltage at start)
- 1.43 V Starting voltage (400 mA load)
- 400 mA Constant current
- 3:48:05 Runtime to 0.5V cut off voltage
- 1.52 AH Capacity used


Test 2:
- Single AA battery with Batteriser installed
- 1.607 V (no load voltage at start)
- 1.44 V Starting voltage (400 mA load)
- 400 mA Constant current
- 2:17:34 Runtime to 0.5V cut off voltage
- 0.919 AH Capacity used


Here are the screen captures from the official Maynuo battery testing software.

Conclusion:
I am surprised how fast the voltage curve drops at about 1.2V batteriser output.
Until the total collapse, the batteriser output voltage is higher and flatter than the battery only.
But under no circumstances will I get more energy out of the battery !





Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on January 29, 2017, 11:20:38 pm
Until the total collapse, the batteriser output voltage is higher and flatter than the battery only.
But under no circumstances will I get more energy out of the battery !

Surprise, surprise.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: HighVoltage on January 30, 2017, 02:51:26 am
OK, here is my Test number 2:

This is a 6V DC GYRO motor
The current consumption is a little over 1 A at startup and then it goes down to 700 mA, when the motor has reached maximum speed.
On 4 new Duracell AA cells this motor was running for 3 hours 15 min.
On 4 new Duracell AA cells and 4 pieces Batteriser the motor ran for exact 1 hour.

The voltage graph is taken with the batteriser installed at the motor.

Conclusion:
Run time is much less with the Batteriser!
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Marcel_X on February 04, 2017, 07:34:54 am
Out of curiosity, has a batteroo sleeve ever been sent to anyone who can decap the boost converter IC? I did see it being mentioned in the original thread, but I don't know if that ever happened.
Does anyone know?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on February 04, 2017, 11:24:46 am
Can anyone with a Batteriser please use multimeter on the diode test range to see what the Batteriser looks like with a reverse voltage and no battery (or a completely flat battery)? Does it look like a diode or an open circuit?

If it looks like a diode, what is the voltage drop with the multimeter?

When a Batteriser shuts down with multiple batteries, it gets a reverse voltage.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Ysjoelfir on February 04, 2017, 11:44:20 pm
Looks like a Diode, 0,438V Drop with no battery attached.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on February 05, 2017, 12:20:40 am
Looks like a Diode, 0,438V Drop with no battery attached.
Thanks.

What this means is that in a multi battery device, when the first Batteroo shuts down, the current goes through this diode. The device could still keep running as if it uses 4 batteries, the other Batteroos are still providing 4.5v and this diode completes the circuit.  If the current was 1A, the voltage drop at 1A may be 0.6V and so there is a 0.6W dissapation in the chip.

How hot does the chip get with a 0.6W dissapation?

It is not that hard to measure as diodes have a reliable -2.1 to -2.2mV per degree C temperature coefficient. So if measure the ambient temperature and do a current versus voltage drop curve, you can convert this to a current versus die temperature curve. If the chip gets to 150 deg C, it is getting close to failure. Usually the chip fuses - it turns into a lump of low resistance metal.

It may be that this factor decides the real maximum current the Batteroo can supply in a multi-battery device.

The other thing that this can mean is that if you put a new battery with a Batteroo in a multi battery device, and put it in a multi battery device as the last battery, and the device was switched on as you are inserting the batteries, it may be possible to cause the Batteroo to latch up - which could cause it to try and pull the battery down to perhaps 1.2V. This would cause the Batteroo chip to overheat, and fail as above. This is a possibility, but the chip could also be a latch-up resistant design which would prevent this condition.

Dave did a video on this latch-up effect with cmos chips:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0TZMivVzVk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0TZMivVzVk)

So here are two possible Batteriser failure modes that do not involve the clip shorting to the battery cell case. Both could end up with a Batteroo that shorts out the battery.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: jippie on February 05, 2017, 07:04:26 am
So here are two possible Batteriser failure modes that do not involve the clip shorting to the battery cell case. Both could end up with a Batteroo that shorts out the battery.
Another failure mode is where the clip shorts to the battery holder itself when it is metal, like in a flashlight with a metal housing. This is only an issue with two or more batteries in series.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dexters_lab on February 05, 2017, 07:57:00 pm
Out of curiosity, has a batteroo sleeve ever been sent to anyone who can decap the boost converter IC? I did see it being mentioned in the original thread, but I don't know if that ever happened.
Does anyone know?

Not as far as i know, but i can certainly send one of mine if someone can do it?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on February 05, 2017, 08:04:47 pm
Out of curiosity, has a batteroo sleeve ever been sent to anyone who can decap the boost converter IC? I did see it being mentioned in the original thread, but I don't know if that ever happened.
Does anyone know?

Not as far as i know, but i can certainly send one of mine if someone can do it?

See here:

https://www.patreon.com/zeptobars (https://www.patreon.com/zeptobars)

$2.50 per chip.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dexters_lab on February 05, 2017, 08:24:02 pm
Out of curiosity, has a batteroo sleeve ever been sent to anyone who can decap the boost converter IC? I did see it being mentioned in the original thread, but I don't know if that ever happened.
Does anyone know?

Not as far as i know, but i can certainly send one of mine if someone can do it?

See here:

https://www.patreon.com/zeptobars (https://www.patreon.com/zeptobars)

$2.50 per chip.

  :-+ i have messaged him

i'm sure we'll work something out and get one sent off to be done
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dexters_lab on February 06, 2017, 01:56:31 am
contact made, package will be leaving next week en-route to Zeptobars  :-+
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: testian on February 16, 2017, 10:58:50 pm
Great thank you. Do you know when we can expect the results?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Marcel_X on February 27, 2017, 09:03:56 am
contact made, package will be leaving next week en-route to Zeptobars  :-+

Any news? Just being curious... Getting quite quiet here :-)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on March 01, 2017, 12:29:09 am
Maybe time to unpin the thread...  :popcorn:

Batteriser has gone from entertaining to embarrassing since they started shipping them.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on March 10, 2017, 11:25:51 am
Our friend Ali is kicking up a storm over here:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cool-invention-saves-you-money-frustration-alan-elbanhawy (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cool-invention-saves-you-money-frustration-alan-elbanhawy)
Still spouting the UL test as if it's the gold standard.
Ok, I have the exact same GPS in the mail right now, I'll repeat the testing and we'll see...
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on March 10, 2017, 12:14:02 pm
I updated the first posting in this thread, summarizing some of the results we found so far.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on March 10, 2017, 11:30:15 pm
Our friend Ali is kicking up a storm over here:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cool-invention-saves-you-money-frustration-alan-elbanhawy (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cool-invention-saves-you-money-frustration-alan-elbanhawy)
Still spouting the UL test as if it's the gold standard.

A "Power System Architect at Exar Corporation" wrote that? Does anybody have the email address of his boss?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on March 10, 2017, 11:48:32 pm
Our friend Ali is kicking up a storm over here:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cool-invention-saves-you-money-frustration-alan-elbanhawy (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cool-invention-saves-you-money-frustration-alan-elbanhawy)
Still spouting the UL test as if it's the gold standard.
A "Power System Architect at Exar Corporation" wrote that?

One that used to work with (and presumably was the boss of) none other than Mr Batteriser himself, Dr Bob.
When Bob came knocking for a favor, I would have said my reputation wasn't worth it, friendship only goes so far.
Perhaps we might now know who might have done the ASIC for them?, he looks like a great friend to turn to for hooking up such a custom job.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/alan-elbanhawy-02522622/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/alan-elbanhawy-02522622/)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on March 13, 2017, 08:38:01 am
Mouse test, with both NiMh and an Alkaline battery.
Extra 19min on NiMh
Alkaline with a measured 1.16V dropout under load.
Not a controlled test, but said he got about an extra 6 hours use from a dead battery. 26 days for a new battery without Batteriser. That's 1% extra run time!  :-DD
Worst result yet?
Remember, a mouse was one of the products that Batteriser promoted at the time as it being useful in.
I've updated the spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18K9c2YAT0d0QABGYGpzItbvDcgfAQCRUtloEzzfXADU/ (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18K9c2YAT0d0QABGYGpzItbvDcgfAQCRUtloEzzfXADU/)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf4aVfHkyfY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf4aVfHkyfY)

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on March 13, 2017, 09:29:31 am
Mouse test, with both NiMh and an Alkaline battery.
Extra 19min on NiMh
Alkaline with a measured 1.16V dropout under load.
Not a controlled test, but said he got about an extra 6 hours use from a dead battery. 26 days for a new battery without Batteriser. That's 1% extra run time!  :-DD

In the video he said he probably used it for 100 hours in the 26 days, and at the end he guessed 5%-10% extra time.

Can't wait to see your Garmin GPS test to see the first independent product test with 800% improvement  :popcorn:
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on March 13, 2017, 10:15:49 am
Mouse test, with both NiMh and an Alkaline battery.
Extra 19min on NiMh
Alkaline with a measured 1.16V dropout under load.
Not a controlled test, but said he got about an extra 6 hours use from a dead battery. 26 days for a new battery without Batteriser. That's 1% extra run time!  :-DD

In the video he said he probably used it for 100 hours in the 26 days, and at the end he guessed 5%-10% extra time.

Can't wait to see your Garmin GPS test to see the first independent product test with 800% improvement  :popcorn:

Ah, ok, corrected.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: daveake on March 13, 2017, 11:16:45 pm
So, basically that gets cancelled out by the conversion losses if you were to put the batteroo on a new battery.  :palm:

The video also shows that the battery gauge is rendered almost useless, that it's hard work inserting or removing the batteroo-encased cell, and that the batteroo positive tab gets bent after the first use.  Any user is going to break it way before the break-even point, assuming they don't get fed up of the rigmarole of inserting and removing the thing.

Dave
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on March 13, 2017, 11:47:13 pm
So, basically that gets cancelled out by the conversion losses if you were to put the batteroo on a new battery.  :palm:

Yes, I don't anyone has yet to find a device (apart from Batteroo themsleves) that device operates longer with the Batteriser on a fresh set of cells.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on March 14, 2017, 12:42:20 am
You just need to find a device with a cutoff voltage of like 1.3 V (80% power left in the battery). The output voltage is above 1.3 V for battery voltage down to 1 V, so it should run much longer, even when considering only 90% efficiency as measured by dexters_lab. If someone has too much time, with the Vout/Vin graphs, the efficiency graphs and a battery discharge curve, someone could create a formula (or maybe easier a simple program) that outputs the factor for a given load and cutoff voltage. E.g. for a constant power load of x Watt, there is a cutoff voltage where the factor is 1 and below that the factor is less than 1. Of course, there are not many such devices.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: cj on March 16, 2017, 01:41:30 am
The mouse in the video uses LEDs and only one 1.5V battery so it must have a boost converter inside. If the internal booster stops working none of the LEDs will work, this includes the one for motion detection. The batteriser was only able to run the mouse for a few minutes longer indicating the booster in the mouse stops working at a slightly higher voltage than the booster in the batteriser.

This makes this mouse test a good test for pointing out that the batteriser is useless in devices with internal boost converter.
It however is a bad test for pointing out the batteriser doesn’t do what it claims. Only devices without internal boost converters, like the train test, should be used for these tests.

CJ
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: raspberrypi on March 18, 2017, 03:45:05 pm
Oh course its not working for frank buss and dave. You have to say a prayer first and you also have to believe in it. If you don't believe its not going to work. They make this very clear on their website. I wonder how much money the company has lost since these videos. But I think the majority of people who watch these videos already know it sounds like bullshit.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Marcel_X on March 22, 2017, 02:29:18 pm
Still no word from Zeptobars... I thought a batteriser was sent more than a month ago by Dexters_lab.
Curious to see the die. Any news about this?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dexters_lab on March 23, 2017, 07:31:32 pm
Still no word from Zeptobars... I thought a batteriser was sent more than a month ago by Dexters_lab.
Curious to see the die. Any news about this?

no heard anything so far, i'll ping him and see if there is an ETA
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: d-smes on April 03, 2017, 08:17:03 am
I may have missed it, but have any of the media outlets that praised this as the "worlds greatest new product" circled back to do a review themselves of a working product?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: usagi on April 03, 2017, 03:28:44 pm
a total of zero media outlets have done this.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dexters_lab on April 10, 2017, 07:47:13 pm
Still no word from Zeptobars... I thought a batteriser was sent more than a month ago by Dexters_lab.
Curious to see the die. Any news about this?

no heard anything so far, i'll ping him and see if there is an ETA

was delivered to zeptobars on the 6th april, took nearly a month to arrive!!

that's the reason for the delay
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on June 13, 2017, 12:26:12 am
Looks like some people are still trying to defend the sleeves, latest comment on my toy train test video:

(http://i.imgur.com/Jdog7WY.png)

Dave, can't remember, did you do a teardown of your toy train?
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on June 21, 2017, 10:48:08 am
Dave, can't remember, did you do a teardown of your toy train?

Yep, posted photos somewhere on here. It has a motor, a deduction gearbox and a grain of wheat light bulb.
That guy is clueless.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: brainwash on June 24, 2017, 09:36:34 am
I would like to see a cheap toy train that has CV circuity. AFAIK most of the expensive model trains do their "regulation" through the tracks. Can't fathom how someone would even get to that idea, unless you have shares.

But, as a question, what would be an applicable product for this "technology"? Mice have ASICs that can work to low voltages, cameras have a boost converter, most other stuff is either mostly resistive (toy train) or use standard CMOS/TTL circuitry.

As a note, the mirage of "fully charged" batteries makes another victim. The '8-bit guy' got a Nintendo Camera with original (>20yo) batteries which measured 1.55V but didn't actually work. Alkaline batteries are really treacherous...
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: BarsMonster on June 30, 2017, 05:20:15 pm
Still no word from Zeptobars... I thought a batteriser was sent more than a month ago by Dexters_lab.
Curious to see the die. Any news about this?

Sorry for keeping you all waiting:
https://zeptobars.com/en/read/BTR004K-Batteriser-Batteroo-switched-capacitor-boost-dcdc
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: janekm on June 30, 2017, 10:19:28 pm
Still no word from Zeptobars... I thought a batteriser was sent more than a month ago by Dexters_lab.
Curious to see the die. Any news about this?

Sorry for keeping you all waiting:
https://zeptobars.com/en/read/BTR004K-Batteriser-Batteroo-switched-capacitor-boost-dcdc

Terrific, glad to finally see it! I was so sure we were going to find an IC vendor's marking inside, amazing that it really seems to be a totally custom job. Whoever designed it clearly did an amazing job, I just hope they had the foresight to include some kind of configuration option for other output voltage (ranges)  ;D
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Marcel_X on July 01, 2017, 12:42:45 pm
Sorry for keeping you all waiting:
https://zeptobars.com/en/read/BTR004K-Batteriser-Batteroo-switched-capacitor-boost-dcdc

Wow, thank you so much! Hats off to you sir. And in a way to Batteroo too. Not a rebadged LT chip. Still limited use for the sleeve as such, but they made a genuine attempt. Thanks again!
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: BarsMonster on July 01, 2017, 05:44:29 pm
I just hope they had the foresight to include some kind of configuration option for other output voltage (ranges)  ;D

Unlikely, they specify 1.8V as maximum voltage. They likely used 1.8V transistors in the design (lowest resistance per unit of area).
But derivative design could have been made with 3.3-5V transistors.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: dexters_lab on July 01, 2017, 06:48:51 pm
Still no word from Zeptobars... I thought a batteriser was sent more than a month ago by Dexters_lab.
Curious to see the die. Any news about this?

Sorry for keeping you all waiting:
https://zeptobars.com/en/read/BTR004K-Batteriser-Batteroo-switched-capacitor-boost-dcdc

great work! thanks for decapping this one and posting it up, really interesting to see under the cover!

given the custom design and the effort gone into packaging it into the sleeve it seems they really did put effort into designing the batteriser to work well, such a shame the theory that underpins it is just flawed
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: amspire on July 01, 2017, 07:20:46 pm
given the custom design and the effort gone into packaging it into the sleeve it seems they really did put effort into designing the batteriser to work well, such a shame the theory that underpins it is just flawed
The technology is very impressive. In terms of idle current and current capacity for the voltages, it seems to be way ahead of anything else on the market. We are talking about being much better then the best that Linear Technology, Analog Devices, Microchip Technologies and Maxim can do. An amazing technical achievement

If the design was tweaked, it could be one of the best low voltage boost converter chips available. I am a huge fan of AA and AAA cells  - they have been around for over 60 years and will be here for many decades to come. For devices that use low power, that need easily replaceable batteries or that can be used for decades, AA and AAA are the best. With modern efficiency, it is possible to power useful devices of just one AA or AAA battery cell. With the very low idle current on this boost converter, the converter does not need to be switched off, making controller soft power switching possible.

There is not currently a decent converter chip on the market that can do this. The idle current is too high, and the maximum output current when the battery is at 0.9v is often pretty low. A modified Batterizer chip could be perfect.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on July 01, 2017, 07:34:58 pm
I just hope they had the foresight to include some kind of configuration option for other output voltage (ranges)  ;D

Unlikely, they specify 1.8V as maximum voltage. They likely used 1.8V transistors in the design (lowest resistance per unit of area).
But derivative design could have been made with 3.3-5V transistors.

Weren't they in the process of making a 9V Batteriser?
They in fact promised to deliver one to every IGG backer.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Luminax on July 06, 2017, 11:12:22 am
I remember something about Fitipower's IC at the other thread... perhaps if someone can get their hands on one so we can do a die comparison
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Cerebus on October 11, 2017, 12:02:52 pm
A little necroposting because I promised an update when the time came.

One of the items much discussed was the Apple wireless keyboard. So, back in February, the 17th to be precise, I put two new Duracell Industrial alkaline AAs in my Apple Bluetooth keyboard. After a few weeks of low battery warnings, starting at an indicated 10% according to Apple's drivers, today it got to 4% and I decided it was finally time to change the batteries.

Interestingly, the unloaded voltage of the cells I just took out were 1.16V and 1.17V (10Mohm meter, so a tiny load ~120nA) - suspiciously close to the 1.2V figure Batteroo were always flinging about, perhaps it's where they got that figure from initially.

This is one of the rare occasions where measuring a cell's unloaded voltage is probably justified as that's what the keyboard itself is most likely going to be measuring. That is, the load the keyboard presents is negligible except when it's transmitting, when it is transmitting it pulls a sharp current pulse and then goes back to idling. Obviously it's unlikely that it is going to have the measurement sophistication to measure the battery during a pulse, measurement during idle is much more likely both from an instrumentation point of view and a coding point of view.

Just for completeness I also measured each cell with a 4k load (an educated guess at a mean loading in circuit) in parallel and got the same voltages, with the only difference being instead of a steady reading at the 10 uV level it was slowly drifting down, as you would expect.

Anyway, the Batterizer/Batteroo testing issue is a dead one but I remember promising an update when I needed to change batteries so that was it. It might be a useful data point for someone in the future.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: brainwash on November 12, 2017, 10:39:49 am
One month later I can also chime in on the last fact: I have several Logitech devices which seem to run forever on standard cells. However, when low-voltage strikes, they start behaving erratically: the mouse loses clicks and keyboard fails to wake up on first keypress. The unloaded voltage is always around 1.2V, but, there is an LED on pairing and it tries to draw a large amount of current (1-2mA vs <10uA) on first user action. Also, the switches pull some current when actuated, not significant for us Arduino types, but every 10uA counts at that level. Just some food for thought.

I still think the current uC technology is amazing; "some" years ago I had a 1.3MP digital camera with a segmented <1" LCD that could only take 30-40 pics on 2xAAAs. It drew ~200mA while on and ~75mA while "off". It was probably the programmers' fault but nonetheless..
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2017, 10:13:26 am
AA Batteroo testing, with the usual expected results.
Very thorough testing  :-+
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?428675-Test-review-of-Batteroo-AA-with-a-Duracell-battery (http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?428675-Test-review-of-Batteroo-AA-with-a-Duracell-battery)

(http://lygte-info.dk/pic/Batteries2013Primary/Batteroo%20AA/Batteroo%20AA-Capacityx.png)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: maukka on November 24, 2017, 06:10:18 pm
And since the CPF forums are often painfully slow, here's HKJ's own site with the Batteroo review:
http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/Batteroo%20AA%20UK.html (http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/Batteroo%20AA%20UK.html)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on January 05, 2018, 09:55:02 am
Not sure if this has been posted before, but more testing on a capacity meter shows the Batteroo shortens the life, surprise surprise.
And it doesn't fit into most of the 20 odd devices he tried it on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFlg_-Us62I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFlg_-Us62I)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Muttley Snickers on January 05, 2018, 10:22:40 am
More silly shills in the comments section, somebody should probably tell them that everybody else is a wake up to their shenanigans.   ::) :P :palm:

(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=384319;image)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: wraper on January 05, 2018, 10:27:12 am
Not sure if this has been posted before, but more testing on a capacity meter shows the Batteroo shortens the life, surprise surprise.
And it doesn't fit into most of the 20 odd devices he tried it on.
To be fair, it's not a good test. What happened was that batteroo couldn't supply enough current to the charger. I have the same charger and what it does, it takes pulses of high current rather than pulling those 200mA constantly.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Cyberdragon on January 22, 2018, 10:09:10 am
Uh oh! One of the product review channels I watch got a set of ReBoosts last December. He's just an average Joe sort of product review guy (he knows a little bit of tech stuff), but if he does anything with them, it would be funny to see the average consumers reaction to this crap (and it not working at all). It was already funny when he put a very weak battery in it and it just died in the tester with the booster on it. :-DD
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on January 24, 2018, 03:23:35 pm
More silly shills in the comments section, somebody should probably tell them that everybody else is a wake up to their shenanigans.   ::) :P :palm:
(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=384319;image)

Classic astroturfing!  :-DD

Our friends at Batteroo continue to shell out the LOL's
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Muttley Snickers on January 24, 2018, 04:30:09 pm
I've been looking to get one of these oximeters after a home nurse came around recently and used one to check if I still had a pulse  ::) :phew:, there are plenty of these units about on Ebay and elsewhere but with most being similar in appearance it is rather difficult to identify one from another, perhaps Batteroo would be so kind as to chime in and tell which specific oximeter they use and recommend.

(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=389155;image)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Kean on January 24, 2018, 04:36:44 pm
I've been looking to get one of these oximeters after a home nurse came around recently and used one to check if I still had a pulse  ::) :phew:, there are plenty of these units about on Ebay and elsewhere but with most being similar in appearance it is rather difficult to identify one from another, perhaps Batteroo would be so kind as to chime in and tell which specific oximeter they use and recommend.

Just for reference, I did a quick teardown... http://kean.com.au/oshw/oximeter/ (http://kean.com.au/oshw/oximeter/)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Muttley Snickers on January 24, 2018, 04:56:27 pm
Thanks, that AliExpress link is no longer valid and a search there brings up a myriad of different models pretty much the same as Ebay, one manual I downloaded states a battery life of about thirty hours from two AAA's with a current draw of around forty milliamps, is that about what your unit gets and draws ?.


Edit: I just discovered that Batteroo released a video around twelve months ago in relation to their testing of the CMS-50DL oximeter yet they promoted this on Twitter only a week or so ago, it would appear that they are just recycling old rubbish.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on January 24, 2018, 05:10:40 pm
More silly shills in the comments section, somebody should probably tell them that everybody else is a wake up to their shenanigans.   ::) :P :palm:
(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?action=dlattach;attach=384319;image)

Classic astroturfing!  :-DD

Our friends at Batteroo continue to shell out the LOL's

Reminds me to teleshopping channels :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoFnoQPrIaI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoFnoQPrIaI)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on January 24, 2018, 07:40:04 pm
Surely the company must be getting close to being dead in the water?
Their new product was a commercial flop, unless they have found a deal though a big chain store.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Kean on January 24, 2018, 08:23:37 pm
Thanks, that AliExpress link is no longer valid and a search there brings up a myriad of different models pretty much the same as Ebay, one manual I downloaded states a battery life of about thirty hours from two AAA's with a current draw of around forty milliamps, is that about what your unit gets and draws ?.


Edit: I just discovered that Batteroo released a video around twelve months ago in relation to their testing of the CMS-50DL oximeter yet they promoted this on Twitter only a week or so ago, it would appear that they are just recycling old rubbish.

I took a quick measurement and I get ~13.5mA peak active current, although it jumps around a bit as the measurement LED flashes.  Drops to 5.2mA if no finger present, but then auto powers down after a short delay.
These are typical Chinese unbranded product without any actual model number - the display on mine seems to be rotated 90 degrees from that tweeted image.  I can post a spare one to you if you have some AAA batterizers and feel like running some tests.  My email is (too) easy to find.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: martinator on January 24, 2018, 08:25:23 pm
The fact that Dave is so Anti-Batteroo just makes me believe in Batteroo even more. Of course there's going to be anomalies, they are deliberately put there to test my faith in Batteroo.

Batteroo works in mysterious ways that are incomprehensible to the feeble human mind. We look like Batteroo by design, but they are superior to us in matters of the mind. How can anyone deny the evidence provided by infallible witnesses on social media?.
I don't need to be there to witness things with my own eyes when the evidence of Batteroo's miracles is so strong.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: PA0PBZ on January 24, 2018, 08:39:35 pm
- the display on mine seems to be rotated 90 degrees from that tweeted image.

The display on the one I have can be rotated by a short press of the button.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Kean on January 24, 2018, 08:56:26 pm
- the display on mine seems to be rotated 90 degrees from that tweeted image.

The display on the one I have can be rotated by a short press of the button.

Yes, same here.  Five different display modes, with 3 rotation angles.  And a long press enables/disables the BEEP BEEP BEEP

I meant the display was physically rotated, so not the exact same model.  See attached photos.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on February 15, 2018, 10:33:38 am
The fact that Dave is so Anti-Batteroo just makes me believe in Batteroo even more. Of course there's going to be anomalies, they are deliberately put there to test my faith in Batteroo.
Batteroo works in mysterious ways that are incomprehensible to the feeble human mind. We look like Batteroo by design, but they are superior to us in matters of the mind. How can anyone deny the evidence provided by infallible witnesses on social media?.
I don't need to be there to witness things with my own eyes when the evidence of Batteroo's miracles is so strong.

Batteroo has lasted so long, even I'm starting to believe  ;D
In 1000 years the Roohparvar brothers will be worshiped as messiahs!
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on February 23, 2018, 10:59:44 am
Cue: "Life of Brian"

I believe the Batteroo sleeve does just what we would have expected.  (The idea isn't exactly new.)
I believe the miniaturisation effort was a commendable bit of engineering.
I believe the Roohparvar boys have no idea about battery chemistry.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: lordvader88 on March 16, 2018, 02:49:35 pm
Why does this product have so much discussion, and why do so many people on here care ???? I'm just very surprised at the # of posts (and now this 1)
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on March 16, 2018, 09:59:21 pm
Why does this product have so much discussion, and why do so many people on here care ???? I'm just very surprised at the # of posts (and now this 1)

If you want to see much discussion, look at the general discussion thread  :)

http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/ (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/)

I guess the reason why so many people are interested in it, is their hilarious claim to get 800% more out of a battery in their initial marketing, and some engineers want to debunk such silly numbers.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Cerebus on March 17, 2018, 02:20:25 am
Watching the Charlie-Foxtrot that is Battero is what counts as entertainment for many engineers, that's why the thread is so long. That combined with the incredulity that many have watching the marketing machine grind away at a product that, examined with a little science, cannot meet its claims.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on March 19, 2018, 06:42:01 pm
Why does this product have so much discussion, and why do so many people on here care ???? I'm just very surprised at the # of posts (and now this 1)

Because if more people listened to engineers those millions might have been spent on something that improves the world, not to buy some new suits for people like the Batteroo Brothers.

Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on March 21, 2018, 06:56:03 pm
Why does this product have so much discussion, and why do so many people on here care ???? I'm just very surprised at the # of posts (and now this 1)

I would re-quote every one of the posts above - but just read them again for me...  :)

If you thought this thread was long, just look at the thread that brought this product into the EEVblog forum. (Link given by FrankBuss above.)

It's a classic tale where engineers - or anyone with half an appreciation of the factors involved - took up the challenge to call out the marketing beat-up that was the Batteroo Sleeve.


Now sit back my little munchkins.  Snuggle up in your blanky and wrap your hands around that delicious mug of hot chocolate and I'll tell you a story....

The entire saga played out over a period of years, with a lack of technical information supplied by Batteroo being filled in by engineering guesses - and the little in the way of numbers supplied by Batteroo relating to battery chemistry held out to the ridicule it deserved.  Some of those guesses were based on existing technologies that we fully expected Batteroo to be following and they turned out to be pretty darn close.  One that we were slightly off about was the battery life indicator issue.  However, once we had some real data, we were able to make a more accurate statement.  Basically, battery life indicators wouldn't be totally useless - they would be next to useless.

The veil of non-communication smelled awfully like a straight out scam for so long - but we were given teasers that suggested there might be a real product.  (We even had some efforts made by members here to create their own prototypes.)  Some time later - we actually see a real product!!

When we finally get our hands on them, we find it is exactly what we had guessed it would be - and we did, indeed, congratulate Batteroo for making a very good effort in the miniaturisation and capabilities (even if there were some questions on the mechanical construction).  But even making a very good product didn't get around one fundamental problem ... the chemistry of the batteries to be used in their product just DID NOT HAVE the energy available that Batteroo was claiming to be able to extract.  Their marketing claims were, as we call it in Australia, bullshit.  Even after "adjusting" some of their claims, it was still bullshit.

Oh, and along the way we got to hear claims of the mysterious involvement of "Big Battery" who were trying to secretly undermine this "threat" to their business.  We all thought that was as funny as hell.

There was one brand name that did step in - Eveready - but that had absolutely nothing to do with the product per se.  It was to do with the original name for the product: Batteriser.  As I understand it, Eveready felt the audible similarity between "Batteriser" and "Energizer" was enough to cause potential confusion in the marketplace - where the Batteriser might be thought to be part of the Energizer range of product offerings.  With this and having a very good idea of what the Batteriser product would bring to the marketplace, I can completely understand Eveready wanting to have some distance.  Also, Batteroo would have gained some marketing benefit by this.  Eveready pursued this and it seems the matter was settled quietly.  From that point onward, the product became known as the Batteroo Sleeve.  Eveready did, however, show a kindness.  They allowed Batteroo to use up materials already manufactured that had "Batteriser" on them, but any new product, packaging and marketing would have to change.

With the product now available, lots of people started doing lots of testing and lots of "testimonials" were offered.  Batteroo even had a competition or two going offering prizes for the best testimonials.  You can imagine how objective those were.  Batteroo claims started becoming more "qualified", but as time went by, the inevitable revelation begins to dawn on even those who really wanted to give the product a red hot go ... the engineers predictions were right.

There are still those who will champion the Batteroo Sleeve, shouting it from the rooftops, demonstrating this and (claiming to) "prove" that - but, at the end of the day, the Batteroo Sleeve doesn't come close to the original marketing claims ... and never can.  Their product is (dare I say it?) technically admirable, but it cannot extract energy that is simply unavailable.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on March 21, 2018, 07:23:42 pm
One that we were slightly off about was the battery life indicator issue.  However, once we had some real data, we were able to make a more accurate statement.  Basically, battery life indicators wouldn't be totally useless - they would be next to useless.

Yes, that was the only surprise, but it actually wasn't through good design, as all their initial marketing and claims said the output voltage would be completely flat at 1.5V. In practice it wasn't the case, and it seems like they relised after the fact that that might actually be somewhat beneficial.

Quote
When we finally get our hands on them, we find it is exactly what we had guessed it would be - and we did, indeed, congratulate Batteroo for making a very good effort in the miniaturisation and capabilities (even if there were some questions on the mechanical construction).  But even making a very good product didn't get around one fundamental problem ... the chemistry of the batteries to be used in their product just DID NOT HAVE the energy available that Batteroo was claiming to be able to extract.  Their marketing claims were, as we call it in Australia, bullshit.  Even after "adjusting" some of their claims, it was still bullshit.

And that's the thing with not only Batteroo, but many other things that have had their marketing claims been debunked on here, no matter how well you engineer and implement it, an impractical idea is still and impractical idea. The old "you can't polish a turd" thing.

Quote
Oh, and along the way we got to hear claims of the mysterious involvement of "Big Battery" who were trying to secretly undermine this "threat" to their business.  We all thought that was as funny as hell.

There was even more drama and intrigue than just technical. We had the owner of the "official" Batteroo Youtube channel threatend a 13yo blogger with physical violence. We had "someone" pay for dislikes on mine and other videos debunking Batteroo, Energizer taking them down for trademark infringement, fake paid-for testimonial videos, and we had Dr Bob personally slander me and threatening me with legal action in a national newspaper article. Among many other things I'm not remembering right now.
This was the ultimate soap opera engineering saga, everyone was tuning in each week to see what new stupid things Batteroo were saying or doing.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Wilson on March 22, 2018, 06:47:29 pm
They renamed themselves because Energizer was after their ass ???
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Brumby on March 22, 2018, 07:18:22 pm
They renamed themselves because Energizer was after their ass ???
Eveready wouldn't have given a stuff about Batteroo's ass.

Eveready just wanted to protect their extremely valuable Energizer trademark.

Batteroo would have renamed their product because Eveready would have made it clear continuing with the original name would have been "problematic".

Edit: spelling
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on July 15, 2018, 07:45:31 pm
I never did get around to testing that GPS, and I actually have the exact same model still sitting here gathering dust.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Delta on July 16, 2018, 04:26:39 am
Do it.
DO.
IT!
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on July 16, 2018, 06:36:02 am
It's a two minute video. Show the cutoff voltage, show the warning message, dismiss it, keep turning the voltage down.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: FrankBuss on July 17, 2018, 05:28:25 pm
It's a two minute video. Show the cutoff voltage, show the warning message, dismiss it, keep turning the voltage down.

You have to use real batteries. Batteroo will tell you that you can't use a power supply to simulate it and will explain it with some poor snails ;D
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: EEVblog on July 17, 2018, 08:35:37 pm
It's a two minute video. Show the cutoff voltage, show the warning message, dismiss it, keep turning the voltage down.

We had a touch screen mechanism set up to do the whole thing from memory.
Title: Re: Batteroo testing
Post by: Fungus on July 17, 2018, 11:45:32 pm
It's a two minute video. Show the cutoff voltage, show the warning message, dismiss it, keep turning the voltage down.

You have to use real batteries. Batteroo will tell you that you can't use a power supply to simulate it and will explain it with some poor snails ;D

Dave has a fancy new analyser to show how the voltage-dipping argument is load of bollocks.