Author Topic: Batteroo testing  (Read 172865 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ez24

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3092
  • Country: us
  • L.D.A.
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #250 on: December 29, 2016, 09:44:33 am »
YouTube and Website Electronic Resources ------>  http://www.eevblog.com/forum/other-blog-specific/a/msg1341166/#msg1341166
 

Online Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 8278
  • Country: au
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #251 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.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27698
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #252 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
 

Offline mc172

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 234
  • Country: gb
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #253 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:
 

Offline Hensingler

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 144
  • Country: gb
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #254 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.
 

Offline FrankBuss

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2092
  • Country: de
    • Frank Buss
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #255 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 and the diagram:



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.
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
 
The following users thanked this post: johndoe123

Online digsys

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1779
  • Country: au
    • DIGSYS
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #256 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 ! :-)
Hello <tap> <tap> .. is this thing on?
 
The following users thanked this post: RandomTask

Offline g.lewarne

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • Country: gb
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #257 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

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
 

Offline automation_dude

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 2
  • Country: ca
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #258 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. 

 

Offline samgab

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 422
  • Country: nz
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #259 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?
« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 04:29:43 pm by samgab »
 

Offline automation_dude

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 2
  • Country: ca
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #260 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.
 

Offline jesuscf

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 150
  • Country: ca
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #261 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...
Homer: Kids, there's three ways to do things; the right way, the wrong way and the Max Power way!
Bart: Isn't that the wrong way?
Homer: Yeah, but faster!
 

Offline samgab

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 422
  • Country: nz
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #262 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.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27698
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #263 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) :--
 
The following users thanked this post: samgab, Kean, Blocco

Offline Wytnucls

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2833
  • Country: be
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #264 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.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 07:00:48 pm by Wytnucls »
 

Offline Towger

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1418
  • Country: ie
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #265 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.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 06:48:33 pm by Towger »
 

Offline snowl

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 13
  • Country: de
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #266 on: December 29, 2016, 06:54:05 pm »
It would be also interesting how much a sleeve will drain the battery without a toy.
 

Offline FrankBuss

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2092
  • Country: de
    • Frank Buss
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #267 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.
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27698
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #268 on: December 29, 2016, 07:43:17 pm »
Full train testing video
 
The following users thanked this post: samgab

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9144
  • Country: 00
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #269 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.
 

Offline Wytnucls

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2833
  • Country: be
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #270 on: December 29, 2016, 08:28:39 pm »
They didn't. No PCB at all. Just battery connection to 3V DC motor.
 

Online Kalvin

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1717
  • Country: fi
  • Embedded SW/HW.
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #271 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 ;)
 

Offline samgab

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 422
  • Country: nz
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #272 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?  ???
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27698
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #273 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.
 

Online Kalvin

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1717
  • Country: fi
  • Embedded SW/HW.
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #274 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. ;)
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf