Author Topic: Batteroo testing  (Read 169706 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline samgab

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 422
  • Country: nz
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #325 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.

-source: User HKJ's website, http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/CommonAAcomparator.php
 

Offline Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3341
  • Country: gb
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #326 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?



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.
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 

Offline MLXXXp

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 216
  • Country: ca
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #327 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.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2016, 12:17:19 pm by MLXXXp »
 

Offline Hensingler

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 144
  • Country: gb
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #328 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.
 
The following users thanked this post: samgab, ve2mrx

Offline MLXXXp

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 216
  • Country: ca
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #329 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.
 

Offline samgab

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 422
  • Country: nz
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #330 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.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2016, 12:51:19 pm by samgab »
 

Offline ez24

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3092
  • Country: us
  • L.D.A.
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #331 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
YouTube and Website Electronic Resources ------>  http://www.eevblog.com/forum/other-blog-specific/a/msg1341166/#msg1341166
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27209
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #332 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.
 

Offline JimRemington

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • Country: us
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #333 on: December 30, 2016, 02:49:26 pm »
How come I get "video is private"?
Not available on YouTube either.
 

Offline samgab

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 422
  • Country: nz
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #334 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.
 

Offline ez24

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3092
  • Country: us
  • L.D.A.
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #335 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
YouTube and Website Electronic Resources ------>  http://www.eevblog.com/forum/other-blog-specific/a/msg1341166/#msg1341166
 
The following users thanked this post: lpickup

Offline jippie

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 118
  • Country: nl
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #336 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?
 

Offline roog

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 3
  • Country: ch
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #337 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.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27209
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #338 on: December 30, 2016, 07:21:52 pm »
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8777
  • Country: 00
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #339 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?



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.


« Last Edit: December 30, 2016, 09:30:57 pm by Fungus »
 

Offline mikerj

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1701
  • Country: gb
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #340 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 :)
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27209
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #341 on: December 30, 2016, 09:50:19 pm »
Typical engineer...   :palm:

I like to see my data points, sue me  :P
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8777
  • Country: 00
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #342 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.

 

Offline bktemp

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1623
  • Country: de
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #343 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.
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8777
  • Country: 00
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #344 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.
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 7888
  • Country: au
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #345 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.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2016, 11:14:29 pm by Brumby »
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8777
  • Country: 00
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #346 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
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27209
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #347 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.



Ballpark cals: Let's say a nominal 1000mAh AAA capacity. 2hr 49min run time = 350mA motor current.
Roughly confirmed here:


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

From same Duracell datasheet capacity at 0.5W drops to about 550mAh


Basically matches the runtime result we see
550mAh/1000mAh = 94min/169min
« Last Edit: December 30, 2016, 11:30:21 pm by EEVblog »
 
The following users thanked this post: Kean

Offline max_torque

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 886
  • Country: gb
    • bitdynamics
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #348 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.


 

Offline SaabFAN

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 641
  • Country: de
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #349 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


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf