Author Topic: Batteroo testing  (Read 169705 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27209
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #375 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.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27209
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #376 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.
 

Offline drussell

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 979
  • Country: ca
  • Hardcore Geek
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #377 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:
« Last Edit: December 31, 2016, 09:31:59 am by drussell »
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27209
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #378 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.
 

Offline djos

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 847
  • Country: au
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #379 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:
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.

Visit my Tindie store for Tandy 1000 Adapters for EX, HX, SX, SL, TX & TL etc
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 7888
  • Country: au
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #380 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!
 

Offline mc172

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 221
  • Country: gb
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #381 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!
 

Offline mintsoft

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 11
  • Country: gb
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #382 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!
« Last Edit: December 31, 2016, 11:52:49 am by mintsoft »
 

Online mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11609
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #383 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.
Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
 

Offline BrianHG

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2638
  • Country: ca
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #384 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.
__________
BrianHG.
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8777
  • Country: 00
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #385 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.
 

Offline sleemanj

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2175
  • Country: nz
  • Professional tightwad.
    • The electronics hobby components I sell.
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #386 on: December 31, 2016, 11:15:05 pm »
EC-Projects has been doing some testing, just appeared in my Youtube subs.



« Last Edit: December 31, 2016, 11:39:52 pm by sleemanj »
~~~
EEVBlog Members - get yourself 10% discount off all my electronic components for sale just use the Buy Direct links and use Coupon Code "eevblog" during checkout.  Shipping from New Zealand, international orders welcome :-)
 

Offline FrankBuss

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2036
  • Country: de
    • Frank Buss
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #387 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.
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
 

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4282
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #388 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?
 

Offline bktemp

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1623
  • Country: de
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #389 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.
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15464
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #390 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.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline Delta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1214
  • Country: gb
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #391 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....)
« Last Edit: January 01, 2017, 01:03:39 am by Delta »
 

Offline BrianHG

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2638
  • Country: ca
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #392 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...
« Last Edit: January 01, 2017, 01:09:50 am by BrianHG »
__________
BrianHG.
 

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4282
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #393 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 ;)
 

Offline FrankBuss

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2036
  • Country: de
    • Frank Buss
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #394 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

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

So EMI might be no problem, but the high ripple, which EcProjects noticed, too in his videos.
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
 

Offline LabSpokane

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1899
  • Country: us
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #395 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
« Last Edit: January 01, 2017, 03:32:24 am by LabSpokane »
 

Offline drussell

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 979
  • Country: ca
  • Hardcore Geek
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #396 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.  :)
 

Offline Hensingler

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 144
  • Country: gb
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #397 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.
 

Offline amspire

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3633
  • Country: au
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #398 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

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

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.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2017, 10:13:36 am by amspire »
 

Offline obrien

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 12
  • Country: us
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #399 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..
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf