Author Topic: Batteroo testing  (Read 169704 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline obrien

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 12
  • Country: us
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #425 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
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8777
  • Country: 00
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #426 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.
 

Offline BrianHG

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2638
  • Country: ca
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #427 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...
__________
BrianHG.
 

Online ogden

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1336
  • Country: lv
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #428 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.
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8777
  • Country: 00
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #429 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".
 

Offline BrianHG

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2638
  • Country: ca
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #430 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
__________
BrianHG.
 

Offline drussell

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 979
  • Country: ca
  • Hardcore Geek
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #431 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.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2017, 05:22:16 am by drussell »
 

Offline JiggyNinja

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • Country: us
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #432 on: January 03, 2017, 05:57:58 am »
Yes there was!

Look again: 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 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.
 

Offline NoItAint

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 33
  • Country: us
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #433 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



Maybe if they ever come out with a 9v model, that regulates the voltage both ways I might have a use for one. :)

 

Offline Delta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1214
  • Country: gb
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #434 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.
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 7888
  • Country: au
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #435 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)/


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

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.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2017, 10:26:41 am by Brumby »
 
The following users thanked this post: Len, Delta, snik, WN1X, kalleboo, drussell, rich

Offline Luminax

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Country: my
    • Electronesk
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #436 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
Jack of all trade - Master of some... I hope...
 

Offline drussell

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 979
  • Country: ca
  • Hardcore Geek
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #437 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:
 

Offline Luminax

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Country: my
    • Electronesk
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #438 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:
Jack of all trade - Master of some... I hope...
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27209
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #439 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.
 

Offline jmaja

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 162
  • Country: fi
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #440 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.
 

Offline bktemp

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1623
  • Country: de
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #441 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.
 

Online McBryce

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1160
  • Country: de
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #442 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.
 
The following users thanked this post: donatas

Offline 6581

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 78
  • Country: fi
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #443 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
 
The following users thanked this post: lpickup

Online McBryce

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1160
  • Country: de
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #444 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.
 

Online HighVoltage

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3904
  • Country: de
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #445 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.
There are 3 kinds of people in this world, those who can count and those who can not.
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8777
  • Country: 00
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #446 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.
 

Offline Watth

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • Country: fr
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #447 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.
Because "Matth" was already taken.
 

Offline JiggyNinja

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • Country: us
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #448 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.
 

Offline CJay

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2908
  • Country: gb
  • M0UAW
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #449 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
M0UAW
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf