Author Topic: Batteroo testing  (Read 169656 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline FrankBuss

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2031
  • Country: de
    • Frank Buss
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #575 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:
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27204
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #576 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.
 

Offline daveake

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 35
  • Country: gb
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #577 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
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27204
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #578 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.
 

Offline FrankBuss

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2031
  • Country: de
    • Frank Buss
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #579 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.
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
 

Offline cj

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 22
  • Country: nl
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #580 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
 

Offline raspberrypi

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 361
  • Country: us
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #581 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.
I'm legally blind so sometimes I ask obvious questions, but its because I can't see well.
 

Offline Marcel_X

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 40
  • Country: nl
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #582 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?
If it weren't for C, we'd be using BASI, PASAL, and OBOL
 

Offline dexters_lab

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1730
  • Country: gb
    • DextersLab2013
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #583 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
"A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams
http://www.youtube.com/user/DextersLab2013
http://dexterslab2013.blogspot.co.uk/
 
The following users thanked this post: cowana, Marcel_X

Offline d-smes

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 86
  • Country: us
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #584 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?
 

Offline usagi

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 342
  • Country: us
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #585 on: April 03, 2017, 03:28:44 pm »
a total of zero media outlets have done this.

Offline dexters_lab

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1730
  • Country: gb
    • DextersLab2013
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #586 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
"A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams
http://www.youtube.com/user/DextersLab2013
http://dexterslab2013.blogspot.co.uk/
 
The following users thanked this post: thm_w, Kean, Mr.B, Brumby, Marcel_X

Offline FrankBuss

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2031
  • Country: de
    • Frank Buss
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #587 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:



Dave, can't remember, did you do a teardown of your toy train?
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27204
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #588 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.
 

Offline brainwash

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 439
  • Country: de
    • Hack Correlation
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #589 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...
 

Offline BarsMonster

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 18
  • Country: ru
    • Microchips internals
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #590 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
Microchips internals: http://zeptobars.com/
 
The following users thanked this post: EEVblog, oPossum, janekm, SeanB, thm_w, Kean, vinicius.jlantunes, laneboysrc, nugglix

Offline janekm

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Country: gb
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #591 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
 

Offline Marcel_X

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 40
  • Country: nl
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #592 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!
If it weren't for C, we'd be using BASI, PASAL, and OBOL
 

Offline BarsMonster

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 18
  • Country: ru
    • Microchips internals
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #593 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.
Microchips internals: http://zeptobars.com/
 

Offline dexters_lab

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1730
  • Country: gb
    • DextersLab2013
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #594 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
"A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams
http://www.youtube.com/user/DextersLab2013
http://dexterslab2013.blogspot.co.uk/
 

Offline amspire

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3633
  • Country: au
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #595 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.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27204
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #596 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.
 

Offline Luminax

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Country: my
    • Electronesk
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #597 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
Jack of all trade - Master of some... I hope...
 

Offline Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3341
  • Country: gb
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #598 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.
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 

Offline brainwash

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 439
  • Country: de
    • Hack Correlation
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #599 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..
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf