EEVblog #963 - Batteriser / Batteroo Passive Toy Test

[EEVblog]

Full testing discussion thread is here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?topicseen

The Batteriser / Batteroo AAA sleeve tested in a toy train passive load and the results analysed!
Does the Batteriser finally live up to the claims of increased performance in passive loads? or is it a complete turkey?
More videos to come...

[BiOzZ]

Video is private, The vast lizard people/batterizer conspiracy has silenced dave!

[Fungus]

Nice troll! My favorite color...

[strangersound]

Look at this:

#45 on Trending

[drussell]

Dave, the link to the live testing video in the #963 video description is incorrect...

It is currently a duplicate link to Frank's video...

[nctnico]

Are there any efficiency versus load graphs available? I just checked Frank Buss' thread but couldn't find any.
Testing with toys and torches is indicative but from Dave's test results I assume the efficiency must be outright terrible.

[EEVblog]

Are there any efficiency versus load graphs available? I just checked Frank Buss' thread but couldn't find any.
Testing with toys and torches is indicative but from Dave's test results I assume the efficiency must be outright terrible.

It's in the testing thread, like page 3 or something

[EEVblog]

Look at this:
#45 on Trending

Seems to have gotten me bugger-all extra views though.

[Ed.Kloonk]

[pedant=ON]

If you want the calc to start from zero use [1] [+/-] [plus] [1] [equals]

Display says "0"

 

[Brumby]

I noticed that as well.  After 1 lap, the counter showed 2.  Generally, it may not be a big error - but it is still an error.

Except, perhaps, the significance is much greater in the 'second pass' test where the train struggled to get to '10' ... which was really only 9 extra laps.

[rrinker]

 Yeah but it's consistent across all tests, so does it REALLY matter? It's not like some tests started at 0 and other started at 1, they all started the same.

[mrpackethead]

Whats the conversion efficecnty of the boost circuit? THere is no  free lunch.     The total energy extracted out of the battery by the non-roo battery appears to be higher than the the roo battery.

[Brumby]

Yeah but it's consistent across all tests, so does it REALLY matter? It's not like some tests started at 0 and other started at 1, they all started the same.

Yes, it's consistent and, no, it's not a significant issue in the scheme of things - but I did 'notice' it when Dave was encouraging the little engine that could to make it to double digits.  In reality, it didn't.

Perhaps something I would like to see is a variation of the data in this chart:



It shows, in essence, distance over time.  I would like to see velocity over time.  It would show the performance parameter that an observer of the experiment would notice.  They aren't going to notice total distance travelled anywhere near as much as speed changes.

[EEVblog]

I noticed that as well.  After 1 lap, the counter showed 2.  Generally, it may not be a big error - but it is still an error.

In practice it's showing the exact lap number it's currently on, not how many laps it's done.
i.e if it stops smidgen behind the sensor then it turns out it's an almost spot on accurate count (note I started the train just after the sensor for a reason).
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If I started the count at 0 then you can still get the same error by having the train stop just before the sensor ad it would not have counted that lap.

In either case you need to account for partial laps if you want to be error free.

So there is no error in my setup, it's just counting a different thing.

[Brumby]

I noticed that as well.  After 1 lap, the counter showed 2.  Generally, it may not be a big error - but it is still an error.

In practice it's showing the exact lap number it's currently on, not how many laps it's done.
i.e if it stops smidgen behind the sensor then it turns out it's an almost spot on accurate count (note I started the train just after the sensor for a reason).
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If I started the count at 0 then you can still get the same error by having the train stop just before the sensor ad it would not have counted that lap.

In either case you need to account for partial laps if you want to be error free.

So there is no error in my setup, it's just counting a different thing.

Fair enough.

[Muttley Snickers]

Have Frank, Dave or anybody else at this point conducted just basic rudimentary measurements on a bare sleeve as in the way of resistance, inductance or capacitance, I couldn't find these figures anywhere and am intrigued as to where all that energy is being dissipated. In addition do the sleeves in an unloaded state draw any current and if so how much as the mentions of heat being generated whilst a battery is installed but not under load by some also has me wondering what the hell is going on.

           

[Brumby]

The broad consensus was that the first tests out of the box should be "real world" tests.  Something the non-engineering oriented audience could appreciate.

The rest will come - and I'm sure Dave is going to be doing his bit after his holiday break.

I think there was a quiescent current measurement mentioned ... 2uA IIRC.

[samgab]

To go along with the general pedantry: Velocity is being used incorrectly at times, I believe. It should be speed really when it's in relation to an object going around in circles, because velocity is a vector quantity which includes speed and direction of motion, e.g. 3 m/s East. Since the train is going round a circular track, even if the speed is constant the velocity is constantly changing because the direction is constantly changing. Speed by contrast is a scalar quantity, e.g. 3 m/s. </pedantic post>

[Brumby]

Angular velocity would work for me ..... 

[george graves]

  If you stack two Batteriser on top of each other, and put it on one battery, you get double the capacity.  I tested it, and it totally worked!

[Hensingler]

and am intrigued as to where all that energy is being dissipated.

Mostly in the train. Without batteriser the train speed variation is much less than what we know the battery voltage variation must have been. The train has speed regulation. It is probably non-linear iron losses in the armature working like an electro-magnetic shunt regulator. By design or just because cheap motors are like that I don't know.

All the extra voltage the batteriser feeds the train is wasted (to go a little bit faster). The extra current from the battery required to produce the extra voltage increases losses in the battery and reduces capacity, the batteriser converter probably wastes 20% in losses. In this application the batteriser is loose on top of loose on top of loose which is why the performance is so terrible.

Same for any constant(ish) current load that has a decently low cut off voltage.

To go along with the general pedantry: Velocity is being used incorrectly at times, I believe. It should be speed really when it's in relation to an object going around in circles

On the earth an object travelling in a straight line is going round in circles. Would train velocity in rad/s make you happy?

[Muttley Snickers]

Thanks, I forgot all about the increased velocity when used with the sleeve, it was obviously an uphill battle all the way for the Batteriser up until the curve at which point it was all down hill from there, difficult to keep track of all this stuff.   

[strangersound]

Look at this:
#45 on Trending

Seems to have gotten me bugger-all extra views though.

I was kinda wondering...the views seemed like a normal amount. So how did it get in the trending if it's not rapidly accumulating views? I don't get it. Of course, I don't get into "trending" type things anyway. I don't think I've ever even seen the YouTube trending page. I'm not really a fan of "the lowest common denominator".

But I did think it was cool your anti-bullshit video was trending.

[Cerebus]

I was kinda wondering...the views seemed like a normal amount. So how did it get in the trending if it's not rapidly accumulating views? I don't get it. Of course, I don't get into "trending" type things anyway. I don't think I've ever even seen the YouTube trending page. I'm not really a fan of "the lowest common denominator".

But I did think it was cool your anti-bullshit video was trending.

One presumes that 'trending' is d{views}/dt or even d{views}²/dt². Just as it's quite possible to get high velocity or acceleration without travelling a long way the same would apply to accumulated views.