I’ve seen some tests of AA batteries where the capacity variation in a 10 cell pack could be as much as 70% difference between the best and the worst
What are the capacity tolerances on a typical battery anyway? are they ever specified. I believe output voltage and internal resistance are monitored at manufacturing, but how about the capacity the battery can deliver when its energy is drawn over hours/days/months or even years.
Though I’m not saying this explains the test results we seen so far.
Anyone care to guess why the result is so bad? Simply looking at the efficiency does not explain it.
Frank, did you measure the current consumption of the train? Maybe I missed it...
Looking at the train on the round track like a clock, you can even see that the train runs faster throughout the test with just the bare battery.
...
Iout =250mA @ Vout =1,5V at the load means you have : Iin=Iout*Vout/Vin *Eff = .25*1,5/1*0,88 = 330mA
...
The movie is like watching the Duracell Rabbit commercial
Has anyone seen how he is poking the Batteriser train at the end in the hopes it might just do one more lap
Awesome breakdown samgab!
How did you count the number of laps?
I realize this is a bit grasping at straws, but how much does the Batteriser weigh? and how much does the Toy train weigh? together with the AAA cell.
A AAA cell weigh about 11.5g and I’m guessing the train except for the engine parts is mostly plastic but still not easy to judge it's weight.
In any case the train with the added weight of the batteriser, even if it’s relatively small, would require more energy to move around.
But I just did the train test with the sleeves again, this time checking the battery (was from the same pack of 4) and open loop voltage was 1.6 V. It is important to verify experiments. The Batteroo sleeve was the other one I have, so no faulty sleeve, no faulty battery. Time confirmed, 61 minutes this time.
Right, I guess it might be longer, too. But doesn't matter much, the interesting result is that the advantage is 3% instead of 300%.I understand your argument. I am just curious whether that 3% extra turns out to be 0% in real term.
I think your test results should be indicative for all direct battery powered motorized devices and "toys", including the monkey ...
The other device types of interest are those with built-in DC-DC convertors and those with pulsed power consumption. The interest is mainly on checking all different predictions made throughout the 300+ pages.
Yes, I can almost guarantee that if the bare battery from the test with bare battery had been left to rest for an hour and reinserted again bare, without the batteroo, it would have run for at least as long, probably longer again than it did with the batteroo on. As a kid that was always my method with dead batteries, swap them back and forth giving them time to rest and the toy would always run again for a good while.
You'd actually get a better increase in life from the "dead" battery by biting it hard and reinserting it than by putting a batteroo sleeve over it. Seriously.
I'm bothered by a lot of these tests.
eg. The train. If the train goes around the track faster with batteroo then they can declare it a "win" even if it only lasts half as long.
A better test might be "How many times does it go around the track?" and totally ignore the overall running time. It's less correct technically but I really think that "number of times around the track" would be a better set of numbers to show the public.
Train Test:
Another way to look at the results of this excellent train test is by means of WORK DONE, rather than time of operation.
So, we can view one complete lap or circuit of the track as being ONE unit of work.
Fresh Bare cell: 613 laps.
Fresh cell with Batteroo: 290 laps.
The cell from test one, after being allowed an hour to recover, went on to do another 17 laps with the batteroo on. (I contend that the extra 17 laps were from the cell's natural recovery over one hour rather than any gain from the batteroo sleeve, but hey, without this having been tested in this instance, we'll give batteroo the benefit of the doubt for now.)
Interestingly, regarding the RATE of work done, in the first 58 minutes and 35 seconds, the bare cell test completed 314 laps, while the batteroo'd train completed its 290 laps. So it didn't even increase the output.
Batteroo decreased the RATE of operation, the TIME PERIOD of operation, and the AMOUNT of work done. Fail on every measurable metric.
Awesome breakdown samgab!
How did you count the number of laps?
Err, well, I'm a nerd with a bit of time on my hands just at the moment and not enough sleep; so I used one of those clicker counter things, and just watched the video and clicked it each time the train completed a lap... Cheers though!
Thanks for the Youtube video with the toy train Frank. Excellent real world demonstration, shows simply and beyond a doubt that there is no advantage - rather a disadvantage - to using the sleeves compared to a battery by itself. Looking at the train on the round track like a clock, you can even see that the train runs faster throughout the test with just the bare battery.
One simple real world test has utterly exposed the Batteroo as total bullshit.
I have one of these single AAA toy trains.
http://www.toysrus.com/buy/preschool-trains/imaginarium-power-steam-engine-train-set-5f5eedb-12595303
Will do the same test as Frank did.
Thought about getting two and running side-by-side but then people might complain the trains aren't identical. So will run two tests and then edit side-by-side footage with timer. Maybe add a lap counter?