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.
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.
I think any test can be viewed from two or more angles. The point is to prove they lied about the 80% more battery life, and that it actually decreases life ( maybe not all cases, I don't see on yet ). There is no doubt the sleeves will have their value, like someone said in the other thread, toys might benefit from the boost converter ( lego trains that chu chu constantly, cars that run at constant speed instead of crawling, a large amount of toys ).
Also there are other tests suggested that should cover what you are saying like the lightbulb or the wall clock. I think some people might prefer the train to run as fast as it can until the batteries die, some will prefer the number of rounds around the track.
So given the dilemma of different viewpoints, one should be prepared to back their test procedure up with some kind of meaningful rationale why a particular viewpoint was chosen.
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.
So given the dilemma of different viewpoints, one should be prepared to back their test procedure up with some kind of meaningful rationale why a particular viewpoint was chosen.Or record longevity and number of laps. Add a lap counter to the train.
I thought about using a photodiode and an Arduino to count the laps and lap times, but the video is all you need, you can do it yourself, if you like. Would be a nice test for OpenCV.
The train test is done, pretty embarrassing for Batteroo Will make a nice video now and upload it.
I thought about using a photodiode and an Arduino to count the laps and lap times, but the video is all you need, you can do it yourself, if you like. Would be a nice test for OpenCV.
The train test is done, pretty embarrassing for Batteroo Will make a nice video now and upload it.
The train test is done, pretty embarrassing for Batteroo Will make a nice video now and upload it.
Based on the data you provided the efficiency of the controller is between 77% and 88%,
Would be cool if someone with ESD/EMV equipment could take a look at it, or verify the efficiency results with a non-bricked eload, or test the current limiter.
It looks like a variable-frequency converter. The ripple is not surprising given it basically has no output filtering.
Wow! That's switching at a really low frequency. Efficiency and ripple will be a total disaster at <10kHz with such a tiny inductor. It should really be working in the MHz range(!)
It looks like a variable-frequency converter. The ripple is not surprising given it basically has no output filtering.They are probably relying heavily on capacitors at the battery input in the 'DUT' for filtering, but there could be anything from nothing to hundreds of uF and no clue to what quality caps they are either.