| Electronics > Projects, Designs, and Technical Stuff |
| Batteroo testing |
| << < (24/127) > >> |
| onlooker:
--- Quote from: FrankBuss on December 22, 2016, 02:17:33 pm ---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%. --- End quote --- 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. |
| LabSpokane:
--- Quote from: dcac on December 22, 2016, 03:04:06 pm ---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 cell from the same package. But this was the extreme case in the 9 brand test, other brands varied about 3-20%, so still something that really should be taken into consideration. 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. --- End quote --- With alkaline batteries, I think it's very safe to say that the error bars are at least 10%. A 3% difference is no difference at all. |
| FrankBuss:
The MP3 player test is done. I used the method Dave described, just filming it, no measuring, to actually see when it turns off (looks like there was no low battery warning, maybe voltage jumped a bit). With sleeve a fresh battery worked 17.9% less long than without the sleeve and the additional time after using the sleeve on the dead battery from the first test with the MP3 player (which had a few days to recover) was 13.4 %. |
| LabSpokane:
And holy cold solder joints! That's terrible. You'd think someone from Flextronics would know those terminals need to be preheated before reflow. :palm: |
| Hensingler:
--- Quote from: PA0PBZ on December 22, 2016, 02:41:57 pm ---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... --- End quote --- Because the train is a non-switching regulated load and increasing the feed voltage above the train's drop out voltage is pure waste. That and batteroo losses means twice as many batteries will end up in landfill. This train is a good example of where batteroos are a complete fail. The only way to win is to put sleeves on already dead batteries and in this case you get another 3.1%. Given a batteroo costs about 6 times more than quality Amazon branded batteries you would have to clip onto nearly 200 dead batteries to break even which no one sane would bother to do and the batteroos would likely fall to bits long before that anyway. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |