Electronics > Projects, Designs, and Technical Stuff
Batteroo testing
<< < (26/127) > >>
CJay:

--- 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

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 ---

Nope, I don't think it's that which is causing the crappy results, I just want to be sure that Batteroo can't come back and claim it is.

Capacity is temperature and load dependant so we need to know current drawn but the tests we have so far are not indicative of a product that works as advertised.

Go figure, who could have predicted that...

The only way to be conclusive is to amass a large statistically significant number of test results so that faulty or low capacity cells can be weeded out.

f4eru:

--- 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 ---
That's easy :
current in the load : 250 mA at 1.5 V and 210 mA at 1 V.

let's say the converter has 88% efficiency.

Iout =250mA @ Vout =1,5V at the load means you have : Iin=Iout*Vout/Vin /Eff  = .25*1,5/1/0,88 = 420mA
So you take up much more current, which already lowers the time nearly half.
Also, higher current means lower capacity on the battery itself :
http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/E92.pdf --> on the bar graphic you see the battery capacity going down with increased current, perhaps 30%

So, all in all, about half the run time with a simple unregulated load like a motor or a non active light is expected.
Batteriser is a total and utter fail.
lpickup:

--- Quote from: samgab on December 22, 2016, 05:19:26 pm ---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.

--- End quote ---
That much was expected, and was the only hope that the Batteroo stood for being considered a "win" if in fact it had run longer but at a slower pace.

However, it turns out Batteroo failed (miserably) on BOTH counts.   :palm: :palm: :palm:

That is truly an astounding and damning result for Batteroo. 
razvanme:
The movie is like watching the Duracell Rabbit commercial  :popcorn:

Has anyone seen how he is poking the Batteriser train at the end in the hopes it might just do one more lap  :-DD
samgab:
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.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod