| Electronics > Projects, Designs, and Technical Stuff |
| Batteroo testing |
| << < (16/127) > >> |
| Fungus:
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. |
| lpickup:
--- Quote from: Fungus on December 21, 2016, 02:43:31 pm ---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. --- End quote --- While I wouldn't disagree with clearly defining the rules for the test, I have to say it seems like you are trying to define the test in order to wind up with the result that the Batteroo fails. You should define the test solely based on what you think the typical end user would desire. If you think users are going to want longevity in their toy train, total number of laps would be the appropriate measure. If you think users are going to want consistent speed in their toy train, wall clock time until the train fell below a critical threshold speed would be the appropriate measure. If you don't really know what users are going to prefer, maybe this isn't the test you want to perform? |
| razvanme:
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. --- Quote from: Fungus on December 21, 2016, 02:43:31 pm ---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. --- End quote --- Speed and time equals distance, so beside the inherent losses due to efficiency, you might say the trains travel the same distance, it's a matter of opinion if I care about the speed or the time (slower train). |
| lpickup:
--- Quote from: razvanme on December 21, 2016, 03:10:58 pm ---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. --- End quote --- Right. 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. So you may do a survey of 100 users and find at which point do they consider the batteries "dead" for a given product, whether the product is a train or toy slowing down to a certain minimum speed, or a flashlight/light bulb dimming to a certain point. Based on the answers you get and how tight the distribution is, you could also infer some relevant information on how valid the test even is. If there is a very tight distribution, you can say with confidence that your test's endpoint criteria is statistically meaningful. If it's a wide distribution, there is a wide variance of opinion and maybe using this device under test is flawed from the outset. Now I realize nobody is going to do any surveys/focus groups. Instead, you will make an engineering judgement about the finish criteria. Just be prepared to back that selection up with a meaningful explanation other than "this criteria was chosen because we feel like it will make the Batteroo lose". This is why testing on "passive load" devices is going to be difficult, because defining the failure threshold is a matter of subjective opinion. Regulated devices are so much easier because they will definitely get to a point where they will simply shut off. Just need to make sure that it's a fairly realistic test, or if you can replicate a test that Batteroo themselves have done (such as the GPS unit with the finger poking device--which is not a realistic usage scenario, but it does prove to show that they cheated on the test). |
| razvanme:
Even the Apple keyboard might be a good test, I know it's a low power device, it will wake up when a key is pressed, so like they did on the Garmin, we can do on the keyboard, keep a key pressed this in turn will keep the micro awake, when the level is ~11% place the sleeve over the batteries and check how much it lasts (number of keys pressed). Two tests like that with their own use case should prove something at least. I know it will take longer. In this case there is no opinion to be had, you just have one output, the number of key's pressed. You can't take sides, no survey to do :). |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |