EEVblog #963 - Batteriser / Batteroo Passive Toy Test - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2016, 02:47:23 am
content: Full testing discussion thread is here:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/batteroo-testing/?topicseenThe Batteriser / Batteroo AAA sleeve tested in a toy train passive load and the results analysed!Does the Batteriser finally live up to the claims of increased performance in passive loads? or is it a complete turkey?More videos to come...

author: BiOzZ
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2016, 03:34:51 am
content: Video is private, The vast lizard people/batterizer conspiracy has silenced dave!

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2016, 10:42:54 am
content: Nice troll! My favorite color...

author: strangersound
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2016, 06:05:35 pm
content: Look at this:#45 on Trending

author: drussell
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2016, 07:41:09 pm
content: Dave, the link to the live testing video in the #963 video description is incorrect...It is currently a duplicate link to Frank's video...

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2016, 11:28:44 pm
content: Are there any efficiency versus load graphs available? I just checked Frank Buss' thread but couldn't find any.Testing with toys and torches is indicative but from Dave's test results I assume the efficiency must be outright terrible.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2016, 11:49:24 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 30, 2016, 11:28:44 pmIt's in the testing thread, like page 3 or something

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2016, 11:50:07 pm
content: Quote from: strangersound on December 30, 2016, 06:05:35 pmSeems to have gotten me bugger-all extra views though.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 12:20:34 am
content: [pedant=ON]If you want the calc to start from zero use  [+/-]   Display says "0"

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 02:32:13 am
content: I noticed that as well. After 1 lap, the counter showed 2. Generally, it may not be a big error - but it is still an error.Except, perhaps, the significance is much greater in the 'second pass' test where the train struggled to get to '10' ... which was really only 9 extra laps.

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 02:57:12 am
content: Yeah but it's consistent across all tests, so does it REALLY matter? It's not like some tests started at 0 and other started at 1, they all started the same.

author: mrpackethead
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 03:07:33 am
content: Whats the conversion efficecnty of the boost circuit? THere is no free lunch. The total energy extracted out of the battery by the non-roo battery appears to be higher than the the roo battery.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 03:09:36 am
content: Quote from: rrinker on December 31, 2016, 02:57:12 amYes, it's consistent and, no, it's not a significant issue in the scheme of things - but I did 'notice' it when Dave was encouraging the little engine that could to make it to double digits. In reality, it didn't.Perhaps something I would like to see is a variation of the data in this chart:It shows, in essence, distance over time. I would like to see velocity over time. It would show the performance parameter that an observer of the experiment would notice. They aren't going to notice total distance travelled anywhere near as much as speed changes.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 03:34:16 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on December 31, 2016, 02:32:13 amIn practice it's showing the exact lap number it's currentlyon, not how many laps it'sdone.i.e if it stops smidgen behind the sensor then it turns out it's an almost spot on accurate count (note I started the train just after the sensor for a reason).You can't have your cake and eat it too. If I started the count at 0 then you can still getthe same errorby having the train stop just before the sensor ad it would not have counted that lap.In either case you need to account for partial laps if you want to be error free.So there is no error in my setup, it's just counting a different thing.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 04:02:41 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 31, 2016, 03:34:16 amFair enough.

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 04:03:15 am
content: Have Frank, Dave or anybody else at this point conducted just basic rudimentary measurements on a bare sleeve as in the way of resistance, inductance or capacitance, I couldn't find these figures anywhere and am intrigued as to where all that energy is being dissipated. In addition do the sleeves in an unloaded state draw any current and if so how much as the mentions of heat being generated whilst a battery is installed but not under load by some also has me wondering what the hell is going on.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 04:05:59 am
content: The broad consensus was that the first tests out of the box should be "real world" tests. Something the non-engineering oriented audience could appreciate.The rest will come - and I'm sure Dave is going to be doing his bit after his holiday break.I think there was a quiescent current measurement mentioned ... 2uA IIRC.

author: samgab
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 04:27:19 am
content: To go along with the general pedantry: Velocity is being used incorrectly at times, I believe. It should be speed really when it's in relation to an object going around in circles, because velocity is a vector quantity which includes speed and direction of motion, e.g. 3 m/s East. Since the train is going round a circular track, even if the speed is constant the velocity is constantly changing because the direction is constantly changing. Speed by contrast is a scalar quantity, e.g. 3 m/s. </pedantic post>

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 04:41:44 am
content: Angularvelocity would work for me .....

author: george graves
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 04:42:18 am
content: If you stack two Batteriser on top of each other, and put it on one battery, you get double the capacity. I tested it, and it totally worked!

author: Hensingler
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 04:43:18 am
content: Quote from: Muttley Snickers on December 31, 2016, 04:03:15 amMostly in the train. Without batteriser the train speed variation is much less than what we know the battery voltage variation must have been. The train has speed regulation. It is probably non-linear iron losses in the armature working like an electro-magnetic shunt regulator. By design or just because cheap motors are like that I don't know.All the extra voltage the batteriser feeds the train is wasted (to go a little bit faster). The extra current from the battery required to produce the extra voltage increases losses in the battery and reduces capacity, the batteriser converter probably wastes 20% in losses. In this application the batteriser is loose on top of loose on top of loose which is why the performance is so terrible.Same for any constant(ish) current load that has a decently low cut off voltage.Quote from: samgab on December 31, 2016, 04:27:19 amOn the earth an object travelling in a straight line is going round in circles. Would train velocity in rad/s make you happy?

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 04:53:16 am
content: Thanks, I forgot all about the increased velocity when used with the sleeve, it was obviously an uphill battle all the way for the Batteriser up until the curve at which point it was all down hill from there, difficult to keep track of all this stuff.

author: strangersound
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 05:20:27 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 30, 2016, 11:50:07 pmI was kinda wondering...the views seemed like a normal amount. So how did it get in the trending if it's not rapidly accumulating views? I don't get it. Of course, I don't get into "trending" type things anyway. I don't think I've ever even seen the YouTube trending page. I'm not really a fan of "the lowest common denominator".But I did think it was cool your anti-bullshit video was trending.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2017, 03:29:57 pm
content: Quote from: strangersound on December 31, 2016, 05:20:27 amOne presumes that 'trending' is d{views}/dt or even d{views}2/dt2. Just as it's quite possible to get high velocity or acceleration without travelling a long way the same would apply to accumulated views.