Watt-Hour Shootout -- FullyMax 10Wh 900mAh 3S LiPo (for DNA200) vs 25R vs HG2

[BillW50]

That is the typical efficiency. It will vary depending on the wattage output selected.
Most regulated devices are most efficient at the higher wattage setting and less efficient at the lower wattage settings.

Would you think it could be as bad as 56%? That is what Steam-engine is trying to tell me. Maybe I didn't reset the puff counter when the batteries were full, but afterwards. As EScribe tells me I am getting 700 puffs, 10 second puffs, at 10 watts on average with three Samsung 25R.

Figuring it another way from EScribe, 25.25mWh per puff at 700 puffs = 17.675Wh. I drained the batteries down to 3.10v each (the recharge capacity said 2400mah from 3.10v). So I used 26.64Wh of battery power. So 17.675 / 26.64 = 66%.

I guess I'll run the numbers again in three days (that is when I predict my batteries will be at 3.10v). And maybe I am remembering wrong. But I thought I got 600 puffs, 10 second puffs, at 10 watts off of one Samsung 25R on my KSD Vamo 40W. I just checked Steam-engine and it says no I should be getting just 300 puffs at 10 second per puff at 90% efficiency. I just might have to fire up the Vamo again.

 

[BillW50]

Here is one way I can do it now. EScribe says I have 24.034Wh left of 27.75Wh. That means the battery had used 3.716Wh so far. But the DNA200 output only put out 2.263Wh. That is only a 60% efficiency. This is starting to get depressing. All of this is under TC. Maybe it gets better using just wattage mode.

 

[Robert Cromwell]

Would you think it could be as bad as 56%? That is what Steam-engine is trying to tell me. Maybe I didn't reset the puff counter when the batteries were full, but afterwards. As EScribe tells me I am getting 700 puffs, 10 second puffs, at 10 watts on average with three Samsung 25R.

Figuring it another way from EScribe, 25.25mWh per puff at 700 puffs = 17.675Wh. I drained the batteries down to 3.10v each (the recharge capacity said 2400mah from 3.10v). So I used 26.64Wh of battery power. So 17.675 / 26.64 = 66%.

I guess I'll run the numbers again in three days (that is when I predict my batteries will be at 3.10v). And maybe I am remembering wrong. But I thought I got 600 puffs, 10 second puffs, at 10 watts off of one Samsung 25R on my KSD Vamo 40W. I just checked Steam-engine and it says no I should be getting just 300 puffs at 10 second per puff at 90% efficiency. I just might have to fire up the Vamo again.

Yes it is quite possible to be that low at 10 watts.
It specifies 97% typical. I don't think they would consider running a 120-200 watt mod at 10 watts to be typical.

 

[BillW50]

Ok I figured it out where the extra power is going. The DNA200 uses a CPU, RAM, and ROM, right? And it won't be unrealistic that it could be drawing up to 4 watts of power. If it was drawing 4 watts of power, that boosts efficiency right to 100%.

 

[Robert Cromwell]

Ok I figured it out where the extra power is going. The DNA200 uses a CPU, RAM, and ROM, right? And it won't be unrealistic that it could be drawing up to 4 watts of power. If it was drawing 4 watts of power, that boosts efficiency right to 100%.

Yep the circuit board draws power to run it's CPU, etc. And the DC-DC voltage conversion is not 100% either.

 

[Spirometry]

Biggest killer is the screen. You're lighting up the screen 10x as much as a high power vapor. Try lowering your brightness and idle time.

Also I wouldn't count Escribe to be 100% accurate with the calculated mWH per puff.

 

[BillW50]

Yes. But I have to know the one before I can figure out the other. I tried with measuring amps with my multimeter, but I need a third hand (or some jumper wires from my shop). I got a variable 32V-5A power supply right here (with a current readout). But not knowing which battery posts they use to tap off of the 11.1v from could be dangerous to the DNA200 board if I got it wrong. I guess I can just ohm which posts have continuity with each other and go from there.

 

[BillW50]

Biggest killer is the screen. You're lighting up the screen 10x as much as a high power vapor. Try lowering your brightness and idle time.

Also I wouldn't count Escribe to be 100% accurate with the calculated mWH per puff.

Luckily the datasheet says the screen uses 18ma, which isn't a lot. And yes, I had some reservations about trusting the values in EScribe. But next time I recharge it would be easy to checkout the accuracy. And all of the values are there to spit out the efficiency. I guess they left that one out on purpose.

 

[BillW50]

Figuring out where the 11.1v is taken from with an ohmmeter was easy. The negative goes to the negative of battery 1 (also the same as the chassis) and the positive goes to the positive of battery 3. It powers up for 250msec and powers off. I bet it sees each cell as 0v and powers down. So that won't work.

Trying to read the battery current, none of my clips will stay on the negative spring connection for longer than a half of a second. But after 5 attempts I did see the amp meter display 20ma a number of times as the display lit up. That is what the power supply was flashing for current too. Well I am just going to have to manufacture something to connect to make that battery connection. And use a scope as well in case there are peaks in the current.

 

[edyle]

Here is one way I can do it now. EScribe says I have 24.034Wh left of 27.75Wh. That means the battery had used 3.716Wh so far. But the DNA200 output only put out 2.263Wh. That is only a 60% efficiency. This is starting to get depressing. All of this is under TC. Maybe it gets better using just wattage mode.

Well if you are using TC mode, you don't really know what the wattage is.

 

[BillW50]

Well if you are using TC mode, you don't really know what the wattage is.

EScribe tells you what it is. Plus you can change the display on the DNA200 to always display the wattage.

 

[edyle]

EScribe tells you what it is. Plus you can change the display on the DNA200 to always display the wattage.

Do you realise the wattage is not constant when you are in TC mode?

I think your 57% and 60% efficiency values are probably because your numbers are just wrong as a result of using TC mode.

 

[BillW50]

Do you realise the wattage is not constant when you are in TC mode?

I think your 57% and 60% efficiency values are probably because your numbers are just wrong as a result of using TC mode.

Yes I do understand the wattage isn't constant in TC mode. And you can see it in the EScribe Device Monitor graph (and you can save the data into a spreadsheet). And yes many users have complained about TC in general draining batteries faster. I haven't ever noticed much a difference myself (been using TC since last May), but I'll soon have the data to show whether it really does or not.

 

[BillW50]

Figuring out where the 11.1v is taken from with an ohmmeter was easy. The negative goes to the negative of battery 1 (also the same as the chassis) and the positive goes to the positive of battery 3. It powers up for 250msec and powers off. I bet it sees each cell as 0v and powers down. So that won't work.

Okay you can use a power supply. In EScribe instead of telling it you are using lithium batteries, select power supply. This turns off cell monitoring and allows you power up the device from 12v.

 

[BillW50]

Okay powering the board itself with the screen lit, it uses 40ma@12V. So that comes out to 480mW. That means the real efficiency at 10 watts is at 74%.

 

[Robert Cromwell]

Only if the voltage conversion is 100%. Which it is not.

 

[Robert Cromwell]

Ok I figured it out where the extra power is going. The DNA200 uses a CPU, RAM, and ROM, right? And it won't be unrealistic that it could be drawing up to 4 watts of power. If it was drawing 4 watts of power, that boosts efficiency right to 100%.

No circuit is 100% efficient. Heat is generated and efficiency is lost.

 

[BillW50]

No circuit is 100% efficient. Heat is generated and efficiency is lost.

Yes but Evolv claims the typical efficiency is 97%.

 

[Robert Cromwell]

Yes but Evolv claims the typical efficiency is 97%.

Might be at a certain wattage, but not over the entire watt range. At least I have never seen a converter circuit that is.

 

[Nick Jennings]

Biggest killer is the screen. You're lighting up the screen 10x as much as a high power vapor. Try lowering your brightness and idle time.

Also I wouldn't count Escribe to be 100% accurate with the calculated mWH per puff.

I don't think the screen kills the battery as much as you think. I have left my display set too 100% for a month and then switched it to 50% for a month and no noticable difference.