The volume of the iPhone is about 66cc; the volume of the Samsung S7 is about 78cc. That's a difference of 12cc.
LiPo batteries are about 230 Whr/L. There are 1000cc per liter, so that 12cc difference is about (12/1000 * 230) 2.76 Whr.
LiPo batteries are also 3.7V nominal devices, so the current capacity of that extra volume is (2.76 / 3.7) 745 mAhr. Less than the ~1100 mAhr difference in the batteries.
In other words the volumetric difference - if it was 100% dedicated to more battery - would only account for about 67% of the gain in battery size. The other 33% (or more?) must be from more efficient packaging.
The battery CANNOT be doubled in size from the volumetric change - doesn't work with physics. Sorry!
Oh, and that's a package that's within a few mm in all dimensions of the iPhone, with a larger screen (what, you want a smaller screen?) that has nearly four TIMES the pixel count and a much higher PPI (which obviously is good - why else would the iPhone 7 Plus have a higher PPI?).
The test results show the S7 beats the iPhone 7 in terms of battery life. That's for a phone within a few mm in the length/width, and less than 1mm in depth difference in size. And with a bigger screen (is that a bad thing?) with nearlt 4X the number of pixels.
Now, you want to bring in the BIG iPhone 7 Plus? The 90cc phone? The change from the iPhone 7 to the S7 is about the same as the volumetric change from the S7 up to the much bigger iPhone 7 Plus. Really - you want to use the EXACT SAME THING you try to lay on me as an unfair move?
Is that what it comes down to, Swordmaker? And independent test shows results you don't like, you go on the warpath, and you obfuscate and whilst decrying a volumetric difference in size - you try to do the same thing?
Face it - Apple's iPhone 7 came up short this time.
PS: the other phones all have 3.5mm jacks - I guess you can't put much battery in that space, can you?
Again you use the canard that more is better in pixel count when the normal 20/20 "perfect vision" human eye cannot discern any more than 326 pixels per inch at the normal reading distance a mobile device will be held.
Apple uses 401 pixels per inch to maintain the 16:9 industry standard aspect ratio of the screen at the larger size of iPhone 7 Plus. It is simply what is required to do a 1080P screen at that 5.5" diagonal size. Any lower pixel size would require a larger screen at that pixel count. 401 per inch is, in fact, overkill for the human eye to see but is necessary to maintain the aspect ration of the . Providing a mobile device with per inch pixel counts of ANYTHING over the minimum necessary to maintain aspect ratio is pure hype and is NOT better for anything and is, in fact, a detriment to the overall performance of the device. That is schooling YOU in human optics and engineering. I've provided links for you before to the science on this, but you repeatedly ignore this.
As for the rest of your twaddle, the volume inside these phones increases at the CUBE of the measurements. That is quite an increase. So does battery capacity. I showed you the math of the volume. You keep trying to obfuscate the actual amount of volume that becomes available with just a small increase, but it is a lot. Just a four tenths of an inch (8%) increase in diagonal screen measurement, scales up the case size, results in an estimated 11% to 12% increase in volume inside the case.
The components take up no more room than they did before, so all of that space can be applied toward more battery. If the original battery took only 10% of the original space, and there is now 10% more of that original space available, then the new battery can take 20% of the original space, ergo, it can be double the size it was before, and double the capacity. YOU are OBFUSCATING the issue by claiming that the the BATTERY only gains some percentage of power which you posted a lot of twaddle calculations based on your assumptions of gained size. . . But, Dan, the fact remains, IF YOU CAN DOUBLE THE VOLUME OF THE BATTERY YOU CAN DOUBLE THE CAPACITY OF THAT BATTERY! And yes, that is the way the physics, and the chemistry works, contrary to your obfuscation and dancing as fast as you can to claim the contrary! Simply put, a larger battery will have more mAh capacity than a smaller battery. . . And if you have a larger case, you can put a larger battery into that case!
The iPhone 7 is 65,887 cubic millimeters in volume, and 138 grams in weight, 326 ppi. The HTC-10 has 94,412 cubic millimeters in volume, 161 grams in weight, 565 ppi. The Samsung Galaxy S7 is 78,297 cubic millimeters, 152 grams, 576 ppi. The LG G5 is 84,785 cubic millimeters and 159 grams, 554 ppi. Respectively each of the Android phones have 43%, 18.8%, and 28.7% more volume than the iPhone 7 they were tested against. (Note the fragmentation Android developers have to contend with just in these three models with pixels per inch of 554, 565, and 576! There are hundreds of makers and even more screen sizes with even more ppi options that developers have to struggle to meet when developing apps.)
Since the other components of these phones are essentially the same size, or close to the same size, in all four tested phones—except for the iPhone 7 with its new haptic engine, which none of the others have—the only component that can take up more space IS THE BATTERY, and each of the competitors' phones has a large amount of extra volume to put in a much larger battery!
That is what is known as a measurable and demonstrable FACT! It's not obfuscating, it's checkable, it's confirmable, and it's repeatable. That's called science, Dan. It's good engineering. There. I've schooled YOU.
Now, you want to bring in the BIG iPhone 7 Plus? The 90cc phone? The change from the iPhone 7 to the S7 is about the same as the volumetric change from the S7 up to the much bigger iPhone 7 Plus. Really - you want to use the EXACT SAME THING you try to lay on me as an unfair move?
As to your complaint about my mentioning the iPhone 7 plus, and your point about the iPhone 7 Plus being 14.9% larger than the Samsung Galaxy S7, the SMALLEST of the three tested Android phones. I was pulling the same trick that "Which?" was pulling, Dan. . . Yet even then, the iPhone 7 plus was not as egregiously out of size class as the others to which "Which?" compared the iPhone 7 was being compared. The iPhone 7 plus was 14.9 percent larger than the Samsung phone, but the iPhone 7 Plus is 95.3% the size of the HTC-10! It's SMALLER, Dan. Nice try, but no banana. I'm throwing rotten tomatoes at YOU!
YOU want to ignore the fact that the iPhone 7 Plus blows these phones out of the water in battery life. . . with a SMALLER battery than the battery that two of them come equipped with, which destroys this entire premise. Keep dancing, Dan.
In the meantime, Dan, you can keep dancing, cavorting, and making excuses that "Which?" did not compare different classes of phones which other testing labs are pointing out. I've provided the size differences and the calculated percentage larger these other phones are. YOU want to have the facts be different.