[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: New fast charge battery

Thu Mar 19 21:27:12 AKDT 2009

John, you've got to be an optimist.  We want it all.  Who ever dreamed  
we'd have what we have now back in the NiCd days.

The peaking you did was no doubt heating them and lowering the  
Internal resistance.  Did anyone ever try just heating them with an  
oven?  That's what I do now and I believe it not only gives you better  
power right off the ground but I believe it is easier on the  
batteries.  We'll see how my new packs hold up over time but so far  
they are looking great.

Jim

On Mar 19, 2009, at 10:09 PM, John Pavlick wrote:

> Going back to my "How many of you guys ever raced R/C cars" question  
> - the reason I asked is because if you did you'd already be thinking  
> like Dave. Well, not exactly. I don't believe anyone can think like  
> Dave! LOL
>
> Back when I raced, we used NiCADs. Why? Because that's all we had.  
> We had basically 2 kinds: high output / fast charge (SCR) and high  
> capacity / slow charge (SCE) types. At the risk of oversimplifying -  
> the difference had to do with internal resistance. For stock class  
> we ran the high output type, for modifieds we used the high capacity  
> type. To get Max performance from the high output batteries in stock  
> class we charged them at 1 - 4C, then we re-peaked them before the  
> race at 10 - 30C! Some guys used to charge until the cell vents  
> opened. The result: a super hole-shot, lotsa power, 4 minutes worth  
> of fun. Then we threw the battery pack out. They could only handle  
> this kind of abuse once. You didn't do this every weekend, just for  
> the really big events. OK, if you were spoonsored you did this all  
> the time. :)
> The high capacity batteries had to be treated differently. Normally  
> you charged at 1-4C. In a 2WD modified car you could expect to get  
> at least a few cycles before you used the pack for practice. If you  
> were "cheap" you'd take a pack that had been used 4 or 5 times, put  
> it on a trickle charger overnight to "re-balance" the cells (sound  
> familiar?) and used it until it dumped on the last lap and cost you  
> a race. If you were sponsored you always had brand new "computer  
> matched" batteries so you didn't have to do this.
>
> Bottom line: You can't have everything. You're going to trade off  
> something. You need to understand exactly what you're getting with a  
> new technology and if it's worth giving up something that the  
> existing technology might do better. I doubt very much that you'll  
> see a 30C discharge rate + 3C charge rate capable pack that weighs  
> half as much as what we have now AND delivers more usable cycles as  
> well. But I guess we can dream. VBG
>
> John Pavlick
> http://www.idseng.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 9:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: New fast charge battery
>
> The faster you charge, the fewer the cycles you get!!  Figure cycle  
> life is reduced by about 50% at 3C charge rates.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> ] On Behalf Of Stuart Chale
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 6:48 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: New fast charge battery
>
> The key in my mind as we already have enough power in a makable  
> weight for a new set of batteries, is the number of cycles you can  
> get.  It the new technology gets us 200 cycles before degradation  
> then I'll take 2 :)  Don't need three any more because they charge  
> faster.
> Stuart
>
> Ed Alt wrote:
> This is very straightforward.  The ideal battery is one that has 0  
> ohms internal resistance and infinite current delivery capability.   
> This new technology gets you somewhat closer to that ideal.  All it  
> means is that it minimizes power losses due to much lower internal  
> resistance, and reduces limitations that are placed on the  
> performance of the thing you are powering with it.  Even the ideal  
> battery can only deliver as much current into the load as that  
> device will draw based on its own resistance (actually impedance,  
> but we'll keep it simple) Doesn't matter whether it is a motor, a  
> light bulb or whatever.  It's all good...
>
>
> Ed
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Keith Hoard
> To: General pattern discussion
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 5:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: New fast charge battery
>
> How good would these batteries work in my glow starter?. . .
>
> 2009/3/19 Ed Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
> No way! That is simply evidence that your paint needs to be upgraded!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rex
> To: NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 4:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: New fast charge battery
>
> Now I'm just guessing here....  I'm thinking that if you throttle up  
> and the paint
> strips off the fuse, that's probably a bit too much!
>
> Rex
>
> From: joddino at socal.rr.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:10:06 -0700
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: New fast charge battery
>
> I used to say that an engine is a machine that doesn't make enough  
> power.  Now I say a motor is also a machine that doesn't make enough  
> power.
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Mar 19, 2009, at 8:29 AM, J N Hiller wrote:
>
> Hay Rex how much power do you need? You can do a vertical ROG now.
> Jim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Keith Hoard
> Collierville, TN
> khoard at gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090320/c72cf3de/attachment.html>