[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: New fast charge battery

Fri Mar 20 07:23:58 AKDT 2009

"When we get batteries that can hold 40 volts under load at the end of flight we'll want 5000 Watt motors." We already have them - unfortunately they run on gasoline and they're a little on the heavy side. LOL

John Pavlick

--- On Fri, 3/20/09, joddino at socal.rr.com <joddino at socal.rr.com> wrote:

From: joddino at socal.rr.com <joddino at socal.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: New fast charge battery
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Friday, March 20, 2009, 2:59 PM

I still fly my original TrueRC 10C that has about 114 flights as I recall but it
is getting tired with internal resistances up around 10 to 12 milliohms.  I have
a new one that was a replacement for the original "short" TrueRCs but
it only has 5 flights.  The two "first string" packs are a sample 20C
pack from True and a new TP Prolite V2 or whatever it is called.  These two
packs are really good with IRs in the 2.0 to 3.0 range after about 24 flights
each.  

These packs never drop below 35 volts even at the end of the flight.  I found I
was consistently exceeding the power spec of the Dualsky 6360 and that is
probably why it failed.  The answer was to get a Plettenberg that can handle
3500 Watts.  It's working great and I will probably get another one.  When
we get batteries that can hold 40 volts under load at the end of flight
we'll want 5000 Watt motors.  

I love this stuff.

Jim O

---- krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> What packs are you running now Jim? 
>  
> Heating the packs is the way to go. 
> 
> 
> Chris 
>  
>  
>  
> 
> --- On Thu, 3/19/09, James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: New fast charge battery
> To: "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 10:27 PM
> 
> 
> 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
listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090320/98625d8a/attachment.html>