RickVB

My Feedback: (24)

So, HobbyKing just started selling Turnigy Graphene batteries (here), and at first glance I thought that these might be the new Lithium-Sulfur-Graphene battery technology, and was very excited. However, on a more careful reading of the supplied literature and specs, this is clearly old LiPoly tech with a graphene spin.

They appear to me to be a LiPo design with a Graphene hybrid cathode. The result is lower weight per charge/discharge rate (or just higher discharge/charge rate, depending on how you look at it), and lower internal resistance leading to more stable voltage under load. If it were LiFe based there will also be a slight increase in energy density, but I doubt it based on the listed weight/capacity specs. So the big draw is 65-130C rates and lower heat and steadier voltage at smaller battery sizes. An advance, but the big jump is still to come...

They are not selling any flight pack sized (i.e. ~2000mAh 2S), so it seems to me they are aiming these at you electric 3D drivers out there.

So what do you all think? Big advance, or big hype?

koc

I thing the advantage of the new Turnigy Graphene batteries is the recharge cycle, I believe it has more rechargeable cycle with more efficiency than the old lipo,
In fact I bought two of them (6000mah 4s 65C) and I will compare it with old lipo.

jester_s1

It's an incremental advance. It's not Earth shattering, but they sound a little better than the Nano-tech batteries so why not? I'm curious about the durability. That's really where Turnigy has cut corners in the past in order to provide a cheaper battery.

topspin

I'll give them credit for marketing but these are not Graphene technology. They are heavier so they should have a higher discharge capability than a lighter weight Lipo of equal cell count and Mah value.

One of the problems with the Turnigy Nano-tech batteries is the discharge rating seems to be over rated. I tried some of the 1800 Mah 3 and 4 S 65C batteries and they got hot and puffed at 30C. I suspect these so called Graphene batteries will discharge at 30C without getting hot because of their beefier construction and increased weight. They will probably be good for the Quad copter folks who discharge batteries pretty hard.

I have had really good luck with Gens Ace and recently with these guys, http://www.chinahobbyline.us/product/list/2.jhtml

My assessment is that there is no Graphene in the Turnigy batteries since it is not simple to make in industrial quantities and Sanyo seems to own the process that might make it happen in a few years. I think RickVB is right that these are fatter Liops with a graphite cathode and a bit of spin on the marketing in typical Hobby King fashion.

topspin

Here is some food for thought regarding Graphene battery technology, Hobby King, and RCGroups. http://www.quaddiction.club/the-real...ipo-batteries/

topspin

Still more evidence that Hobby King just cant seem to tell the truth about their products. The latest science says that it is not quite possible to do what HK claims they are doing. All they are doing is making a fatter battery pack with more chemical in it so it has a little lower internal resistance and can source more current without getting as hot because it's got more stuff in it.

http://www.gizmag.com/graphene-dopin...duction/41829/

http://www.gizmag.com/graphene-cages...tteries/41583/

So if your going to waste your money, waste it on something else rather than give it to a company that has issues with the truth.

topspin

So here's the deal in a nutshell. All of the current studies and experiments conducted by major universities point to one thing, the application of graphene technology applied to lithium ion batteries produces batteries with huge increases in power density (measured in laboratories), much shorter charge times (like a minute) and far greater discharge capability either at no increase in weight or less weight.

The shill fest over on the other site is disturbing. The fans are throwing around power density numbers calculated by weight vs C rating, which assumes the C ratings are actually correct, I suspect they are not. They are showing graphs of the battery voltage being slightly higher during short discharges where a real graphene technology battery would be significantly higher for about ten times as long under similar load.

Lastly, if these were actually for real how come no one else is making them? I smell fish wrapped in carbon fiber shrink wrap, it smells like sucker.

Kiriakos-GR

1) Yes they seek sponsors so them to do further research.

2) They care 100% about developing products for the electric car industry.

3) As long you are not paying their research you do not qualify about getting mad for their actions.

topspin

Oh I'm not mad at the researchers, I applaud them for all of their efforts to improve battery technology. No I have a problem with someone saying a product is one thing when in reality it is something far less.

Kiriakos-GR

Researchers of new technology, them have their own vocabulary which this is used in Press releases and announcements.
To them time as measurable unit, this is not important, because they are aware that they work it can take several years until to deliver usable results back to the market.
When something unfinished this is described as product, this description is given by the people behind the invention, or due high enthusiasm, or about them to earn faster the attention / faith of sponsors.

Personally I would expect famous in the market battery makers, them to lead regarding NEW battery types development.
But this does not happen, because they do not have at their payroll permanent R&D teams.

It is somewhat of disappointment even to me that for example, all this marketing in favor of Eneloop Ni-mh does not include even a single confirmation test from an independent test lab.
Panasonic ( Eneloop) in their datasheets all that they offer are information's which them are based on their own estimate.
As we speak, they print new labels for their Eneloop 1900mAh, them will have the text .... Capacity 80% after ten years.
I did contact Panasonic, and ask further clarifications, them said: we communicate this description due our estimations from past experience.
http://www.ittsb.eu/forum/index.php?...sg2725#msg2725

Therefore there is a fine line between true facts and words of marketing, but many they do cross over it for their own reasons.

topspin

And I think you get the point that there is no scientific data to support the claims made by a certain Chinese hobby company that it's batteries are something other than Lithium Ion technology. This same company seems to thrive on deception as if it were a drug. They never came right out and said anything, instead they let the shills do that for them. Now thousands of hobbyists will buy a product thinking they are going to get something they are not. It's the deceptive practice that bathers me because they rip off my fellow hobbyists, many of whom simply don't know any better.

When some of the most brilliant minds in the world tell you that this technology is not sufficiently mature to mass produce then it is ludicrous to believe that some low buck Chinese manufacturer is making them for hobby purposes when there is an utterly gigantic market for such technology in the mainstream of electric vehicles, consumer electronics, and home power systems. Our Chinese hobby friends are selling a package based on testimonials of one or two people who use completely unscientific methods to arrive at a conclusion that makes the product look good and even then it only looks a little better because it's a lot bigger.

Kiriakos-GR

An slight performance increase this is not a result that has to do with battery size, but due manufacturing date of one Li-ion battery cell.
One new produced battery this will include fresh made Li-ion battery cells, them no matter their durability over time, they will be much better from a battery staying in storage for over a year time or more, in the hands of one retailer in the west world.
In three years time even new and unused Li-ion battery cells, them are plain garbage, their own active chemistry has killed them.

Therefore we need new laws imposing to all Li-ion manufacturers, them to do 3D laser print of production date over its one battery cell.

init4fun

Yasu Kiriakos ,

While I too think a manufacturing date stamp would be a good thing for Lipos , how would this be practical when the cells themselves could be old and then made into a battery and given the date the pack was assembled rather than the date the cells themselves were manufactured ? When a LIPO battery is fully assembled you can not see the cells themselves , only the shrink wrap holding the pack together . It would rely on manufacturer honesty to list the cells' manufacture date rather than the battery's assembly date on the outside of the package . Then of course you have the issue of what happens with LIPOs that don't sell in a timely manner . Who "eats" the cost of these now "out of date" packs that no one wants due to an outdated date code ? Also to be considered is the fact that some LIPOs do live far longer than a couple of years if they are of quality manufacture and handled using each and every single proper LIPO protocol for long LIPO life . I have packs over 8 years old , yes EIGHT YEARS !!! that were manufactured under the "Hyperion" and "ThunderPower" names that still work today like the day I bought them just by following the "LIPO rules of longevity" . First and foremost , all LIPOS are stored in a fridge set at 45 degrees F . They are stored at the "storage charge" setting on the LIPO charger and checked for that proper 3.85 volt per cell storage charge every 6 months . When a LIPO is to be used it's brought to room temperature overnight , charged right before the flight , flown without being drained more than 2/3 of total storage capacity or being allowed to get too hot , then when it's back to room temp after it's use it's storage charged , back into it's thick and well sealed plastic bag and into the fridge it goes . I have 30 or so LIPO packs between Hyperion and ThunderPower , those are the only two that have passed the test of time . ALL others , EFlight , Turnigy , Zippy , and any others I've owned , have all failed within 3 to 4 years time , following the same protocol .

Kiriakos-GR

Greetings to you too.

Bulk buy of unprotected Lipos directly from the factory this is prohibited by law, either way adding a date over the negative pole of the cell this is easy to do, consumers buying secure Lipos for flashlight's they should know production date before wasting their money.

Looks like that Chinese eBay sellers find the solution to that first of every one else, they selling assembled battery packs for laptops by offering warranty time.
The ones mentioning two years warranty .. this translating that they assembled 2.5 Years old cells that they buy them as discounted due their age.

Example of price per single 16850 Lipo cell according it age.
1 Year old = 12$
2 Years old = 8$
3 Years = 3$
4 Years = 1$ or less.

Who eats the cost of unsold car tires? They do have stamped production date, and no one likes to buy at the price of new tires, the ones made four years back.


Lets keep it simple here, Panasonic cells them have some proven extended durability, a laptop battery can not lie about it condition.
Especially when you are informed by this laptop manufacturer, that you should expect three hours of use and you do getting them.

Recharge cycles this is a major factor which speed up Lipos End-Of-Llife, does any one keeping track of it ?, around 300 times is the most that you can get.
Finally one pack of cells it can proven worthless if a single cell chemically collapse in the chain, Panasonic cells have this stability due the high quality standards at the production stage.
Non branded packs them have higher percentage to collapse due a single cell failure, than the ones using Panasonic or Samsung.

Lipos maintenance practices them have small practical value, you come to the point babysitting Lipos and wasting time and electrical energy, about delaying their death from a year to 16 months.
Aged Lipos loosing their capacity, and this is what it maters the most.
Nowadays I have measuring equipment for battery internal resistance, within seconds I am aware of the condition of one cell.

topspin

According to XG Sciences in Lansing, MI they are producing lithium ion batteries with graphene/silicon anodes that provide four times the capacity of standard lithium ion batteries.
http://xgsciences.com/releases/new-battery-anode/


Since the Turnigy Graphene batteries don't even have one half more capacity and weigh substantially more than a comparable battery of equal cell count and C rating one has to wonder what they really are?

So is this a dig at Hobby King? You bet it is because they are making it sound as if these batteries are some sort of graphene technology when it looks like all they really are is fat Lipos. Maybe they poured some pencil lead in the mix or something but these are not the ground breaking technology they would like people to think they are. Hyperion G6 Cmax batteries are way better if you remember that you get what you pay for. At least when they say 60 C then they really are 60 C.

Check this out, and it only weighs 108 grams. http://www.aircraft-world.com/en/p15...hp-hv80c1400s3

topspin

THIS: http://www.quaddiction.club/the-real...ipo-batteries/

Is it just me or does it strike anyone else as odd that only a Chinese hobby shop would come out with this so called ground breaking technology?

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

This fudging the truth is why I call the Hobby Klunk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

topspin

Misrepresenting the truth is what they do in almost every part of their business.

init4fun

Hi Topspin ,

This kind of corporate deceit is unfortunately not new in the least as far as the technology world goes , and one of my favorite examples was perpetrated by none other than Philco , one of the darlings of today's antique radio collectors , at the dawn of the Transistor age . Now , as we all know , it was Bell labs that invented the Transistor and of course owned the patent for it's design , and the Transistor was pretty darned big news when it was invented with it's promise to do away with the vacuum tube's power hungry cathode heater and startup delay as the cathode warmed . INSTANT ON !!!! How I remember well the electronics of the 60s and early 70s with this in big block letters on the front , but now back to Philco . In the late 1940s (Transistor's first practical use was in 1947) they wanted in on the sales boost this new buzzword could provide and took their common as dirt 5 tube radios , spiffied up the cabinets a bit in an attempt to look more "modern" , and named the model line "TRANSITONE" ... What a bunch of total BS !!!! Anyone non electronically savvy would see the name Transitone and of course believe they were being sold a transistor radio !!! A quick search in any antique radio forum of the name "Philco Transitone" will prove that every darned one of em was in fact a vacuum tube radio containing no transistor technology whatsoever .

Now , why did I bother telling that seemingly unrelated story ?

Cause today there will be no FTC breathing down HK's neck for leading people to believe these batteries are something that they aren't , just as the public was allowed to get hosed 60 or so years ago on fake Transistor radios ! The scope of Philco's deceit FAR outweighed HK's fake Graphene batteries and exactly nothing was done , just as I expect HK will be pretty much free to sell their "Graphene" batteries unhindered in any way by the govt. entities that are supposed to ensure that the buying public gets what the sales pitch says their getting . Is it slimy as all Hell ? Course it is . But it's such small taters in the world of govt. intervention of product rip offs that you'll never see them taken to task over it .

And once again the consumer is left to fend for themselves with the tired ol "buyer beware" and "if it's too good to be true ....." defense . Sad really .

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

If someone finds that HK knowingly lied about what they are selling, they should hold them accountable. They sell products here in the states and can be held accountable accordingly. So why hasn't someone done this yet with this product or any other? I've been hearing about class action lawsuits for what, 5 or 6 years now?

So where is the proof? Not some kid taking apart a battery, not the usual rumor and innuendo and story about something that happened 8 years ago, but some actual proof. Where are all the complaints to states consumer protection departments? Yes, I'm aware of the BBB ratings, I guess HK wasn't willing to pay to get those deleted.

The consumer isn't left to fend for themselves. State consumer protection laws can be very stringent, and if there is evidence of wrongdoing there are endless lines of of attorneys waiting for a bite at the class action apple.

Bring on the actual evidence, then bring on the consumer protection complaints and lawsuits. Any company that engages in deceptive trade practices should be hammered.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Another interesting video, took all of 5 minutes to find.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ar3C5JgzhgE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

LoL...this guy is building capacitors with graphene dust mixed with Minwax polyurethane in what looks like a basement kitchen. If he can cook this stuff up in his basement why is it hard to believe the worlds biggest RC company couldn't get a battery made with "graphene" in the mix?

init4fun

Here we have HK selling a supposed "1300" MAH battery with the power of a 2000 MAH and claiming it's because of their "secret sauce"

But it's just about pretty darned the same size and weight as a 2000 MAH pack ! Do you honestly believe that fat "1300" isn't actually a 2000 with some fancy snake oil on the label ?

Never heard the story of "the Emperor's new clothes" eh ?

Also , It's pretty telling of your unwavering bias that you would rip one person trying to discover the truth about this "magic" as "some kid taking apart a battery" , while holding up some one else with even MORE dubious claims (your "graphene capacitor" video) as proof positive that HK has accomplished what billion dollar corporations are still working on .

init4fun

And really , REALLY , did you honestly just post a vid of some wonk making "Supercapacitors" as validity of your point ?

Really ?

Dude , you should be ashamed at yourself for posting that TRASH !!!!!!!

For anybody without HK blinders on who happens to read this thread , go Google "Supercapacitor" and see what comes back , it's like the "Superconductor" , ONLY seen in Labratory conditions with giga $$ spent , and NOT in someones basement meth lab as porcia asserts .

init4fun

Supercapacitors !!!!!!!

My lunchtime laugh is now complete

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Wow Init...touch a nerve? We're not going to have this thread degenerate are we? I don't know that there's any trash in the thread (yet), but ymmv. I don't have a bias on any one company, or battery maker, and not sure why you would try to change the topic of the thread to that. Why try to make it personal? I know an alternate view isn't popular in anti HK threads, but can we have an exchange of views without the "you should be ashamed" and trash comments?

You seem to have missed my point all together in your attempt to shame me (lol). The point is that anybody can throw up a video and say what they say with no evidence to back it up. One video is no more evidence than the other. The one I posted up is just as ridiculous as the first one. The guy says he has "graphene dust" in a jar. The first video posted here is not definitive either way, by the author's own statements. HK says they have Graphene batteries. Nobody has proven one thing to the contrary.

Here is HK's comments on site:

[h=3]Graphene batteries are unlike anything you have seen or used before.

Turnigy Graphene packs utilize carbon in the battery structure to form a single layer of graphene just 0.335nm thick, making that type of battery substrate the thinnest known to mankind. The graphene particles form a highly dense compound allowing electrons to flow with less resistance compared to traditional Lipoly battery technologies.

That's their pitch. Can it be proved or disproved, other than someone without the ability to inspect the battery sufficiently?

If they lied, someone needs to prove it and them sue them. Then we can say "shame on them". Otherwise, it looks like this will be another HK rumor.


[/h]