Nicad versus NiMh for 4.8 volt RC exl ignition
08-03-2018, 09:23 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Nicad versus NiMh for 4.8 volt RC exl ignition
I am at a crossroads in deciding which of these two battery chemistries in a 4.8 volt 1500 mA pack would be better suited to run a 4.8 volt RC Excl gas ignition. Your thoughts on this would be appreciated.
08-03-2018, 03:19 PM
#2
i'm still on NiCad's for my r/c stuff ...... really haven't had any problems that would make me consider changing. that said,.... I don't really know all the in's and out's about the NiMH batteries, because I haven't had any real reason to investigate that info beyond knowing I could potentially replace the NiCad's with the NiMH's directly . so, until I have real problems with the good ole' NiCad batteries, i'll just continue to use what I am used to.
08-03-2018, 04:20 PM
#3
Thread Starter
I have read that some of the advantages of NiMH batteries is that they are bit lighter in weight and don't develop a memory, however they tend to self discharge more rapidly than NiCads.
08-04-2018, 05:33 AM
#5
Nicads generally tolerate quick charging better than Nimh batteries. I have witnessed lots of problems with false peaking Nimh batteries which often lead to an unexpected loss of power. Nicads also tolerate higher discharge rates than Nimh and although both self discharge, Nimh batteries seem to do so at a much higher rate.
Nicads seem to have a longer lifespan, Nimh batteries generally last only a couple of years while nicads will remain serviceable for much longer.
Having said all of that, for a given capacity Nimh batteries will weigh 1/2 as much. Nimh batteries are easier to find as the market has turned away from Nicad technology, particularly in certain sizes.
Nicads seem to have a longer lifespan, Nimh batteries generally last only a couple of years while nicads will remain serviceable for much longer.
Having said all of that, for a given capacity Nimh batteries will weigh 1/2 as much. Nimh batteries are easier to find as the market has turned away from Nicad technology, particularly in certain sizes.
08-05-2018, 08:02 AM
#9
Nicads generally tolerate quick charging better than Nimh batteries. I have witnessed lots of problems with false peaking Nimh batteries which often lead to an unexpected loss of power. Nicads also tolerate higher discharge rates than Nimh and although both self discharge, Nimh batteries seem to do so at a much higher rate.
Nicads seem to have a longer lifespan, Nimh batteries generally last only a couple of years while nicads will remain serviceable for much longer.
Having said all of that, for a given capacity Nimh batteries will weigh 1/2 as much. Nimh batteries are easier to find as the market has turned away from Nicad technology, particularly in certain sizes.
Nicads seem to have a longer lifespan, Nimh batteries generally last only a couple of years while nicads will remain serviceable for much longer.
Having said all of that, for a given capacity Nimh batteries will weigh 1/2 as much. Nimh batteries are easier to find as the market has turned away from Nicad technology, particularly in certain sizes.
08-06-2018, 05:13 AM
#11
Thread Starter
I totally agree as I have Life batteries in all my models except for this old banger .
08-06-2018, 05:31 AM
#12
X3. Especially if you are running a seperate battery for ignition. MUCH less weight up front, for same, or greater, capacity. Yes, you will need to invest in a charger, too. RCExcl usually can run these 6.6 v (2s) packs without any issue...but verify yours, first, of course.
08-06-2018, 05:55 AM
#14
one might say ..."old dog syndrome".....
I also have to look into whether my 6EX and my somewhat ancient Attack 4 ch. will run on anything other than Nicads,....this I don't know.
Last edited by r ward; 08-06-2018 at 05:58 AM.
08-06-2018, 06:09 AM
#16
I know nothing about "life" batteries, beyond that I have heard of them before. it will be part of my update research as my NiCads get ready to be replaced. I do like the idea of less weight of the newer technology so that is a catalyst to look into them....which I most certainly will,.... but don't like the idea of having to buy a new and different charger for them, as I have several chargers now for my NiCads. to be honest when I returned to r/c flying, I didn't even know there was anything other than NiCads to be used, so,.... blindly,....I went to a RadioShack, saw NiCads at a decent price compared to what the local Hobby shop wanted and bought a bunch of them for my equipment.
one might say ..."old dog syndrome".....
I also have to look into whether my 6EX and my somewhat ancient Attack 4 ch. will run on anything other than Nicads,....this I don't know.
one might say ..."old dog syndrome".....
I also have to look into whether my 6EX and my somewhat ancient Attack 4 ch. will run on anything other than Nicads,....this I don't know.
08-06-2018, 09:24 AM
#17
Thread Starter
08-06-2018, 09:38 AM
#18
I like these guys that condescend to someone about "old technology" and then start their airplane engine that is a technology older than anything they are condescending about ......
08-06-2018, 10:31 AM
#19
To your point, I don't condescend about using old technology, I probably have a couple of radios somewhere with brown and white and green and white frequency flags.
I do find myself condescending dispensing advice on modern systems based on practices developed during the moon landings.
I do find myself condescending dispensing advice on modern systems based on practices developed during the moon landings.
08-06-2018, 03:43 PM
#20
Thread Starter
Some of my models use one LiFe battery with an RC exl electronic kill switch and a voltage reducing diode for the ignition. I have never used an Tech Aero IBEC unit but have seen them in use on several models.
08-07-2018, 05:24 AM
#21
To your point, I don't condescend about using old technology, I probably have a couple of radios somewhere with brown and white and green and white frequency flags.
I do find myself condescending dispensing advice on modern systems based on practices developed during the moon landings.
I do find myself condescending dispensing advice on modern systems based on practices developed during the moon landings.
for many years I shot competitive archery, reaching a level that allowed me to compete in some of the largest tournaments in the world. in this sport, there was and still is an element of this same "if you don't have the latest and greatest equipment all the time, you are hopelessly handicapped". ironically,... the record for the most perfect scores ever shot by one person is still held by a fellow that retired from shooting in about 1990. despite using all that "obsolete by today's standards" equipment, no-one has been able to better his accomplishments, yet. many new archers come and go quickly when the idea that they have no chance bettering his record because he always had the latest equipment from the largest manufacturers, is planted in their heads.
to point,....the age of the equipment makes no difference in the amount of enjoyment provided, condescendence only serves to stifle the sport's attendance. our sport is on a downhill slide all by itself,.....it doesn't need help.
08-07-2018, 05:51 AM
#22
Some call it condesention, I call it giving more modern advice based on modern electronics and modern best practices.
I'm not talking about making fun of someone's equipment no matter what they are flying, I'm not an elitist with the best equipment.
But every now and then when correcting some old advice, and in the interest of humor I throw the 8 track picture out there.
I'm not talking about making fun of someone's equipment no matter what they are flying, I'm not an elitist with the best equipment.
But every now and then when correcting some old advice, and in the interest of humor I throw the 8 track picture out there.
08-07-2018, 08:14 AM
#23
I try to keep a bit of all the technology I've flown over the years as keepsakes but there are limits as to what I'll actually trust a model airplane (and the public !) to . In spite of Rward's protestations there ARE certain technologies that will end up on the shelf , I'd dare not risk either a model plane nor the public to flying a model airplane with one of these .......
08-09-2018, 11:48 AM
#24
My Feedback: (19)
I really don't see any condescension in this thread .... perhaps a bit of over sensitivity by some but no intent to condescend by others.
Karolh, if you are worried about voltage on the ignition, all but the very early Rcexl ignitions will tolerate 6.6v from a LiFe battery. If you want to reduce the voltage a bit, you can always connect a single diode in series with the (+) lead going to the ignition. The last thing I would do is purchase and use a separate Nixx battery of any kind.
To others, as I know Karolh already know this, I was a late adopter of Lixx technology batteries simply because I was old school and very conservative based on years of fairly positive experience with Nixx technology in commercial equipment. This included sales, service and as an end user. Once I switched to Lixx technology, I never looked back. Lixx batteries and especially A123 and LiFe batteries are superior in every way I could rate a battery and require little of the nurse maiding that Nixx batteries required. Lixx costs less. lasts far longer, delivers almost the same energy after years of service as when new, weighs less, has almost zero self discharge, etc. etc. The list goes on. My battery costs for RC use have probably dropped to a third or less of what I once spent on Nixx batteries. Use what you prefer as they all work but please don't overlook modern technology just because you have some kind of principal regarding change. You'll be shortchanging yourself if you choose not to change.
Karolh, if you are worried about voltage on the ignition, all but the very early Rcexl ignitions will tolerate 6.6v from a LiFe battery. If you want to reduce the voltage a bit, you can always connect a single diode in series with the (+) lead going to the ignition. The last thing I would do is purchase and use a separate Nixx battery of any kind.
To others, as I know Karolh already know this, I was a late adopter of Lixx technology batteries simply because I was old school and very conservative based on years of fairly positive experience with Nixx technology in commercial equipment. This included sales, service and as an end user. Once I switched to Lixx technology, I never looked back. Lixx batteries and especially A123 and LiFe batteries are superior in every way I could rate a battery and require little of the nurse maiding that Nixx batteries required. Lixx costs less. lasts far longer, delivers almost the same energy after years of service as when new, weighs less, has almost zero self discharge, etc. etc. The list goes on. My battery costs for RC use have probably dropped to a third or less of what I once spent on Nixx batteries. Use what you prefer as they all work but please don't overlook modern technology just because you have some kind of principal regarding change. You'll be shortchanging yourself if you choose not to change.
