Graphine / Lipo Batteries in Motion RC's Future?

[Twowingtj]

Just want to see if Graphene/Lipo batteries are coming to Motion RC product line anytime soon?

Two of the most notable features of these packs seem to be their power density to weight ratio and a greatly increased number of cycles in it's life span https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...st-Comparisons I do not currently own any, so cannot provide any real world experience with them.

Also like to have "go to" thread for fellow Squawkers' experience with graphene packs and what you are using them in.

[StormyDog1962]

We are looking into this however myself personally have not used the Graphenes. One of our CST's Mike has and he likes the performance so maybe in the near future we can get a line of these. Will pass on your request to the owners. Thanks.

[Aros]

I'm going to snag a couple soon and test them out. I'll report my experience to the owners as well...Could be worth exploring for sure!

[T-CAT]

I tell ya, some of my planes have some high current draw and the Graphene's, specifically the Turnigy, have held up absolutely amazing. That's not babying them either. I do take good care of them in regards to not letting them go down under 3.7V per cell, not leaving them fully charged for anything over less than half a day, and storing them at between 3.8-3.85V per cell. Under fairly high discharge levels in EDF jets, they come back down barely warm to the touch, no swelling, holds cell matching well, cells balance charge nicely, IR maintains low reading under the same conditions, seem to have a more durable packaging and plates, and holds voltage well under load. I have no idea on longevity yet because they are still somewhat new to me, so I need many more flights on each pack to see whether they hold true to their advertised longevity specs. This is coming from someone who's not a biased LiPo brand individual too. If I try something and it works out, great, I'll keep using it until it doesn't. I have only tried Turnigy Graphene batteries though in two different sizes for different applications, a 4S 1300mah 65C, and 6S 5000mah 65C. One thing I hope that doesn't occur is LiPo brands advertising their non Graphene related LiPo's as Graphene related LiPo's. We already know the actual C rating advertised on the label is grossly overstated, and a huge marketing tool to sell LiPo's, so the whole Graphene tech. leaves the door open for the dishonestly to occur there too.

Unfortunately, yes, they are no doubt heavy (at least the Turnigy Graphene) for their capacity, but, that weight seems to allow them to hold up extremely well under more extreme conditions than traditional non Graphene advertised LiPo's. I've noticed even with other brands of non Graphene LiPo's, the heavier the battery (and often times the higher the C rating of a LiPo when comparing the same brand, same capacity, and same voltage, the higher the C rating goes, the higher the total weight of the LiPo as well) the better it holds up under higher stress. So, if there is a correlation there, it's a trade off like anything. If someone doesn't absolutely need to squeeze every ounce of power out of their set-up, their power system isn't pushing the limits of their LiPo (and the plane doesn't allow too much room to carry a large capacity battery), then a heavier battery and one advertised as Graphene may not be necessary or even possible. I have many other packs that do well that aren't of the same brand, are much lighter in weight for the same capacity, smaller dimensions, etc., and they hold up fine, but only within reason since the power system it's used with has to be matched in a way that allows those LiPo's to shine. So, it's really an application thing, as it's more needed in some than others. However, now there are some other Graphene brands that are creating lighter batteries than the Turnigy and folks have provided some good feedback on them. They are still heavier than some traditional non Graphene batteries of the same capacity, but may hold up better under the same conditions as the traditional LiPo. However, it still looks like weight plays a potential roll in allowing a LiPo to withstand harsher conditions, but that's within reason. There's always a fine balance of whether a person feels it's possible or worthwhile to carry extra weight if the payoff isn't providing positive returns.

[Aros]

Good comments T-CAT...I look forward to checking out the Graphene batteries...Perhaps one day we may carry them if they continue to show positive results for folks.

[xviper]

A bunch of us at one of my flying fields have been using Turnigy Graphenes since early 2016. In the beginning, a couple of us received the odd one with one dead cell on arrival. HobbyKing replaced those immediately without argument when we sent a picture of the readings from a battery tester. Since that period of time, there have been no further defective Graphenes. I believe that whole episode began when the new transport regulations came into effect requiring cell voltages be dropped to around 3.7v as opposed to the previous convention of ~3.82+v. HobbyKing took all of their stock at the time and did a mass discharge to comply. I believe they got a bit overwhelmed and some Graphenes got over discharged and got damaged.

Anyway there are those of us who have over 300 cycles on the early Graphenes and are still going strong. Remember that a few of us fly 3 to 5 days a week some weeks, including through the cold, winter months. I cited an example (in another thread) of my twin 70mm SebArt Mig 29. This was one of the first 3D "hovering" EDFs to hit the market. It uses a single 4s LiPo. Comparing my 3600mah, 50C Admiral Pros (~100 cycles) with newer 3000mah, 65C Turnigy Graphenes, the Graphs came down (after the same flight time) only warm and very solid. The Pros came down moderately puffy and HOT. The punch of the Graphs was significant and undeniable. I have similar comparison of the 6s, 3000mah, batteries in my Freewing 70mm Yak 130, but that EDF is not nearly as demanding on the battery as the Mig, so the Admirals come down very warm but solid. The Graphene didn't even seem to know they were being worked. However, using the Pros in my Flightline P-38 was still outstanding. They came down solid and warm.

My current inventory of Turnigy Graphenes (and I'm including my guess of what the equivalent mah (and physical size) in a non-graphene type battery) .......................................
1500mah, 3s, 65C ..................... (equiv. to 1800)
1800mah, 3s, 65C ......................(2200)
3000mah, 3s, 65C ......................(3300+)
1800mah, 4s, 65C ......................(2200)
3000mah, 4s, 65C ......................(3600)
3000mah, 4s, 45C ......................(3600)
3000mah, 6s, 65C ......................(3600)

I started buying Graphenes based on weight and dimensions. That's how I figured out how much smaller I had to go to get a similar mah capacity. To my amazement, not only were flight times very close but the extra "punch" was quite a pleasant surprise. I've always targeted the 65C ones but a friend bought a bunch of 45C and didn't need them all, so I took some off his hands. So far, I have not been able to get a "real world" feel for and difference in performance compared to the 65C but I've only used the 45C ones in prop planes. I'm about to buy some 5000mah, 6s, 65C Turnigy Graphenes for my bigger EDFs. I'm also debating getting the Revo 5000mah, 70C graphenes (due to having a Canadian seller) but their pricing is somewhat higher and like most newer products, there have been some poor experiences.

It should also be mentioned that (what I've read on forums) those who use the smaller Graphenes in racing quads have been somewhat disappointed. These are in the under 1300mah sizes. They can't seem to be able to maintain the same sort of performance and longevity standards as the bigger ones.

Personally, I'm sold on Graphenes and if Motion can introduce a graphene type Admiral AND keep the prices within reason as they have done with the regular Admirals, that would be tremendous. I'll still get Admiral and A. Pros for my lower demand prop planes. I've got some Adm. Pros that I've been using for over 2 years and they have probably well over 400 cycles on them and are still working pretty good. They're starting to get a little "tired" but they don't own me anything.

[Aros]

Great "real world" data there xviper2! The more the data the better for all of us to make informed decisions...Good job.

[T-CAT]

Great information added Viper. So far, for my power systems and use, the added weight of the Graphene LiPo's hasn't been an issue, nor noticeable in flight. Thankfully, part of it is due to creating a bit more power, as the voltage drop experienced under load hasn't been as large as some of the other LiPo brands I've tried that were not Graphene labeled, and lower is held really well throughout the flight until the end, which is impressive. My Turnigy Graphenes are barely warm even after pushing them very hard, haven't ever swollen....yet, remain tightly packed, have flexible balance wiring and adequate length charge leads, hold voltage well, and good cell matching.

Since Graphene LiPo's are still relatively new to the market, we'll likely start seeing more brands pop up in short time to saturate the market and take a piece of the pie. One thing seems rather certain right now though, the Turnigy Graphene has been doing an excellent job with their LiPo's in the 1300mah range and larger (although that could always change with any company due to quality control, switching LiPo manufacturers, etc.). So far, these have been worth the price to me, and currently they have them on sale, or at least from time to time, which help offset the cost. I'm careful when choosing LiPo's as it's a big investment in the sizes I need, so it's nice when a product delivers. Many other brands now have Graphenes such as Revolectrix, China Hobby Line, Dinogy, etc., but not many have been tested much besides the Turnigy. I'm sure that'll come with time though.

Some other folks are absolutely overtaxing their Graphene LiPo's (talking Turnigy here) whether that be on purpose or on accident by over discharging them from way too long if flights where there is barely 1V-2V per cell, and folks are bringing them back to life, all while seeing very little if no noticeable change in IR, cell matching, and cell function under load once tested at proper levels again. That's pretty amazing stuff considering that destroys or significantly degrades most if not all LiPo's. Obviously none of the that would be advised since we want to make our LiPo's last as long as possible and have them provide the best power possible over time. However, it's still interesting nonetheless. I would really like to see other Graphene brands be tested and whether Graphene batteries in general could all have this durability.

As a side note, one thing I don't purchase any longer is High Voltage (HV) LiPo's. Not only do they tend to get pricey, but there is a very significant trade off for that high voltage charging ability for shorter lifespan. Charging a HV LiPo to whatever its HV specs are may create a bit more power, but shortens its lifespan so drastically that it's not even remotely worth the tradeoff to me. However, charging it to a regular LiPo end voltage of 4.2V per cell should provide good lifespan as one would expect. Another significant aspect I do not like is the lesser capacity provided when a HV LiPo is charged to an end voltage less than what it's specs indicate. For example, a 5000mah LiPo that is considered to have an end voltage of say 4.35V per cell will not provide anywhere near that if charged to an end voltage of 4.2V per cell. So, less flight time can be expected in that regard. Lastly, HV LiPo'a require a charger that can charge to the level necessary, and not all chargers do, while some can with a firmware update, etc. That also leaves door open for mistakes during charging a regular non HV LiPo and forgetting to put the voltage back to 4.2V, therefore overcharging your non HV LiPo.

With the Graphenes on the market now that have an end voltage of 4.2V per cell, some are even rivaling the power of HV LiPo batteries. That is incredible since we won't have to use HV (and all their pitfalls) LiPo's just to provide similar power.

[Twowingtj]

Thanks for your input T-Cat and xviper2. All good info. I, like most of us, prefer to be able to purchase a battery that can be used in multiple platforms. The graphenes have a clear advantage in EDFs and high demand prop planes like pylon racers.

Questions come to mind when looking at labeled capacity and the greater perceived capacity with the graphenes. Does this seem to hold true just in high demand usage or does it translate to lower demand usage?

Example would be if you put a 6S 3Ah 65C graphene in an EDF under agressive sport flying conditions, you seem get the same flight time as you would have if you used a 6S 3.6Ah 50C LiPo. Now if you take that same 6S 3Ah 65C graphine and put in a moderate demand prop plane, would it still have a perceived capacity, as far as flight time, of a larger capacity LiPo? I know that there are a lot of variables that come into play like weight, throttle management and the like. The graphene would clearly give more punch in the prop plane. But, is it a case of 3000mAh is 3000mAh regardless of battery chemestry in terms of flight times?

[xviper]

Questions come to mind when looking at labeled capacity and the greater perceived capacity with the graphenes. Does this seem to hold true just in high demand usage or does it translate to lower demand usage?

Example would be if you put a 6S 3Ah 65C graphene in an EDF under agressive sport flying conditions, you seem get the same flight time as you would have if you used a 6S 3.6Ah 50C LiPo. Now if you take that same 6S 3Ah 65C graphine and put in a moderate demand prop plane, would it still have a perceived capacity, as far as flight time, of a larger capacity LiPo? I know that there are a lot of variables that come into play like weight, throttle management and the like. The graphene would clearly give more punch in the prop plane. But, is it a case of 3000mAh is 3000mAh regardless of battery chemestry in terms of flight times?

A real good example of a low demand prop plane would be my Radian sailplane. I use a 1500mah, 3s, 65C Graph in it. The very first flight, I noticed a distinct increase in climb ability on the Graphene. They also give me 1 to 2 more ascents than the Admiral 1800mah that I was using before. So, to respond to your last question, no, a 3000mah Graphene will fly a bit longer than a 3000mah non-graphene. I'd guess that a Turnigy Graphene 3000mah is more like a 3300 or even a 3600 in a "normal" battery, given that one flies it about the same. HOWEVER, as someone has already stated, when flying a Graphene, one has a tendency to fly "balls to the wall" more often and for longer because the extra punch is just so exhilarating, it's hard to not dip into the extra reserve. Hence, flight times may be no different.

[Twowingtj]

I'm picking some up to try in birds where the weight trade off won't really matter. Turnigy seems good but only come in 1K increments in the higher capacity sizes. Revolectrix have more capacity options. Anyone got any experience with Revos?

[Tom]

Here is the story on graphene. We've looked into it extensively. After consulting with universities and having the graphene packs checked in a lab, it has been reported to us that the graphene packs in fact contain no graphene within the cells. We've been told by leading experts in the field that a true graphene cell battery is the future but none exist at this time anywhere in the world. So what are these batteries? What is all the hype and why do they work better? We've been told the connection between the cells is a pure carbon sheet which makes the packs slightly lighter with lower resistance. This is due to the fact that carbon is such a fantastic conductor as compared to metal. The resistance of the cells themselves within the packs are the same as a normal pack. The decrease is due to the conductor between the cells. The only negative is the way the packs discharge (if you can call it a negative). Due to the lower resistance of the conductor connecting the cells, the cells have a much more even discharge which means you will not feel it as your pack is draining. This has caused some to over discharge their packs ruining the cells within the pack. The cells themselves are no different in size, weight, or composition from a regular LiPo battery so you should not notice any capacity difference when comparing new packs. Remember new packs will always have more capacity than used packs since time and use is the enemy of capacity.

Knowing all of that, we are working on our own high performance carbon conductor packs with the same conductor. The goal is to have something in a few months. Additionally, we've switched factories and completely changed the formula for our Admiral and Admiral Pro packs so you are going to see a big performance gain with "regular" Admiral packs and Admiral Pro packs. Those will arrive in a few days.

[Twowingtj]

Nice to here Tom. As usual, Motion has done it's homework. Looking forward to more details and specs.

[xviper]

We've been told the connection between the cells is a pure carbon sheet which makes the packs slightly lighter with lower resistance.
The cells themselves are no different in size, weight, or composition from a regular LiPo battery so you should not notice any capacity difference when comparing new packs.

Knowing all of that, we are working on our own high performance carbon conductor packs with the same conductor. The goal is to have something in a few months. Additionally, we've switched factories and completely changed the formula for our Admiral and Admiral Pro packs so you are going to see a big performance gain with "regular" Admiral packs and Admiral Pro packs. Those will arrive in a few days.

So, what's in a Turnigy Graphene LiPo that makes it so much bigger (dimensionally) and heavier, seemingly giving the performance and duration of a bigger "normal" LiPo?

I'm looking forward to seeing the new Admirals.

[ryramZ]

AWESOME!!!

[Tom]

The difference in duration can be due to 2 things. I admit I'm somewhat guessing here. First, the carbon conductor is ultra low resistance, more energy can be expended form the packs before resistance is too high for the cells to push out amperage. That can, in fact, damage the cells if over-discharged. The only other theory I have is the age of the packs and how they were treated. If a pack is ever over discharged - even once - IR builds and it loses capacity. If a pack is stored fully charged for any length of time, it can (and will) lose capacity. If you are comparing new packs to new packs, it must be the conductor. Overall in testing we did not find the size/weight to be substantially different from a reguar LiPo pack. In the future, when real graphene cells are available, they will indeed be smaller and lighter compared to a standard LiPo cell.

[Tom]

To follow up on that last post - I wish I had discharge graphs to post. A LiPo pack with standard metal conductors between cells has a discharge graph that starts high and slopes slowly and gently down. A LiPo using carbon for the conductor between cells has a discharge graph that stays high (almost flat) until the cells are dead and then it falls off a cliff straight down like a rock. This may be why they appear to last slight longer. Have you checked the voltage of a standard cell when landing vs the graphene packs when landing? Are they the same or could the Graphene have been slightly lower? If the standard pack was older or abused (even once), it would "give up" providing amperage at a higher voltage which means it has les capacity.

[Aros]

Here is the story on graphene. We've looked into it extensively. After consulting with universities and having the graphene packs checked in a lab, it has been reported to us that the graphene packs in fact contain no graphene within the cells. We've been told by leading experts in the field that a true graphene cell battery is the future but none exist at this time anywhere in the world. So what are these batteries? What is all the hype and why do they work better? We've been told the connection between the cells is a pure carbon sheet which makes the packs slightly lighter with lower resistance. This is due to the fact that carbon is such a fantastic conductor as compared to metal. The resistance of the cells themselves within the packs are the same as a normal pack. The decrease is due to the conductor between the cells. The only negative is the way the packs discharge (if you can call it a negative). Due to the lower resistance of the conductor connecting the cells, the cells have a much more even discharge which means you will not feel it as your pack is draining. This has caused some to over discharge their packs ruining the cells within the pack. The cells themselves are no different in size, weight, or composition from a regular LiPo battery so you should not notice any capacity difference when comparing new packs. Remember new packs will always have more capacity than used packs since time and use is the enemy of capacity.

Knowing all of that, we are working on our own high performance carbon conductor packs with the same conductor. The goal is to have something in a few months. Additionally, we've switched factories and completely changed the formula for our Admiral and Admiral Pro packs so you are going to see a big performance gain with "regular" Admiral packs and Admiral Pro packs. Those will arrive in a few days.

Great info Tom! I am in need of some 6S 5000 Lipos so I can't wait to see the improvements even though I had no issues with my older packs...

[xviper]

Here is a comparison of 2 of the batteries that I've been using (I'll throw in one that I don't use because it's a better comparison):

Admiral Pro, 2200mah, 3s, 45C ........................................... 184g ............ 106x34x25mm
Turnigy Graphene, 1800mah, 3s, 65C ................................. 188g ............ 107x36x26mm
Turnigy Graphene, 2200mah, 3s, 45C ................................. 201g ............ 107x36x26mm (This is a more direct comparison to the Adm. Pro.)
I use the 1800 to get a similar flight time but a bit more punch. I suppose the extra 18g on the 2200, 45C Graphene can be accounted for by heavier, longer wire but looking them, they look the same. Price wise, they are within $1.00. I could go with the 2200, 45C for the same dimensions but I usually target the 65C for more punch but they are a bit bigger and heavier and won't fit well in some of my applications. If Admiral can make an even better battery while maintaining price competitiveness, I'm in.

[Twowingtj]

The link in the first post shows some extensive comparative test data between conventional Lipo, "graphene", and HV packs. All were done with new packs. There is one guy at our field that has been using the Turnigy graphenes. This guy is hard on batteries. He generally flys WOT until he sees signs of voltage drop or hits LVC. His standard lipos came down hot and puffy. The graphenes come down barely warm and solid. Cells usuall around 3.74 across the board. The IR on those packs new was around 1.2-1.3 and seem to be maintaining that level pretty well after nearly 300 flights. Starting IR for a standard lipo starts at 5 - 6 for good high C batteries.

Everything I've read and seen so for indicates that lower starting IR (providing that the cell substrate is good quality and has low contaminants) leads to better current output, lower heat generation and less outgassing. End result is much longer service life. Could be three to four times that of a conventional lipo if cycled and stored properly. That is the main plus for me. If I can get 600-700 cycles out of each pair of 6S 5000mAh 60C packs, vs. maybe 200 cycles before the need to replace them, that significantly reduces the cash layout therefore increasing the Fun Factor.

I am and continue to be a fan of Admiral batteries. Knowing MRC's philosophy for being the industry leader with innovation, I look forward to seeing where they go with this technology.