"....Usually you post useable info, but in this case I have to vehemently disagree!
And I would like to put the record straight before you lead our novice members to potential disaster, or at least an expensive disappointment!..."
Well, this certainly stirred something up! And I can't see why? Perhaps RN has shares in a Lipo factory? 😉
All that I have said is standard knowledge on the subject. NiMH ARE more robust than LiPos - I can't see how anyone can disagree with that. They are more forgiving of overcharge and over-depletion. I have not said that Lipos should not be used - I use them myself - but I have stated a preference for NiMH where the benefits of Lipos are not a requirement.
I have been using NiMH for around 15 years, and Lipos for about the same time. During that period I must have bought around 2 dozen packs
of each type. I currently have one working LiPo pack, while all my NiMH packs
work, albeit sometimes with less charge than originally. The Lipos have gone unbalanced, swollen, delaminated or punctured at some point.
Lipos, when working, are phenomenal items
, and make miniature flying models
possible. I use them for this, and would, as I have said, use them when light weight and high power are essential. But they do require that you look after them and follow the rules - in particular, not over-discharging them. If you do not treat them properly they will certainly swell and fail - I cannot see why stating this is considered scaremongering? It is this lack of robustness that makes me prefer NiMH, since I do not take particular care of my batteries
. NiMH will put up with this - Lipo won't. That is the gist of what I said, it is attested by other comments on this thread
which stress that you must 'follow the rules' and I can't see how stating it will lead novice members to potential disaster or expensive disappointment? I would have thought the opposite...
Incidentally, your comments about the differences between Lipos and Nimh seem to cover all the good points of Lipos and the bad points of NiMH. It would be more useful to novices to see a better balanced description. For instance, recent advances in NiMH batteries
have produced low self-discharge batteries
- (quoting the wiki)
"In October 2011 the batteries
were again improved to retain up to 90% of their capacity after one year, 80% after three years and 70% after five years."
These are readily available, I have used these in emergency flashlights and can confirm that they do do 'what it says on the tin' (though I haven't had time to try out the five year claim yet!). They can be of use if your modelling practices include going to the lake at short notice.
I hope this isn't going to develop into a flame war. As I said, I can't see why noting a preference for the robustness of NiMH should engender such a response...