9.6v Nimh V 9.9v LI-FE

[Qlimax]

So today I have been doing a little testing with two of my M4 Top Tech M4's with a 9.6v NiMh and a 9.9v LI-FE to see if there is an actual difference and found myself somewhat surprised in the results of the two.

 

So ill start with my new TR4. I ran it first on the LI-FE battery and the results were :-

 

9.9v = 349Fps consistent over 10 shots on .20g BB with R/S of 1000.

9.6v = was up and down ranging from 338Fps - 349Fps & the same R/S rate

 

So for that weapon it would seem a LI-FE give a consistent Fps.

 

Now my TR15.

 

9.9v = 338Fps consistent with an R/S of 1000, so no change on the R/S........

 

But this did surprise me.

 

9.6v = 332Fps to 345Fps with an R/S of 1200

 

Boring stuff but thought I would see if there was an actual difference in these batteries or not.

[M_P]

I don't understand why the battery should change the fps of the gun? That's down the release of the piston, I'd suggest it was more down to chance possibly.

[Qlimax]

I don't understand why the battery should change the fps of the gun? That's down the release of the piston, I'd suggest it was more down to chance possibly.

No idea but chance is an odd thing to say when it has been tested on two weapons. If the test had been done on one weapon then chance yes but on two the. I don't think chance is the right term

[Guest PT247]

Aye, not sure how the battery could possibly effect FPS, if any one knows any science as to why it would I'd be interested to hear it? :-)

[Qlimax]

It doesn't change the Fps it just keeps it consistent

[Qlimax]

I am simply posting findings on a test.

[Sitting Duck]

is weird but my first guess is gonna be down to the motor/type in each gun

also does any have a mosfet in them that "may" or may not stabilise any voltage

or maybe different spring in each setup - one motor/battery maydemand more torque

and the 9.6v varies drastically when coming off charge - often will be perhaps near 11v

the LiFe I found not so high but very soon settles to 9.9v and stays there

 

feck knows - I just pull the trigger

 

main factor which one will run out of charge first and leave ya in the $hit out on field I guess

will check though when there is an Open University module on BBC2 @ 3:45am one morning

about advanced electro mechanical physics in airsoft engineering and the guy in a terrible

shirt & tie coz programme was made in 1972

[M_P]

I'm not saying I don't believe you, just that it's a bit odd

[Qlimax]

yeah I think it's odd myself that's why I have posted this up as I didn't expect those results at all.

 

Both weapons are standard G&G Top Tech M4's with no upgrades at all and neither have a MOSFET.

 

it's really odd to get consistency with one and not the other. the main purpose was to see if the ROF was different as people told me it would be higher on the LIFE

[Guest PT247]

9.9v = 349Fps consistent over 10 shots on .20g BB with R/S of 1000.

9.6v = was up and down ranging from 338Fps - 349Fps & the same R/S rate

 

So for that weapon it would seem a LI-FE give a consistent Fps.

 

9.6v = 332Fps to 345Fps with an R/S of 1200

 

seems like a change in FPS with the numbers between the batteries?

 

What could be happening possibly is one battery is allowing a full cycle to the gearbox before re-engaging and the other is trying to start a new cycle before the piston has reached the end of the cycle?

[Guest PT247]

Don't G&G say not to use anything over 7.4v LiPos on the gen3 guns as can cause double feeding and inconsistency? Not saying this is the case here tho as it is the lower voltage battery that is giving the inconsistency, just throwing it in here.

[Qlimax]

I've always used a 9.6v in my G&G's but a mate of mine uses the LI-FE batteries and he said he's had no issues with them. The Gen3 is 11.1v Lipo ready but they don't recommend using them for the reason you said they double feed. the LI-FE battery from my test the only difference in it is it's somehow giving a consistency but not sure why or how it is doing this.

[Sitting Duck]

both guns been used and "run in" so to speak

really odd stuff why so much unexplained variation though

[Qlimax]

The TR15 is well run in had it for a year or so but the TR4 is certainly new has only seen two game days so that might explain it but if that is it then why would there be a variance is Fps on a 9.6v and no variance on the 9.9v.

[Sitting Duck]

The answer is: FUCTIFINO

 

Now - what's the question again ????

 

really couldn't tell you a 101% logical answer just more possible stabs at guess-work

might be run in so to speak - life being more consistent volt/amps, the 9.6v subject to

more variation in more cells - 8 x 1.2v as oppossed to 3 x 3.3v

 

FUCTIFINO - is the only real answer I guess in this case

[Sitting Duck]

realistically looking at figures it is only the fire rate that is the odd factor

 

life = constant

9.6v varies but odd reason possible 200 shots per min difference

3 or 3.5 a sec more perhaps - hmmmmm

 

think check again in a few weeks coz looks like run in and all that to me will maybe

produce less qwirky results

 

or FUCTIFNO

[Qlimax]

I also wonder as well if there's a difference as well due to my 9.6v have been used a number of times where my 9.9v is brand new. Possible !!!!

 

I was thinking that, give it a few weeks and a little more use in the TR4 and see what happens again