This is from a post I sent to the EFlight mailing list (it's about electric radio-control airplanes) explaining an apparent increase in motor speed while using a commercial spring-loaded battery pack holder as opposed to a soldered-together battery pack, even though the soldered pack provided more power when measured.
Re: [EFLT] "Energy Compression Technology" - 600 extra RPM explained
>> RC2000 pack: 4.23 milliohms per cell (end-
>> end soldered)
>> MEC pack: 4.43 milliohms per cell
>> ("Energy Compression Technology")
> the "Energy Compression Technology"
> has about 13 TIMES the electrical resistance
> of end-end soldering!! Still wondering where the
> extra 600 rpm comes from? :-)
> Richard Sutherland
Well, the electrons in an "Energy Compression Technology" unit aren't ordinary electrons, they're smart ones. (Distant cousins of strange quarks, actually.) They know they have to face a larger than normal hurdle to make it to the motor in this case, so they wind themselves up extra-tight in anticipation. When it's their time to go out and be used in the motor, that extra effort makes them push harder and leave the battery at almost twice the speed of electrons from a soldered pack. The voltage will be higher, but he amps will be lower - as we all know through Bernoulli's law of electrical flow, fast-moving electrical plasma exerts less electrical pressure on the walls of the conduit than slow-moving plasma. They get to the motor and still have some of that extra momentum left, so they run it faster. When they finish going through the windings, many of them are still going faster than the electrons the motor was designed for and end up exiting the system through the trailing edges of the propeller (remember electric fields are concentrated on sharp edges, and the motion of the prop induces a charge that attracts them out... path of least resistance.) Like the solar wind, this can add a lot of energy when applied over time, especially when the plane is flying on a sunny day. These two factors are what adds the 600 RPMs.
Hope this clears up the issue once and for all.
Mike Whaley, Ph.D. (Piled higher and Deeper)