Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:03 AM - Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot (rampil)
2. 10:55 AM - Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot (Charlie England)
3. 11:17 AM - Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot (Ken Ryan)
4. 11:50 AM - Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot (Charlie England)
5. 11:51 AM - Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot (C&K)
6. 12:01 PM - Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot (Lyle Peterson)
7. 12:20 PM - Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot (Ken Ryan)
8. 12:54 PM - Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 01:39 PM - Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 02:07 PM - Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot (A R Goldman)
11. 02:51 PM - Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot (Charlie England)
12. 03:33 PM - Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot (bobsv35b@aol.com)
13. 03:41 PM - Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 04:56 PM - What Causes Battery to Go Bad (William Hunter)
15. 07:05 PM - Re: Z16 Rotax 912 problem (romaja)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot |
Adding a log to the fire 8)
Weight savings isn't always the only consideration in aircraft design!
https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/28/lithium-battery-failure-wipes-out-darpa-robot-at-nasa/
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461683#461683
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot |
And continuing with that logic,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RocketMotorTwo
we should all convert our planes to gliders, since there was a fuel
explosion somewhere.
;-)
Caution in aviation is a good idea, but worrying about the wrong problem
doesn't help. (Virtually no one thinks using Lithium Ion batteries for
primary electrical power in a homebuilt is a good idea.)
Charlie
On 10/28/2016 11:02 AM, rampil wrote:
>
> Adding a log to the fire 8)
> Weight savings isn't always the only consideration in aircraft design!
>
> https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/28/lithium-battery-failure-wipes-out-darpa-robot-at-nasa/
>
> --------
> Ira N224XS
>
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot |
Not sure where you came up with that one. Nearly everyone I know with an
experimental is now using a lithium battery (and a few certified guys on
the sly).
Sent from my Android. Sorry Steve.
On Oct 28, 2016 10:02 AM, "Charlie England" <ceengland7@gmail.com> wrote:
> ceengland7@gmail.com>
>
> And continuing with that logic,
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RocketMotorTwo
> we should all convert our planes to gliders, since there was a fuel
> explosion somewhere.
> ;-)
> Caution in aviation is a good idea, but worrying about the wrong problem
> doesn't help. (Virtually no one thinks using Lithium Ion batteries for
> primary electrical power in a homebuilt is a good idea.)
>
> Charlie
>
> On 10/28/2016 11:02 AM, rampil wrote:
>
>>
>> Adding a log to the fire 8)
>> Weight savings isn't always the only consideration in aircraft design!
>>
>> https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/28/lithium-battery-failure-
>> wipes-out-darpa-robot-at-nasa/
>>
>> --------
>> Ira N224XS
>>
>>
>
>
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot |
Maybe, but I strongly doubt that they are using a Lithium *ION* battery
for their primary battery in their a/c. They are almost certainly using
Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries (with built-in battery management). If
they really are using Lithium *ION* batteries, then they really do need
to see the video that Ira posted.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=lithium%20ion%20vs%20lithium%20iron
There are many different battery chemistries that include lithium in the
mix; and they can have very different characteristics.
Charlie
On 10/28/2016 1:16 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
> Not sure where you came up with that one. Nearly everyone I know with
> an experimental is now using a lithium battery (and a few certified
> guys on the sly).
>
> Sent from my Android. Sorry Steve.
>
>
> On Oct 28, 2016 10:02 AM, "Charlie England" <ceengland7@gmail.com
> <mailto:ceengland7@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> <ceengland7@gmail.com <mailto:ceengland7@gmail.com>>
>
> And continuing with that logic,
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RocketMotorTwo
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RocketMotorTwo>
> we should all convert our planes to gliders, since there was a
> fuel explosion somewhere.
> ;-)
> Caution in aviation is a good idea, but worrying about the wrong
> problem doesn't help. (Virtually no one thinks using Lithium Ion
> batteries for primary electrical power in a homebuilt is a good idea.)
>
> Charlie
>
> On 10/28/2016 11:02 AM, rampil wrote:
>
> <ira.rampil@gmail.com <mailto:ira.rampil@gmail.com>>
>
> Adding a log to the fire 8)
> Weight savings isn't always the only consideration in aircraft
> design!
>
> https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/28/lithium-battery-failure-wipes-out-darpa-robot-at-nasa/
> <https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/28/lithium-battery-failure-wipes-out-darpa-robot-at-nasa/>
>
> --------
> Ira N224XS
>
>
> ===================================
> -
> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ===================================
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ===================================
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ===================================
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
>
>
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot |
Don't confuse Lithium ION with newer, safer, Lithium IRON phosphate
despite the similar sounding names.
Ken
On 28/10/2016 2:16 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
> Not sure where you came up with that one. Nearly everyone I know with
> an experimental is now using a lithium battery (and a few certified
> guys on the sly).
>
> Sent from my Android. Sorry Steve.
>
>
> On Oct 28, 2016 10:02 AM, "Charlie England" <ceengland7@gmail.com
> <mailto:ceengland7@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> <ceengland7@gmail.com <mailto:ceengland7@gmail.com>>
>
> And continuing with that logic,
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RocketMotorTwo
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RocketMotorTwo>
> we should all convert our planes to gliders, since there was a
> fuel explosion somewhere.
> ;-)
> Caution in aviation is a good idea, but worrying about the wrong
> problem doesn't help. (Virtually no one thinks using Lithium Ion
> batteries for primary electrical power in a homebuilt is a good idea.)
>
> Charlie
>
> On 10/28/2016 11:02 AM, rampil wrote:
>
> <ira.rampil@gmail.com <mailto:ira.rampil@gmail.com>>
>
> Adding a log to the fire 8)
> Weight savings isn't always the only consideration in aircraft
> design!
>
> https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/28/lithium-battery-failure-wipes-out-darpa-robot-at-nasa/
> <https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/28/lithium-battery-failure-wipes-out-darpa-robot-at-nasa/>
>
> --------
> Ira N224XS
>
>
> ===================================
> -
> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ===================================
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ===================================
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ===================================
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
>
>
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot |
The headline distorts the facts. Yes, lithium batteries will cumbust if
they aren't handled properly and carefully. So too will dynamite
explode if not handled carefully. Gasoline vapors will burn if an
ignition source is provided. Lead/acid batteries will explode.
There is a control circuit built in to lithium battery packs that
monitors the voltage and the cell temperature. It is there for a very
good reason - To reduce the likelihood of a cell being overcharged or
overheated and thus starting to burn. The next time the battery in your
laptop fails completely take it apart, carefully. You will find a small
circuit board in the battery. It is connected to each set of paralleled
cells. There is also a thermistor connected to the board that monitors
the pack temperature. It is this control that the engineers forgot to
enable.
It is also dangerous to go to bed. People die there. So too it is
dangerous to get up in the morning. "Let's be careful out there."
On 10/28/2016 11:02 AM, rampil wrote:
>
> Adding a log to the fire 8)
> Weight savings isn't always the only consideration in aircraft design!
>
> https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/28/lithium-battery-failure-wipes-out-darpa-robot-at-nasa/
>
> --------
> Ira N224XS
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461683#461683
>
>
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot |
It is my understanding that all of the lithium batteries (including LiFePO)
fall under the general category of "lithium ion." My source is Battery
University, here:
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/lithium_based_batteries
and here:
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_ion
Ken
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Maybe, but I strongly doubt that they are using a Lithium *ION* battery
> for their primary battery in their a/c. They are almost certainly using
> Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries (with built-in battery management). If
> they really are using Lithium *ION* batteries, then they really do need to
> see the video that Ira posted.
>
> https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&
> espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=lithium%20ion%20vs%20lithium%20iron
>
> There are many different battery chemistries that include lithium in the
> mix; and they can have very different characteristics.
>
> Charlie
>
> On 10/28/2016 1:16 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
> Not sure where you came up with that one. Nearly everyone I know with an
> experimental is now using a lithium battery (and a few certified guys on
> the sly).
>
> Sent from my Android. Sorry Steve.
>
> On Oct 28, 2016 10:02 AM, "Charlie England" <ceengland7@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ceengland7@gmail.com>
>>
>> And continuing with that logic,
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RocketMotorTwo
>> we should all convert our planes to gliders, since there was a fuel
>> explosion somewhere.
>> ;-)
>> Caution in aviation is a good idea, but worrying about the wrong problem
>> doesn't help. (Virtually no one thinks using Lithium Ion batteries for
>> primary electrical power in a homebuilt is a good idea.)
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>> On 10/28/2016 11:02 AM, rampil wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Adding a log to the fire 8)
>>> Weight savings isn't always the only consideration in aircraft design!
>>>
>>> https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/28/lithium-battery-failure-
>>> wipes-out-darpa-robot-at-nasa/
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Ira N224XS
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ===================================
>> -
>> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.
>> matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> ===================================
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ===================================
>> WIKI -
>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>> ===================================
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ===================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot |
At 11:02 AM 10/28/2016, you wrote:
>
>Adding a log to the fire 8)
>Weight savings isn't always the only consideration in aircraft design!
. . . a point I've tried to illuminate for several
years. In the articles I did for Kit Planes on batteies,
a question I posed to owner/ops of OBAM aircraft asked
them to consider: "suppose you DO take 10 pounds out
of the empty weight of your aircraft . . . now what?"
By how many feet will this reduce landing/takeoff roll?
By how many feet/min will this increase rated of climb?
By what amount will this increase cruising speed, fuel
efficiency or service ceiling?
If 10 pounds comes off the airframe, will the fuel
capacity grow by 10 pounds?
Next to last, whan was the last time you delay launch
into the wild blue to off-load fuel or luggage
because you were . . . say . . . 20# over gross?
Finally, what is the return on investment for having
expended $xxx versus $yyy in the selection of your
flight battery. Consider the economics of having
to be more cognizant of the $xxx battery's special
vulnerabilities for inadvertent, permanent damage
thus trashing what ever service life remained.
Burt Rutan went through hundreds of similar
weight effects analysis decisions because
his mission aircraft tool 5 pounds of fuel
to carry one pound of airplane around the world.
One pound of empty weight reduction was a 6
pound reduction of takeoff weight. But the
battery in our airplane is but one of few
opportunities for weight reduction . . . with
costs that may well be difficult if not
impossible to justify economically.
To be sure, there are numerous Lithium products
crafted for use in airplanes demonstrated to
present little or no risk over their lead-acid
counterpart. But NASA robots, hoverboards, cell
phones, laptops, etc. are different markets
with trade-offs in design that have nothing
to do with aircraft. The aviation battery market
is infinitely more sophisticated than for
those factories that power up fire-prone
hoverboards . . .
http://tinyurl.com/zdlf65d
. . . so it's up to US to evaluate the potential
benefit/risk ratio for bolting a new battery
into our airplane. Do it for reasons that
make good sense to you and KNOW your
supplier. Right now, LiIPo is the chemistry
of choice paired with capable battery
management electronics not unlike EarthX,
TrueBlue and no doubt, others.
In my not so humble opinion, whoever was in
charge of the battery system on that NASA
robot project should be VERY carefully
screened at his/her next performance review.
I could tell some tales too on individuals
with poor judgement on alternator selection
for another taxpayer funded project . . .
Bob . . .
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot |
At 01:59 PM 10/28/2016, you wrote:
><lyleap@centurylink.net>
>
>The headline distorts the facts. Yes, lithium batteries will
>cumbust if they aren't handled properly and carefully. So too will
>dynamite explode if not handled carefully. Gasoline vapors will
>burn if an ignition source is provided. Lead/acid batteries will explode.
Agreed. I've often suggested that the step
up from lead-acid to lithium was akin to figuring
out how to burn nitroglycerin in our engine. Great
power to weight ratio but with practical problems.
>There is a control circuit built in to lithium battery packs that
>monitors the voltage and the cell temperature. It is there for a
>very good reason - To reduce the likelihood of a cell being
>overcharged or overheated and thus starting to burn.
It's not an automatic thing. I've dissected
the little 'pillow' batteries used in my
grand-children's helicopters and found
tiny etched circuit boards of unknown quality
or performance . . . but yes, there was some
form of electronic 'smarts'.
At the same time, there are manufacturers of
all manner of lithium products who may or may
not include such features . . . perhaps expecting
the system integrator to add the necessary
electronics.
The TrueBlue certified batteries are huge arrays
of cylindrical cells . . . manufactured by A123
if memory serves. I'm pretty sure these cells are
raw chemistry with no 'smarts'. I'll dissect some
18650 cells I have on hand one of these days and
see what's inside them . . . at MOST it will be
a fuse or other current limiting device. there
is NO protection for over discharge or over charge.
I'm pretty sure there's no 'smarts' in an AeroVolts
product and there have been a few 'melt downs' that
behaved more like burning enclosures than of a
lithium fed fire.
The word 'lithium' is only a imperative to inquire
deeper into how it is compounded and implemented
from the system perspective. Further, 'news'
stories about exploding batteries have little
if any relevance to our deliberations. Yeah,
lithium has some risks as does gasoline or
even lead-acid. The trick is to reduce those
risks in a manner that would make Walter Beech
or Duane Wallace proud.
Bob . . .
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot |
Not so sure you are correct about that last statement. Perhaps that is your own
prejudice.
Additionally everybody seems to be lumping lithium batteries in one groups independent
of the fact that there are various chemistries each involving lithium
but each with its unique power density and safety.
It would be a great idea if when talking(writing) that the specific type of chemistry
of the battery is stated so that the conversation begins to have some real
meaning.
Rich
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 28, 2016, at 12:54 PM, Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> And continuing with that logic,
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RocketMotorTwo
> we should all convert our planes to gliders, since there was a fuel explosion
somewhere.
> ;-)
> Caution in aviation is a good idea, but worrying about the wrong problem doesn't
help. (Virtually no one thinks using Lithium Ion batteries for primary electrical
power in a homebuilt is a good idea.)
>
> Charlie
>
>> On 10/28/2016 11:02 AM, rampil wrote:
>>
>> Adding a log to the fire 8)
>> Weight savings isn't always the only consideration in aircraft design!
>>
>> https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/28/lithium-battery-failure-wipes-out-darpa-robot-at-nasa/
>>
>> --------
>> Ira N224XS
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot |
I suppose you could make a case for that; lithium ions are likely
participants in all the various chemistries. However, the only chemistry
that seems to be in common use for starting and primary reserve energy in
homebuilts isLithium Iron Phosphate(LiFePO4)
If you look at the links in the google search I referenced earlier, the
FePLiO4 typically compared to 'lithium ion' when evaluating suitability and
safety. (ex:
http://www.brighthubengineering.com/power-generation-distribution/123906-comparison-of-lithium-ion-to-lithium-iron-battery/)
Technically,
the 'lithium ion' they are talking about is likely to be lithium cobalt or
lithium manganese. But colloquial terms are typically 'lithium ion' vs
'lithium iron' when discussing them. While it's possible that NASA was
using lithium iron in that robot and the reporter used the catchall
'lithium ion' to describe it, it's more likely it was something other than
lithium iron phosphate (probably lithium cobalt).
Understand, I'm not advocating the use of FePLiO4; For me, it's still too
expensive (and still a bit more risky) than a regular SLA. But I wouldn't
be terrified to fly with someone using one. Not sure I could say the same
for a lithium ion (cobalt or manganese) battery.
Does that help?
Charlie
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Ken Ryan <keninalaska@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is my understanding that all of the lithium batteries (including
> LiFePO) fall under the general category of "lithium ion." My source is
> Battery University, here:
>
> http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/lithium_based_batteries
>
> and here:
>
> http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_ion
>
> Ken
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Maybe, but I strongly doubt that they are using a Lithium *ION* battery
>> for their primary battery in their a/c. They are almost certainly using
>> Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries (with built-in battery management). If
>> they really are using Lithium *ION* batteries, then they really do need to
>> see the video that Ira posted.
>>
>> https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e
>> spv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=lithium%20ion%20vs%20lithium%20iron
>>
>> There are many different battery chemistries that include lithium in the
>> mix; and they can have very different characteristics.
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>> On 10/28/2016 1:16 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>>
>> Not sure where you came up with that one. Nearly everyone I know with an
>> experimental is now using a lithium battery (and a few certified guys on
>> the sly).
>>
>> Sent from my Android. Sorry Steve.
>>
>> On Oct 28, 2016 10:02 AM, "Charlie England" <ceengland7@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ceengland7@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> And continuing with that logic,
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RocketMotorTwo
>>> we should all convert our planes to gliders, since there was a fuel
>>> explosion somewhere.
>>> ;-)
>>> Caution in aviation is a good idea, but worrying about the wrong problem
>>> doesn't help. (Virtually no one thinks using Lithium Ion batteries for
>>> primary electrical power in a homebuilt is a good idea.)
>>>
>>> Charlie
>>>
>>> On 10/28/2016 11:02 AM, rampil wrote:
>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Adding a log to the fire 8)
>>>> Weight savings isn't always the only consideration in aircraft design!
>>>>
>>>> https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/28/lithium-battery-failure-
>>>> wipes-out-darpa-robot-at-nasa/
>>>>
>>>> --------
>>>> Ira N224XS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ===================================
>>> -
>>> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.mat
>>> ronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>> ===================================
>>> FORUMS -
>>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ===================================
>>> WIKI -
>>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>>> ===================================
>>> b Site -
>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ===================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot |
Good Evening Bob,
As usual, very informative!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Fri, Oct 28, 2016 3:40 pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot
At 01:59 PM 10/28/2016, you wrote:
--> AeroElectric-List messageposted by: Lyle Peterson <lyleap@centurylink.net>
The headline distorts the facts. Yes, lithium batteries willcumbust if they aren't
handled properly and carefully. So too willdynamite explode if not handled
carefully. Gasoline vapors willburn if an ignition source is provided. Lead/acid
batteries willexplode.
Agreed. I've often suggested that the step
up from lead-acid to lithium was akin to figuring
out how to burn nitroglycerin in our engine. Great
power to weight ratio but with practical problems.
There is a controlcircuit built in to lithium battery packs that monitors the voltage
andthe cell temperature. It is there for a very good reason - Toreduce
the likelihood of a cell being overcharged or overheated and thusstarting to
burn.
It's not an automatic thing. I've dissected
the little 'pillow' batteries used in my
grand-children's helicopters and found
tiny etched circuit boards of unknown quality
or performance . . . but yes, there was some
form of electronic 'smarts'.
At the same time, there are manufacturers of
all manner of lithium products who may or may
not include such features . . . perhaps expecting
the system integrator to add the necessary
electronics.
The TrueBlue certified batteries are huge arrays
of cylindrical cells . . . manufactured by A123
if memory serves. I'm pretty sure these cells are
raw chemistry with no 'smarts'. I'll dissect some
18650 cells I have on hand one of these days and
see what's inside them . . . at MOST it will be
a fuse or other current limiting device. there
is NO protection for over discharge or over charge.
I'm pretty sure there's no 'smarts' in an AeroVolts
product and there have been a few 'melt downs' that
behaved more like burning enclosures than of a
lithium fed fire.
The word 'lithium' is only a imperative to inquire
deeper into how it is compounded and implemented
from the system perspective. Further, 'news'
stories about exploding batteries have little
if any relevance to our deliberations. Yeah,
lithium has some risks as does gasoline or
even lead-acid. The trick is to reduce those
risks in a manner that would make Walter Beech
or Duane Wallace proud.
Bob . . .
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery destroys a NASA robot |
At 01:59 PM 10/28/2016, you wrote:
><lyleap@centurylink.net>
>
>The headline distorts the facts. Yes, lithium batteries will
>cumbust if they aren't handled properly and carefully. So too will
>dynamite explode if not handled carefully. Gasoline vapors will
>burn if an ignition source is provided. Lead/acid batteries will explode.
Agreed. I've often suggested that the step
up from lead-acid to lithium was akin to figuring
out how to burn nitroglycerin in our engine. Great
power to weight ratio but with practical problems.
>There is a control circuit built in to lithium battery packs that
>monitors the voltage and the cell temperature. It is there for a
>very good reason - To reduce the likelihood of a cell being
>overcharged or overheated and thus starting to burn.
It's not an automatic thing. I've dissected
the little 'pillow' batteries used in my
grand-children's helicopters and found
tiny etched circuit boards of unknown quality
or performance . . . but yes, there was some
form of electronic 'smarts'.
At the same time, there are manufacturers of
all manner of lithium products who may or may
not include such features . . . perhaps expecting
the system integrator to add the necessary
electronics.
The TrueBlue certified batteries are huge arrays
of cylindrical cells . . . manufactured by A123
if memory serves. I'm pretty sure these cells are
raw chemistry with no 'smarts'. I'll dissect some
18650 cells I have on hand one of these days and
see what's inside them . . . at MOST it will be
a fuse or other current limiting device. there
is NO protection for over discharge or over charge.
I'm pretty sure there's no 'smarts' in an AeroVolts
product and there have been a few 'melt downs' that
behaved more like burning enclosures than of a
lithium fed fire.
The word 'lithium' is only a imperative to inquire
deeper into how it is compounded and implemented
from the system perspective. Further, 'news'
stories about exploding batteries have little
if any relevance to our deliberations. Yeah,
lithium has some risks as does gasoline or
even lead-acid. The trick is to reduce those
risks in a manner that would make Walter Beech
or Duane Wallace proud.
Bob . . .
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | What Causes Battery to Go Bad |
My car battery died after 9 months. In the last 20 years I seem to have
very bad luck with batteries in various vehicles. These vehicles are
classic cars used rarely (I disconnect the negative terminal when not in
use) and some are often used daily drivers (stock cars with stock electric
systems).
It seems back in the day "maintenance free" batteries seemed to last
longer.
Is there something different now a days?
Bill Hunter
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Z16 Rotax 912 problem |
user9253 wrote:
> Jim, take Bob up on his offer. I am not familiar with a 704 module, unless you
are talking about the relay, which is very unlikely to trip the breaker. Since
you have a SkyView, can you download the data log and analyze it? MS Excel
can search for the maximum voltage. If the voltage really is high, then the
crowbar over voltage module is doing its job by tripping the breaker. I can
not recommend a filter, usually they do not help much. Search Amazon for "Noise
Filter". Many modern avionics can be powered by either 14 or 28 volts, so
over voltage is not as big of a concern as it used to be. On the other hand,
the Lithium battery does not like over voltage. Do you have high and low voltage
alarms set up in the SkyView?
Yes I have high voltage and low voltage set on my Skyview. I will check to see
where I set them as I cant recall.
Thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461704#461704
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|