That sounds like good advice, tekochip--in fact, it sounds a bit like a no brainer! But I guess an experienced engineer might get lazy sometimes with safety? I'm personally not an engineer and don't do a lot of work in a lab situation, so I wouldn't know, but I guess if you do something every day you might think you can slack a bit with the safety precautions. It's good to remind people not to! Glad you came out of the accident OK.
I think it is great that someone be it UL or who ever can come up with some safety test, not just for Li Battery but for ANY battery.
From experience I also think that the entire "package" needs to be evaluated and tested, as for example I have seen more than one Golf Cart where the entire vehicle burned down, just because one battery wire was having too high a resistance and caused enough heat to not just melt a Lead-alloy post but ignite what ever was next to it, which in turn burned down the entire vehicle.
Other example may be the few Fisker cars, that burned for what ever reason, but one of them was apparently short in "cooling fan motor" that burned off entire 1/2 of front end of the car.
So NOT having easily flammable materials next to "potential" ignition source, be it extreme heat or spark, is also somthing about which engineers need to think about and design in appropriate safety.
I.e. if battery fails, for what ever reason, the device, be it computer or a car, should not be a total loss as a result !
I really think UL has missed the point on this one. One of the mysteries concerning L-ion cell failures is why L-ion cells short in the first place! This "indenting test" which forces a short to make it fail will NOT test to see if a cell has been designed and built to avoid shorts. All it does is to test whether a cell overheats AFTER this mysterious short. It's like UL is saying, "it's OK to have a cell which mysteriously shorts. After a forced short though, we want to ensure that it doesn't overheat." I say go after the cause, not the result.
Oh my gosh, that sounds horrible. I hope you are OK. I take it you have learned alot from this situation and I guess having some kind of guidelines or test to prevent such a thing in the future is something you would welcome. Take care!
I made a careless mistake and paid for in seconds. The cell energetically disassembled without the slightest hint that it was aggravated with me. As if the chemical burns weren't bad enough, the freed lithium also ignited, so I had to figure out if I wanted to wash my eyes out first or put out the little fires scattered across my workbench.
I know what you mean, Lou, it seems like there has to be an incident with serious consequences before companies improve certain aspects of their products or, in the case of the airline industry, airplanes. But in all fairness, perhaps they weren't aware that there was potential for such problems in the first place. This is where more careful and attentive design with anything, especially lithium-ion batteries, must come into play.
Extreme Prejudice, that's a good one. In other words a violent exothermic chemical reaction at an extremeny high rate. (Explosion for most of us). During the early years of developing Lithium batterys for downhole use a company I know of had an oven controller fail over the weekend and workers arrived monday morning to find the chamber destroyed, as well as the brick wall behind it. Luckily it contained the fire and did't set the lab on fire. we were always very careful after that to make sure we didn't short cells out.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.