# My Aleph 1 Exploded and cought on fire.



## Barefootone (Jul 22, 2007)

This has not been a happy day for me :mecry:. I was using my Aleph 1 at my work bench in the basement and momentarily laid it down. Lucky for me I did, the next thing I heard was a crackling/ hissing sound and noticed the lens was clouding up and than the loud explosion (which my wife heard on the second floor) followed by a yellow flame coming out of the reflector . I'm a lucky man some how I turned away from the work bench and avoided the flying glass from the lens. You can see the destruction in the picture.
I was using Battery Station's CR123A's in the Aleph. I will not point fingers, but claims by others about exploding CR123A's has now made me a beliver. I will be using SureFire CR123A's from now on! This Aleph 1 was one of my all time favorite lights that I bought from Don. This Aleph 1 was a 2x123 5 w. with a BB700 and a 15 ohm tail switch. I'm hoping I can get the Light Engine replaced along with the refelector and lens, I haven't checked the tail switch yet to see if it fryed. I will have to get some $ together to either get someone to rebuild Aleph or maybe do it myself. This has been very upsetting to say the least.


----------



## DaFABRICATA (Jul 22, 2007)

WOW!!! THAT SUCKS!!!
I'm glad your not hurt!
I wonder what happened?.....what betteries were you using?


----------



## Illum (Jul 22, 2007)

NOT ANOTHER BATTERY EXPLOSION!:mecry:

first of all glad you weren't hurt:thumbsup:
second...is that a batterystation cell?oo:


----------



## paulr (Jul 22, 2007)

Looks like two cells.


----------



## Optic Nerve (Jul 22, 2007)

Were you using rechargeable or primary batteries?
That is scary!


----------



## MarNav1 (Jul 22, 2007)

Give us details when you can. Be careful handling that stuff! Hope you are okay!


----------



## Barefootone (Jul 22, 2007)

Thanks all for your concerns, I'm OK. 
These were primary battery's not rechargeable. Yes there are two cells in the picture, the very burned one was the front cell closest to the Light Engine and the other cell was the back one closest to the switch. I'm so lucky I had put the light on the work bench or I might have been badly burned, I can't tell you how freaking hot the battery tube was.


----------



## Barefootone (Jul 22, 2007)

Here's another picture of the exploded lens and reflector.


----------



## BSCOTT1504 (Jul 22, 2007)

Glad you weren't hurt. Lucky you turned away when you did! That makes me think that maybe paying a little more for Surefire batteries would be a good idea. I use Titaniums now. Never tried battery station batteries.


----------



## scottaw (Jul 22, 2007)

Wow, that's terrible, when you're cleaning this up and taking pictures, remember the guts of a 123 are very toxic. Glad to hear you're ok!


----------



## yaesumofo (Jul 22, 2007)

The important think is to figure out WHY the it happened.

Were both batteries facing the same direction in the tube?

Was the light ON at the time?
Were these primaries?
I would be willing to bet that the manufacture would like to know that this happened and they would most likley replace the light if it were to turn out to be the fault of the battery vs operator error.
The rechargable cells are supposed to have a protection circuit.
I would definatly contact the seller and ask what the comapnies policy is regarding mal functioning cells.
put all of the parts into a ziploc bag and seal if in order to perserve the evidence as much as possible.

It is important to get to the bottom if this in order to prevent this from happening and possibly injuring sombody.
You were lucky.
Yaesumofo


----------



## TranquillityBase (Jul 22, 2007)

Looks like the head survived...

Glad to hear you were not injured...


----------



## Barefootone (Jul 22, 2007)

yaesumofo said:


> The important think is to figure out WHY the it happened.
> 
> Were both batteries facing the same direction in the tube?
> 
> ...


 
Hello Yaesumofo,
 Yes the Aleph was on when the explosion occurred.
 For sure the cells were installed in the right direction and facing toward the head since the Aleph was illuminated.
 These were battery station CR123 A's, primary cells.
 I have all the parts in a good snap lid storage container
 I plan on calling Battery Station tomorrow and seeing what they have to say. I have thrown away my remaining stock of 10 battery's, I don't want them in the house!
 I feel incredibly lucky not to have been injured and I'd like nothing better than to get to the bottom of this for sure.
 Thanks for your concern,
 Jeff


----------



## ltiu (Jul 22, 2007)

Barefootone said:


> I was using Battery Station's CR123A's in the Aleph.



I have only been on this forum for 2 months. Reading through people's posts, I noticed:

How come CR123's get all the exploding battery news? Any exploding AA's? How about other battery sizes/types?

Are CR123's just bad?


----------



## enLIGHTenment (Jul 22, 2007)

If you inhaled any fumes or handled debris with your bare hands, seek medical attention _promptly_ for potential hydrofluoric acid exposure. Symptoms are not immediately apparent but do require treatment.

Battery Station ought to pay for a replacement Aleph. This is around the fourth BS cell explosion reported on CPF; by now the idea of legal liability should be rather central in their minds.


----------



## mossyoak (Jul 22, 2007)

ltiu said:


> I have only been on this forum for 2 months. Reading through people's posts, I noticed:
> 
> How come CR123's get all the exploding battery news? Any exploding AA's? How about other battery sizes/types?
> 
> Are CR123's just bad?



no 123's arent bad jsut some are cheaper made than others those cause the issues. cheap lithium aa's could have the same results.


----------



## Kiessling (Jul 22, 2007)

Did the rubber at the tailcap also explode?
And was the lens shattered or did the bezel give way?

Glad you're ok. Scary. Very Scary.

bernie


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 22, 2007)

The most important thing is how great it is that you were not hurt. I'm glad you saved the parts and took the photos to preserve it for others to learn from.

Thank you for sharing this with all of us.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 22, 2007)

Could the mods make a link about this event in the battery section? Many users rarely read the LED section, and this is important enough for people asking about Lithium Ion safety to learn from his experience...as in this current topic where this type of event has recently been downplayed, despite lightning having struck a number of CPF members already.


----------



## enLIGHTenment (Jul 22, 2007)

LuxLuthor said:


> Many users rarely read the LED section, and this is important enough for people asking about Lithium Ion safety to learn from his experience...



Safety issues for lithium ion are different from those for lithium primaries.

If anything, lithium ions look to be safer then lithium primaries. Primary cells have gone off pretty much at random while lithium ion cells must be abused first, and even then are only dangerous when charging.


----------



## DM51 (Jul 22, 2007)

I am very glad you were not hurt, and I hope you won't mind a few questions, which might just help with this:
1. Did you buy both the cells at the same time and from the same outlet? 
2. Did you install both cells in the light at the same time? 
3. Are you 100% sure both cells were fresh, and that neither of them had been used before, even for a short while?
4. How long had the cells been running in the light when this happened?

I suggest before someone takes away the trash, you should rescue the other 10 cells from the dumpster and store them somewhere in a cool dry place but safely away from your house. They may be required for investigation.


----------



## Barefootone (Jul 22, 2007)

Kiessling said:


> Did the rubber at the tailcap also explode?
> And was the lens shattered or did the bezel give way?
> 
> Glad you're ok. Scary. Very Scary.
> ...


 
Bernie,
 It's nice to hear from you.
 The rubber at the tail cap did not explode it stayed intact.
 The lens shattered and the metal internal ring that holds the lens in stayed intact.
 Yes it was very scary, it shook me up.
 Jeff


----------



## Barefootone (Jul 22, 2007)

DM51 said:


> I am very glad you were not hurt, and I hope you won't mind a few questions, which might just help with this:
> 1. Did you buy both the cells at the same time and from the same outlet?
> 2. Did you install both cells in the light at the same time?
> 3. Are you 100% sure both cells were fresh, and that neither of them had been used before, even for a short while?
> ...


 
DM51,
Thanks for the concern
1. The Battery station CR123's were bought directly from the battery all at the same time.
2. Both the cells were installed in the light at the same time.
3. Both the cells were fresh or as fresh as they could have been when I received them. The two cells had never been used before. I installed them as brand new cells for the first time.
4. The light had been running for 5 to 10 minutes at the most.
I actually did retrieve the 10 cells that I threw away for the same reason you stated. I plan on calling the battery station tomorrow and see what their position is with this very dangerous issue.
Thanks for the input,
Jeff


----------



## LEDcandle (Jul 22, 2007)

Oh man!! Glad you weren't near the light at that time. Seems like BS batteries are really BS. There have been many cases of exploding batteries here in recent times, all CR123as. Were there any Surefire battery cases?

Everytime I read a thread like this, I really worry about all the flashaholics here who EDC a light so close to them most of the time. I use only rechargeables in all my lights but recently got 6 x Surefire CR123as with my M6, which sit in the MB-20 battery magazine. I'm treating them as a potential timebomb and keeping them separate from my other batteries. 

Can't imagine 6 batteries catching fire at the same time; that will be really bad news.


----------



## Barefootone (Jul 22, 2007)

LEDcandle,
 Thanks for the reply.
 I have not heard of any SureFires 123's exploding, but I have read that the Battery Stations have exploded as I now know.
 Jeff


----------



## McGizmo (Jul 22, 2007)

Hi Jeff,
Most important you and no one else was hurt!! I am pretty certain Wayne and Cindy have the components needed to get the light back together and I would be happy to cover the expense of getting you what you need to accomplish this. If you can E-mail me a list of what you need I will forward it to Wayne and Cindy.

Newbie did those tests back a ways and was able to get some events to occur with the batteries used here and the 5W boost converter, if I recall correctly. 

Take care!!


----------



## Illum (Jul 22, 2007)

mmm...not pointing any fingers, but theres been too much cases involving batterystations, I think they need to reverify their QC standards and maybe add a new rule.

Barefootone, were the vented cells new before you turned on the aleph or were they used previously?

Don, are you referring to this thread from NewBie?



Barefootone said:


> LEDcandle,
> Thanks for the reply.
> I have not heard of any SureFires 123's exploding, but I have read that the Battery Stations have exploded as I now know.
> Jeff



theres two ancient threads containing surefire cell incidents, but at least 4 on batterystations
one was the first primary lithium cell scare of CPF I know of [the one with the battery shooting through a cabinet door and the Pelican M6 incident] and the other was an incident involving a single cell venting in a surefire M6 carriage

theres at least one known case of cyclops cells and titanium cells....see the provided NewBie link


----------



## jumpstat (Jul 22, 2007)

Glad no one was hurt. Before this I didn't realise something like this could happen. I could not imagine if something like this happened to someone you love, such as kids or wife (they frequently handle/use them all the time).

Was it due to an internal short circuit or heat induced failure ?


----------



## nanotech17 (Jul 22, 2007)

time to get rid of my BS.


----------



## luigi (Jul 22, 2007)

As far as I know they are safe(ish) in single cell lights.

Luigi


----------



## dat2zip (Jul 22, 2007)

I am glad you are not hurt. I will be happy to get Don the necessary parts to get your light back up and running.

Wayne


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 22, 2007)

:twothumbs to McGizmo's & dat2zip's generosity. :twothumbs

Braddah Bill made a pretty good list of 'events' in his post here. I had not heard of half of those.


----------



## Barefootone (Jul 22, 2007)

McGizmo said:


> Hi Jeff,
> Most important you and no one else was hurt!! I am pretty certain Wayne and Cindy have the components needed to get the light back together and I would be happy to cover the expense of getting you what you need to accomplish this. If you can E-mail me a list of what you need I will forward it to Wayne and Cindy.
> 
> Newbie did those tests back a ways and was able to get some events to occur with the batteries used here and the 5W boost converter, if I recall correctly.
> ...


 
Hi Don,
Yes thank God no one was hurt, but I'll tell you when it exploded I wasn't sure what was going on. I'll tell you it was like a gun shot for sure.
Thank you so much for your generous offer. I will have to take a very close look at the Aleph 1 and figure out what I will need to rebuild it or maybe you meant that you will build the LE. I've never built a light engine for an Aleph :thinking:. I will email you once I figure things out and try to get a handle on what parts are needed.
I looked at Newbie's thread and it's very informative, lots of other incidences like mine.
Don thanks again for your kind and generous offer,
Jeff


----------



## Barefootone (Jul 22, 2007)

dat2zip said:


> I am glad you are not hurt. I will be happy to get Don the necessary parts to get your light back up and running.
> 
> Wayne


 
Hi Wayne,
 Thank you so much for your help with the parts :thumbsup:.
 It's been quite some time since we have chatted, I'll have to look you up.
 All my best,
 Jeff


----------



## SilverFox (Jul 23, 2007)

Hello Jeff,

Glad to hear that you are OK.

Let us know what Kevin (at BatteryStation) has to say. He may be able to trace the batch from the numbers on the other cells you have.

Tom


----------



## Khaytsus (Jul 23, 2007)

This is why I am sticking to 1x123's... Unmatched cells seem to go nuclear too easy.


----------



## DM51 (Jul 23, 2007)

Khaytsus said:


> This is why I am sticking to 1x123's... Unmatched cells seem to go nuclear too easy.


The disturbing aspect of this incident is that Barefootone used cells which WERE matched. His post #23 above shows that he did not do anything wrong. All previous incidents with pairs of primaries blowing like this have been where unmatched cells were used. Not the case here. These cells (or one of them, anyway) appear to have been faulty.


----------



## Barefootone (Jul 23, 2007)

Illum_the_nation said:


> mmm...not pointing any fingers, but theres been too much cases involving batterystations, I think they need to reverify their QC standards and maybe add a new rule.
> 
> Barefootone, were the vented cells new before you turned on the aleph or were they used previously?
> 
> ...


 
Hi,
The cells were not new, they had been in the Aleph 1 and had functioned well previously. As a matter of fact I had the Aleph 1 out a couple of nights before the failure looking at a Skunk that was digging for grubs in my upper back yard. I had actually been using the Aleph 1 on a number of nights recently.
When you look at the wide spread use of CR-123's not only in flashlights, but in camera's you have to wonder if there have been other catastrophic failures in these other applications :thinking:.
Thanks for the input,
Jeff


----------



## fieldops (Jul 23, 2007)

dat2zip said:


> I am glad you are not hurt. I will be happy to get Don the necessary parts to get your light back up and running.
> 
> Wayne



You guys are great to help him like this. I'm just glad he wasn't hurt. Isn't it even more rare to happen in an Led light? Most of the previous events were incans, I think? the cells must have been faulty. 

Thanks for being the best of CPF, guys!


----------



## Orion (Jul 23, 2007)

Perhaps someone can post the reason why (or, at least, the theory of why) these lithium batteries fail like this. 

I only have one light that uses two CR123 battiers. I believe it will be the only one. I have a VERY nice QIII that I modded with a Q4 Cree that I'm not too concerned with, at this point, due to it's single cell operation, but if I want brighter, I think I'll stick to larger flashlights. My current QIII is plenty bright anyway.


----------



## DM51 (Jul 23, 2007)

fieldops said:


> Isn't it even more rare to happen in an Led light? Most of the previous events were incans, I think?


I think this is one of the very few issues where we can say with any certainty that the incan vs. LED argument makes no difference at all!


----------



## richpalm (Jul 23, 2007)

Wow... that hydroflouric acid is some bad s##t!

http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic804.htm

Glad you're OK, and definitely keep us posted!

Rich


----------



## SilverFox (Jul 23, 2007)

Hello Orion,

When cells become unbalanced during discharge, you end up with a strong and a weak cell. At the end of the discharge, the strong cell will try to reverse charge the weak cell. This is when things can get "exciting."

Tom


----------



## elgarak (Jul 23, 2007)

My hypothesis still is that these events happen near the end of the batteries' lifetime (Question to Barefootone: How old were the batteries? Could they have been near the end of their lifetime?), and that there's a high demand of current from the load during this time.

In the case of Incans, this high current demand stems from the lower resistance of the metal filament when cooling down during dimming.

Now, as I understand this, in both cases when such an event happened with an LED light, it was a REGULATED light. The problem here is that the regulator demands more current towards the end of the battery runtime to keep the power to the LED up.

Still, I think in order for the battery to 'vent with flame' a lot of things must come together. Such as, you need a slightly pre-damaged cell. And a regulator whose cut-off point is too far (all circuitry has some variability -- even if a circuit design is safe and sound, two real circuits based on that design might have slightly different characteristics).

Maybe part of the problem is our preference for flat regulation with LOOONG runtime?

Re: HF. Yes, that's a bad chemical to work with. But there's no need to get paranoid over the HF coming from damaged CR123As. First off, not all CR123A chemistries contain F that can form HF. Second, the amount of HF that can form from a cell that contains F is fairly low.


----------



## lowatts (Jul 23, 2007)

SilverFox said:


> Hello Orion,
> 
> When cells become unbalanced during discharge, you end up with a strong and a weak cell. At the end of the discharge, the strong cell will try to reverse charge the weak cell. This is when things can get "exciting."
> 
> Tom


I wonder if matching new cells by no load voltage would eliminate this risk, and if so, how close they have to match?


----------



## Khaytsus (Jul 23, 2007)

DM51 said:


> The disturbing aspect of this incident is that Barefootone used cells which WERE matched. His post #23 above shows that he did not do anything wrong. All previous incidents with pairs of primaries blowing like this have been where unmatched cells were used. Not the case here. These cells (or one of them, anyway) appear to have been faulty.



I didn't mean to imply that he'd done anything wrong.. But one way or the other, it appears the cells were mismatched or just plain faulty. 

Has this happened on any 1x123 cells that anyone knows of?


----------



## fieldops (Jul 23, 2007)

DM51 said:


> I think this is one of the very few issues where we can say with any certainty that the incan vs. LED argument makes no difference at all!



Yeah, looks like an equal opportunity exploder, I'm afraid. Not good.


----------



## luigi (Jul 23, 2007)

Khaytsus said:


> I didn't mean to imply that he'd done anything wrong.. But one way or the other, it appears the cells were mismatched or just plain faulty.
> 
> Has this happened on any 1x123 cells that anyone knows of?



Yes, it happened with a Fenix P1D
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/169038&highlight=exploding

Luigi


----------



## half-watt (Jul 23, 2007)

SilverFox said:


> Hello Orion,
> 
> When cells become unbalanced during discharge, you end up with a strong and a weak cell. At the end of the discharge, the strong cell will try to reverse charge the weak cell. This is when things can get "exciting."
> 
> Tom




I've read this claim here on these Forums before. I'd like to know how that works. Obviously, i must be missing something that's very clear to y'all.

Here's my mental problem. If we had two cells in parallel, i could buy into that explanation. However, we have two cells in series. How does the strong cell try to charge the weaker cell? Normally, charging occurs in the reverse direction of discharge. If we want to speak of it as electrons flowing, then we force electrons into the positive terminal of the battery which is inserted in the battery charger - a crude, but perhaps accurate enough description for our purposes.

How does this happen with two cells in series? I just don't see how we reverse current flow. *IF* current flow were reversed, then wouldn't a device with polarity requirements (like a semiconductor) be reversed biased and either not work, or "blow"? So, even if this could occur, our LED light with associated electronics would no longer be working and producing light.

now, if you're going to tell me that the weaker cell undergoes pole reversal (pos. becomes neg. and neg. becomes pos. - this can actually occur during long term storage under self-discharge conditions, but the voltage falls THROUGH and PAST OVDC potential state and then reverses), then that cell must have passed through a 0VDC potential state just before undergoing pole reversal. are y'all saying that this occurs in such a short time frame? i would think that if this occurred then some devices would stop functioning due to the fact that a single cell produces insufficient voltage to power the device.

i'm not so sure that this "reverse charge" is taking place. i just don't see a complete current path for such to occur. why wouldn't the stronger cell be reverse charing itself (not that this would occur)? it still has poles, does it not?

so, what precisely is happening to the poles areas in the stronger cell? i could buy into electron migration of some type in the chemical paste of the battery in the weaker cell caused by the difference in potential between the two cells, but not charging. i just can't envision how that would occur based upon the inviolate basic physical and electrical principles involved. what am i forgetting or missing? would someone please tell me? i'm very confused at this point on something that seems real clear to y'all.

does anyone see my intellectual dilemma on this issue? or, is my Post unclear?

would appreciate any education y'all can give me. many thanks.

now, i think i'll go and THINK! THINK! THINK! on this matter even though my brain already hurts.


many thanks to those who will try to help me,
half-watt (or is that "half-wit"!!!)


----------



## Hans (Jul 23, 2007)

half-watt said:


> Here's my mental problem. If we had two cells in parallel, i could buy into that explanation. However, we have two cells in series. How does the strong cell try to charge the weaker cell? Normally, charging occurs in the reverse direction of discharge. If we want to speak of it as electrons flowing, then we force electrons into the positive terminal of the battery which is inserted in the battery charger - a crude, but perhaps accurate enough description for our purposes.



Check Newbie's thread on this topic. I think it's essential reading for anyone using CR123 based lights:

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/124776

Hans


----------



## BB (Jul 23, 2007)

half-watt said:


> ...Normally, charging occurs in the reverse direction of discharge...
> 
> ...now, if you're going to tell me that the weaker cell undergoes pole reversal (pos. becomes neg. and neg. becomes pos. - this can actually occur during long term storage under self-discharge conditions, but the voltage falls THROUGH and PAST OVDC potential state and then reverses), then that cell must have passed through a 0VDC potential state just before undergoing pole reversal. are y'all saying that this occurs in such a short time frame? i would think that if this occurred then some devices would stop functioning due to the fact that a single cell produces insufficient voltage to power the device.
> 
> i'm not so sure that this "reverse charge" is taking place. i just don't see a complete current path for such to occur. why wouldn't the stronger cell be reverse charing itself (not that this would occur)? it still has poles, does it not?...



Several issues, some battery chemistries are pretty save to take down to ZERO volts (NiCads IIRC). Other chemistries are dangerous to take down below a certain minimum voltage, they will become "unstable" (Lithium Ion rechargeables--have individual cell protection built-in). Others, have varying issues too (high current, internal shorts, plating of pure lithium metal out of the matrix in certain conditions, etc.)...

In general, primary type CR123A Lithium cells are assumed to be pretty safe to zero volts (may be some other chemistry, manufacturing, etc. issues--ignoring for now).

So, if you have one battery--discharging to zero volts should be OK (other than leaving a discharged battery in a light can increase chances of leaking).

Place two CR123's in series on a filament Halogen bulb, if one battery is new, and one battery is used, you will quickly see the filament yellow as the used battery voltage fails--giving visual clues that the battery pack is going bad/discharged.

If the light was left one, eventually the voltage of the used cell drops to zero, and the good cell will start to "reverse charge" or cause pole reversal and charging on the used battery. Most batteries will be destroyed by this action--and some will become dangerous as the chemistries start to do things they were never intended to do.

With regulated LED lights, and multi cell lights, the chances that any one cell in the pack can get reversed biased (weak cell compared to other cells in packed--unbalanced pack design, etc.) increase as it can be very difficult to know when a cell in a pack is getting reversed.

For example, a 12 volt NiCad pack uses 10 cells. The difference in output voltage of a pack near discharge vs a pack with 9 good cells and 1 bad cell is very difficult to determine without metering every cell (like protection required for a Lithium Ion pack).

Anyway, read the NewBie thread--lots of examples and how-to's to make failures.

-Bill


----------



## half-watt (Jul 23, 2007)

Hans said:


> Check Newbie's thread on this topic. I think it's essential reading for anyone using CR123 based lights:
> 
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/124776
> 
> Hans




search OP Post for all references to "charg" and read context in which the search term was located. 

did not answer the question of how a weaker cell could be charged by a stronger cell when both cells are in series. did i miss it?

i don't dispute whatsoever that there is a problem. i'm only questioning the commonly heard explanation of how this occurs, viz. a stronger cell charging a weaker cell in series.

excellent Thread by the way, many thanks for the hyperlink to it.


----------



## half-watt (Jul 23, 2007)

BB said:


> ...If the light was left one, eventually the voltage of the used cell drops to zero, and the good cell will start to "reverse charge" or cause pole reversal and charging on the used battery...



BB, many thanks for the swift and comprehensive reply. I mentioned "Pole Reversal" in my Post to which you're replying as the only possible way i could see two cells in series performing a charging action. Many thanks for the confirmation that this is the reason for the "exploding" batteries. 

So, like i also mentioned in that Post, a LED light with electronics should no longer be working when this condition occurs, and as you stated an incandescent light should only have its filament glowing.

Good clues that there is a problem a brewin'.

it didn't sound though from some of the Posts in various Threads that i read, that the light was no longer functioning just before the explosion. i, perhaps erroneously, got the picture of a perfectly good working light and then seconds later, or a very short time later after being switched off or placed down, or the user noticing that the flashlight was getting a mite hot, and then BLAMO or KABOOM. So, how was the light functioning so well, on only one cell? This confuses me. Any thoughts?


----------



## David_Campen (Jul 23, 2007)

> So, like i also mentioned in that Post, a LED light with electronics should no longer be working when this condition occurs,


No, the LED could still work. The still good batteries would bias the LED in the proper direction and current would (could) still be flowing through the LED. If no curent was flowing through the LED there would be no current to reverse charge the bad cell.


----------



## Gazoo (Jul 23, 2007)

Maybe the regulation circuitry in the flashlight is so good one wouldn't notice if it was only running on one battery, which would be around 3 volts? But this has me concerned too. I have a laser on the way that takes 2 CR123A primaries, and it has regulated circuitry. I think I will measure the voltage of each battery every couple of days or so just to play it as safe as I can. I have a 12 pack of Panasonic batteries I am going to use.


----------



## half-watt (Jul 23, 2007)

David_Campen said:


> No, the LED could still work. The still good batteries would bias the LED in the proper direction and current would (could) still be flowing through the LED. If no curent was flowing through the LED there would be no current to reverse charge the bad cell.




only partially agree here. your point about the LED must be on for the pole reversed weaker cell to be charged is certainly correct - no doubt about that. 

however, in some designs (without boost converter) 3V is insufficient to forward bias the LED, and this doesn't even consider any voltage drops across the weak cell or anywhere else in the electronics. how many 2xCR123A designs have a boost converter?


----------



## BB (Jul 23, 2007)

Read through the NewBie thread... With two cell lights/simulations, he took one partial discharged cell and one full cell (primaries in this case), and ran them under load until "something" happened...

What was interesting, in at least one of the cases, it was the 100% new cell that vented--not the partially used cell...

Why--possibly the partial cell got hot, headed the "new" cell, and when the cell(s) failed internally, only the "new cell" had enough energy to overheat and vent. So, in this case, it would be assumed that it was not the polarity reversal of the "used cell" that "failed"--but it may have contributed to the venting of the other cell because of overheating.

In any case, the failure modes and mechanisms are numerous and varied. Some are probably happening in flashlights that have not been used for a while, others in flashlights the are even perfectly functioning until they got hot, made noise, "went dark" a few moment before, etc...

There appears to be no one failure mode--But the majority failures in primary lithium cells appear to be broken into to classes of causes--1) Heat--whether because of high current, "weak" cell in string, environmental; and 2) mechanical damage--dented cells from over-tightening, dropping, etc.--once "damaged" the massive amount of current available inside the battery causes internal shorts and I^2*R heating and/or chemical heating.

I have not read the whole thread yet--but most of the failures seem to involve two or more cells in series. Yet, there was, apparently, at least one failure noted (Air Canada incident?) with a single cell light that may have been dropped on the floor of the aircraft by a passenger.

In the end, these batteries have very reactive components and are able to release large amounts of energy in a short amount of time... Perhaps Lithium flashlights need a frangable spot or other venting system to help reduce propelling parts of the lights ("explosions") when failures occur.

Problem is that this will add costs, size, difficulty to change cells, and could reduce water resistance and such...

Problem is real, appears to be rare (unless abused on purpose), and is the cure worst than the problem.

In the end, the current rules that keep the size of the batteries small for use on airplanes and excluding from nuclear power plants may be enough.

In the case where a small "venting with flame and flying debris" incident is not acceptable, either the light(s) need to be redesigned or accept using alternative energy sources (alkaline or other chemistries/constructions).

The neat thing is with the high efficiency LEDs, these alternative sources of power can give just about equal performance with far less risk of "dangerous" failures.

-Bill


----------



## BB (Jul 23, 2007)

Also, some batteries get quite warm when near discharged and operating under load (still able to supply sufficient current to operate the device)... Alkaline batteries do this for me (don't know about Lithium primaries).

-Bill


----------



## half-watt (Jul 23, 2007)

BB said:


> Read through the NewBie thread... With two cell lights/simulations, he took one partial discharged cell and one full cell (primaries in this case), and ran them under load until "something" happened...
> 
> What was interesting, in at least one of the cases, it was the 100% new cell that vented--not the partially used cell...
> 
> ...




noticed that before when i read the OP's Post in that Thread. agree that there must be multiple reasons for these problems and not just one failure mode. this is part of the problem i've had accepting the simplified panacea explanation that is often offered of stronger cell charging the weaker cell. the owner/user description of the problem often speaks of a perfectly functioning light with no problems other than it gets very hot but is still functioning normally. in my experience, this isn't what happens when pole reversal occurs. this indicated to me that another failure mode of the cell(s) was occurring. 

that charging occurs IF pole reversal has taken place i have no problem with, as i stated, i know this occurs. however, a device still functioning normally when this occurs (i've had a number of NiCd and NiMh cells undergo pole reversal and seen the effects in both lights and cordless power tools - have NEVER seen a device continue to function normally when this happens - the dead cell just isn't pulling its weight for the device to continue functioning NORMALLY - whether cordless drill or worklight. could it continue to work perfectly in some designs? i'd say 'yes' in the right design (like maybe one with a boost converter which allows lower voltages, like from a single cell, to still power the device properly?). i'd GUESS that there are not too many multi-cell powered designs (those using 2 or 3 123A cells - not AA cells - these would still need some boost for 2xAA to fwd bias an LED) that employ a combination buck-boost converter. certainly there are some. wonder if they were present in the lights with exploding cells?

other failure modes (a short for instance) certainly could have the device functioning normally is my guess - for a short time at least, until KABOOM.

anyways, BB, you've help clarify a lot of things for me. thank you. at least i know now that CPF doesn't think every failure is a result of the stronger cell charging the weaker cell.


----------



## Illum (Jul 23, 2007)

SilverFox said:


> Hello Orion,
> 
> When cells become unbalanced during discharge, you end up with a strong and a weak cell.



I ZTS my cells after every lengthy discharge if I can...and whether its the surefire G2 or the inova XO3 I have found cases were surefire cells that were 100% at start ended up with something like 80/20 or even a 80/zip

every pair that are unbalanced are discharged in single cell dorcys and so far other than the P1D accident theres have been no reports of single cell lights venting

in my experience so far the only double celled light I have that gives me consistent readings from both cells from start to finish is the surefire A2


----------



## Archangel (Jul 24, 2007)

No-load voltage would tell you very little. Measuring "flash amps" - checking the available amps using a multi-meter - would be useful. As for how close, no one knows, but obviously the closer the better.


lowatts said:


> I wonder if matching new cells by no load voltage would eliminate this risk, and if so, how close they have to match?


----------



## Barefootone (Jul 24, 2007)

elgarak said:


> My hypothesis still is that these events happen near the end of the batteries' lifetime (Question to Barefootone: How old were the batteries? Could they have been near the end of their lifetime?), and that there's a high demand of current from the load during this time.
> 
> In the case of Incans, this high current demand stems from the lower resistance of the metal filament when cooling down during dimming.
> 
> ...


Hi Elgarak,
To answer your question of how old the battery's were. I'm not sure how long the BS battery's were in the Aleph 1. I can tell you that the battery's were matched since they were from the same date code stamped on the bottom of both battery's. I had been using the Aleph 1 on a number of occasions on different days leading up to the failure with no indication of trouble.
I've had a conversation with Kevin Falkner at Battery Station and I will relay this information in another post to this thread.
Jeff


----------



## Barefootone (Jul 24, 2007)

Hello All,
Well since the demise of my Aleph 1 I've had an education about CR123A batteries from all the posts to this thread and from Kevin at Battery Station.
Kevin and I had a conversation on the phone today and he was most gracious. Kevin told me that they are well aware of the problems with CR123A batteries and not just their batteries, but with other brands including SureFires. 
First off, Kevin told me that the intended use of CR123A batteries is for cameras which I knew, especially since I have a camera that uses them. I don't know this for a fact, and this is pure speculation on my part, but the use of CR123A batteries in flashlights and other equipment _may have _came along when designers found the usefulness of the size of the CR123A plus the 3 volt power source :thinking:. Kevin told me that the BS CR123A batteries have been redesigned with a new electrolyte and it has a lower power level. Also the internal parts of the BS CR123A have been changed to stainless steel instead of aluminum which will burn. The battery manufactures are all grappling with this serious problem.
As for me my eyes have been opened and then some and I will proceed with the use of CR123A batteries with respect and due dilligence with regard to their use.
Jeff


----------



## McGizmo (Jul 24, 2007)

Hi guys,
I too have recieved communications from Kevin at Battery Station and he has offered to pick up the expense of getting Jeff the new components required to get the light operational. He also mentioned to me that the chemistry and composition of these batteries is changing as Jeff has already commented. He told me that the new designs will result in batteries that don't have the power levels of the previous batteries. For the sake of safety, I personally consider this a price worthy of payment. With the newer and more efficient LED's, actual performance and run times need not suffer as the LED's can perform to yesterday's levels of performance at lower drive and power requirements than yesterday.

Kevin is a stand up guy and backs his product all the way. I have already commited to picking up the tab on Jeff's components and I thanked Kevin for his offer but passed on taking him up on it.

Knowing Wayne and Cindy, it may be very difficult getting them to even give me a bill in the first place! 

Fortunately, no one was hurt here and we all have had an additional wake up call!!


----------



## Archangel (Jul 24, 2007)

That's the attitude we need to get into people's heads. CR123As don't need to be feared, but they do need to be respected. We tend to become blasé about anything we use all the time. Try holding a match to rubber cement some time. They don't write EXTREMELY FLAMMABLE on the label because they're bored. I'm just glad that this turned out to be a painless incident.


Barefootone said:


> As for me my eyes have been opened and then some and I will proceed with the use of CR123A batteries with respect and due dilligence with regard to their use.


----------



## souptree (Jul 25, 2007)

FWIW, and without any intention of claiming that this is the cause of the Aleph incident in question here, I share the following anecdotes:

Ever since reading Newbie's results, I have been testing every battery on a ZTS from Lighthound to be sure it had the charge I expected. I have been VERY careful with multi-cell lights, and only use batteries that show 100%. I run batteries in multi-cell lights down to only about halfway, at which point they go into single cell lights.

Maybe a year ago, I ordered one batch of 36 Battery Station batteries, and they ranged from 40% to 100% on my voltage meter when new! Doing the math there puts you into a possible danger zone less than halfway through the anticipated cycle. Needless to say, this is the last time I tried to save money on batteries. Cheap brakes and tires, anyone?

[Insert comment: I am pleased to see that Battery Station has responded to the problems with changes in the design of their CR123A. I think I will respond to this positive news by giving their new product a chance and ordering a test batch. Personally, I wish them all success with a positive rollout of an improved product, and am impressed with this responsiveness.]

I have checked over 100 new SureFire batteries and every single one has read 100%. No exceptions. I check each battery at least 3 times and sort them into boxes by percentage (I sort used ones from the multi-cell lights too). The meter varies widely in what it reports, so I keep checking until I get a few consistent readings in a row.

This raises something of a gray area for me. If I buy off-brand batteries, do not check them, get mixed voltages in a pair of new batteries, and have a reverse charging incident, is it user error? Ostensibly not, but it's arguably a case a dedicated user can avoid. Should this trouble be necessary? Definitely not. My experience has led me to have a high degree of faith in SureFire batteries, but do I trust their track record enough to stop checking? No.

The one thing these anecdotes of mine can conclusively add to this thread is that relying on batch numbers to conclude that they were "matching cells" is a fallacy.

I think these lights and batteries are safe the way we use them. But I don't intend to be the 1% (or probably much, much less) who has a problem if there is anything I can do to minimize my risk. Safety first!


----------



## Canuke (Jul 25, 2007)

elgarak said:


> In the case of Incans, this high current demand stems from the lower resistance of the metal filament when cooling down during dimming.
> 
> Now, as I understand this, in both cases when such an event happened with an LED light, it was a REGULATED light. The problem here is that the regulator demands more current towards the end of the battery runtime to keep the power to the LED up.
> 
> ...



That's my thinking too. High current draw is definitely involved here, both when fresh and when the weak cell starts to go under.

So, what is the nominal (fresh) current draw where risk becomes significant? 1C? We have no incidences involving L4's so far (the LuxV is underdriven in these lights, so I'd expect the fresh current to be around 1C with these, and they drop out of regulation fairly quickly -- they don't try to suck cells down to nothing), yet here is an Aleph LuxV going off, which is an L4 on steroids. Does anyone know the maximum current that goes into the regulators on these lights just before they fall out of regulation?

The two factors to look for here would be: current draw when new, and loading characteristics as cells drain. A light with over 1C draw on multiple cells when fresh that *increases* load as cells die, for whatever reason = danger!

It might be handy to hook these lights up to bench power supplies set to the voltage of fresh cells, then graph current draw as the voltage is incrementally dropped to simulate cell drain.


----------



## DM51 (Jul 25, 2007)

Souptree, that is an excellent post - thanks. 

The comments by BatteryStation are completely inadequate, IMO. We all know CR123As were originally intended for photographic purposes, and sustained high-current usage was not originally envisaged. The point is, however, use of these batteries in flashlights and other applications is now common. Companies like Surefire have reacted accordingly, by making sure their specs and quality control are much tighter. 

Companies with good QC don't get this many failures, and it is no good BS or others ducking behind the excuse that "These cells aren't really supposed to be used like this." Good grief, it is what they are selling them for! It is 100% up to them to make sure their products are fit for purpose. 

Now I suppose I’d better go and put on an asbestos suit and take cover.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 25, 2007)

Has there even been any reports of a SF 123a cell venting like this? I can't remember reading of one...so it seems they have a great track record with this type of cell....which comes back to doing the quality control.

Another question that seems a better solution, given the number of these being used is if there can be a saphion type development for disposable cells....or maybe start making more lights that can use those type of safe Lithium chemistry rechargeable voltages and sizes. The rechargeables also have a reasonably long shelf and stable voltage...not like disposables, but the tradeoff on safe chemistry and less battery pollution seems to make sense.


----------



## lucio (Jul 25, 2007)

can things like this happens without any warnings, even without any flickerings? 
in lights where flickering is normal at the end of the battery life span that would happen anyway with no advice


----------



## Barefootone (Jul 25, 2007)

souptree said:


> FWIW, and without any intention of claiming that this is the cause of the Aleph incident in question here, I share the following anecdotes:
> 
> Ever since reading Newbie's results, I have been testing every battery on a ZTS from Lighthound to be sure it had the charge I expected. I have been VERY careful with multi-cell lights, and only use batteries that show 100%. I run batteries in multi-cell lights down to only about halfway, at which point they go into single cell lights.
> 
> ...


 
Souptree,
Very good dissertation, much can be learned from comments like yours.
As I said in this thread earlier and I quote myself "As for me my eyes have been opened and then some and I will proceed with the use of CR123A batteries with respect and due diligence with regard to their use".
I for one will be purchasing a ZTS Mini-MBT battery tester and all my CR123A's will be put to task. As a matter of fact I talked to ZTS today on the phone and they offer CPF members a 10% discount (Coupon code 301105). I'm also going to stay away from battery's made across the pond.
To my way of thinking to protect ourselves a battery tester can probably save a catastrophe in the making for any CR123A user. At least provide us with some margin of safety with each cell's power level so you can match a pair to put into a 2x123 light or a larger cell light. Also as it's been mentioned by others to use the lock out mode on our lights to disable them and take the battery's completely out if the light is on the shelf for storage.
I feel like I've been , but I guess it was time for me to vent instead of a CR123A venting it's fire on me and I thank God for not being hurt believe me it was a close one :sweat:.
Jeff


----------



## GarageBoy (Jul 25, 2007)

I don't use enough CR123s in a year. SF batts it is.


----------

