# Now I'm really getting worried about lithim batts...



## geepondy (Jun 24, 2006)

I have read recent posts here about lithium batteries exploding, other's saying don't worry it's very rare. Now I stumble across this from electrolumens. Read the last paragraph of the page.

http://elektrolumens.com/XM-3/XM-3.html

I am not too, too worried about myself but I have given family members and a few friends CR123 based lights. I'm wondering if I should warn them they are using a possible dangerous flashlight.


----------



## cd-card-biz (Jun 24, 2006)

I share your concern. Seems like I had just finished purchasing my first several lights (multiple CR123a) when all this about the lithium batts started appearing. 

Here's what really gets me though. Many CPF members, far more experienced than me, are buying the ZTS battery tester to test their cells. Now I'm thinking, "So now I need to spend $50 on a battery tester - to test a $1.00 battery to prevent a possible serious injury, from using a product for its intended purpose?" 

Don't know about the rest of the group...but this ticks-me-off in a big way.
:scowl:


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Jun 24, 2006)

I'm no expert but I don't think things are really that bad. Wayne's trying to sell lights and I'm sure that the NO CR123 LIGHTS policy that he mentions is real but there are other things to consider when any company sets any kind of SAFETY POLICY or even gives SAFETY ADVICE or INSTRUCTIONS with their products.

The US is a very litigious country and it seems that everybody and his brother dreams of sueing a manufacturer for a bazillion bucks. Manufacturers and employers have responded to increased legal costs by often altering their advice and policies _not to reflect the truth, but to put something out that will cause them to be less likely to be sued._

At the risk of oversimplification, the reason you can't get a *hot* cup of coffee at Mickey Dee's anymore _is not_ because something new and dangerous was discovered about hot coffee a few years ago -- most of us have understood the dangers of hot liquids since we started stringing words together and making sentences. They don't sell hot coffee anymore because an incredibly stupid person managed to hurt herself and sued. Mickey Dee's altered a widely used, well known product that had been used all over the earth for God knows how long because they don't want to go through that again. Their policy is based on _the lowest common denominator._ The hot coffee danger is very real -- but it's in the court room more than it's in the cup.

The modern world is filled with bad advice and bad policies that only reflect _legal dangers._ There was a thread earlier this month about a lithium AA cell that blew up in a cell phone charger and one respondant posted that if you asked the manufacturer of the cell phone if they would recommend using that type of third-party charger, they would say NO. He was right, but for the wrong reason -- no company is going to voluntarily open themselves up to that kind of liability and potentially horrendous PR. Decisipons like this are everywhere in our world.

And Wayne wants to sell lights, bless him.  IMO he's just taking a decision made by another company so they could avoild liability hassles, and he's using it for his own purposes.

IMO


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 24, 2006)

I don't like the idea of the danger inherent in these energy packed cells and I would be more comfortable if the cause and effect were better understood and identified. However I am concerned that a knee jerk response by the populace and or legislators might remove a great and viable energy storage device from options. PK once told me, off the record, that lithium primaries are not all created equal and that there could be and likely would be some events as more of these came into use. He also cautioned me about the dangers in LiIon cells.

I believe one of the reported accidents in shipping involved a pallet of batteries that was also damaged in shipment. I read some article on the UPS plane fire and it was not clear what, if any contributory events mayhave been at play in that event. The report I read didn't identify the type of lithium battery either. There are a number of different lithium batteries, sizes as well as brands, in use and are they all made to the same standard and subject to the same level of QC?

I have not experienced any events with the lithium batteries and I know some people who intentially abused them in testing and were not able to incite an event. I personally have had many many flashlights destroyed by alk batteries that went doggo inside and I had one Pelican (pre pressure valve) explode in my sea chest. This was an alk light and the force of the event blew the lexan head apart! 

There are many dangers out there and some although identified and well understood are considered so unlikely that they are an _acceptable risk_. I don't know how the lithium battery would fit in such considerations but such considerations should be made as opposed to a simple knee jerk reaction. Hopefully it will be in the interest of those effected to do some research and get a better idea of what the dangers are and what circumstances might trigger an event.

How many of you use a piece of equipment that has an internal combustion engine; lawn mower, gen set, weed eater what ever? Those of you who do, when you fill the device with gas, do you drive a grounding rod into the ground and attach a ground wire to the can and or device prior to filling it? I can't even recall the proper procedure but I do remember back in the '70's that OSHA required this for landscape gardeners who worked for a school district I had a summer job at. ESD can and has ruined the day for a number of people who were simply refueling their equipment or so I have been led to understand. When you leave the front door every morning, you are exposing yourself to known and unknown risks and potential for bodily harm. When you elect to join others on the roads and highways you are taking a risk. Being the worlds best and most accomplished defensive driver may not be enough if certain and unanticipated events were to unfold. 

In many exposures to risk, we have understanding and we have choices. In other cases we may lack either. :shrug: 

I for one would like to know more about these lithium batteries I have become so fond of!!! It is the only battery I feel I can depend on if left in a device for an undetermined period of time; the tool placed for use in an emergency. 

Before I got involved on CPF, I had AA flashlights that I used and stored for the possibility of use. I put lithium AA cells in all of these lights as I felt this gave me a much greater chance of grabbing a light, sometime in the future, that would work and not contain a failed chemistry experiment within. :green:

The CR123 that I have come to depend on and use now has a dark and dangerous side that is currently in the forefront of my awareness. Well just about everything has a dark side to it and at this point, my concern is for a better understanding of the dangers but not to the point that I will abandon these amazing sources of energy! 

As an amateur designer, I would approach a new design with thoughts of where and how to place a pressure relief valve on the battery tube and even go so far as design a nomex sheath for carry if I felt it was warranted. However, from what I have gathered, there is no recipie of initiating an event and one would be hard pressed to come up with a bench test to evaluate the viability of a designed pressure relief and event containment system. :thinking: :shrug: A clever _security blanket_ might have great market potential but if it is false security then it is dishonest at a base level.


----------



## yaesumofo (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: Now I'm really getting worried about lithium batts...*

I use 9Volt lithium primaries in some of my sound equipment. These 9V's are usually placed in wireless mic systems which are then placed on actors, often in somewhat intimate places. This happens day in and day out through the industry.
I have only heard of one "event" occurring with these batteries. 

One interesting thing to note is the fact that Duracell got out of the 9 volt lithium business.
One other thing to note is they way 9 volt lithium cells are packaged. They come in boxes of 6 each cell individually packaged. When opened the package produces a strong odor.
I don't know how much energy these 9v have compared to the 3V cells.
But I can tell you that it is clear by the packaging that the manufactures are very careful with these. They are not tightly packed and as I said they are individually packaged. 
I use extreme care when using these to insure polarity and freshness of the cells. I always test them on a zts unit before putting them into service. These 9 volt lithium primaries do not have the 10 year shelf life especially after the individual package is opened.
I believe that any battery which is full of energy has a potential for dangerous events. take a 2700 Mah AA cell and short it and see what it does. For one thing it will get VERY hot. Hot enough to burn. So when it comes down to it any of these batteries primaries or not have the potential for "events"
Personally I exercise a great deal of care when handling these cells. especially the ones that go onto actors. It may be difficult to understand but a single "event" could cause a multi million dollar picture to come to a grinding halt. Not to mention the potential for huge lawsuits which will almost certainly follow any such "event". Yes care must be taken.
I am amazed at the way surefire packages the 3V lithium cells. I have received boxes with damaged cells in the past. Unfortunately packing these properly would make them even more expensive than they are.

The bottom line is just be careful.
I know I am. I have to be.
Yaesumofo


----------



## NewBie (Jun 24, 2006)

I'm extremely concerned about when a few of the folks try to downplay the risk of Lithium Primaries and/or Lithium Secondaries (LiIon).



BC0311 said:


> I still have this UKE-2L that exploded , along with all the parts and the two batteries in a little tupperware container.
> 
> I'd be happy to mail it to someone in the USA that would like to do a post mortem. Free, including postage.
> 
> ...


The UKE-2L is a flashlight made by Underwater Kinetics out of California, which also happens to use Lithium 123 Primary cells.
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=885446&postcount=105


The risks are **very* real*, clearly there, and have been routinely shown, over and over again, most especially with the Lithium Primary cells.

There have been quite a number of posts just within the very small CPF community we have here (only 15,249 users), which represents a very small cross-section of 123 cell users in the world.

These dangers are not just with one model or one brand of flashlight, even the highly respected SureFire flashlight has had it's own share of Lithium explosions, demonstrated by this SureFire 9P, just one month ago:















The poor guy was in the middle of using it and took a look at it, just in time to nearly take out his eyeballs (one lucky fella if you ask me)
http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=132932

As one looks around, you find that these sorts of events with Lithium cells is not a one in a billion chance thing, but fairly common.

Per user, here on CPF, say we have 16,000 users. I know there have been over 10 events of primary Lithium cells going gonzo on folks.

So, per user, the odds are 10 in 16,000, or 1 in 1,600. That is many times more likely than winning the jackpot in the lotto!

Unfortunately, these suckers have gone boom on folks during their use twice now, and others after use.

There have been quite a number battery industry conferences discussing the subject, and it has even affected our own military, and the comparison chart, with dynamite being illustrated with the red line, showing just how close Lithium Primaries really are to dynamite is pretty relevant, especially with the upswing in multiple failures, which have recently occurred:
http://www.molalla.net/~leeper/lithexpl.pdf

The result of Lithium primary battery abuse is even more relevant, which you find on page 13 of the government document.

We have all seen the picture of the solid oak door that one of the tailcaps of a flashlight nearly penetrated, due to the force of the explosion, thank God that wasn't someone's kid. Found it:





From the same thread, some of my blow ups of the provided photos:









Nobody is saying stop utilizing Lithium Primary cells, whatsoever.

It does bother me that some people jibe those folks who are safety conscious, and choose to utilize other chemistries, which have been shown to be much more safe.

Just from face value, it stands to reason that even chemistries with 1/2 the energy density of the Lithium Primaries, would likely to have less potential to do true physical harm to ones being, property, and children.

With the prevalence of problems, we have see, most especially with 123 Lithium Primary cells, * Lithium 123 Primary cell dangers should be first and foremost for display in front of potential customers*






At least SureFire has had the sense to prominently display this warning in *BIG BOLD BLACK letters all over their box, specifically on the cover and the front side:

It reads:
CAUTION
Batteries, if not properly stored or used, may cause property damage or personal injury. If a conductive material (e.g. jewelry, keys or coins touches exposed terminals, it may complete an electrical circuit causing heat or even fire. To prevent such hazards, you must exercise special care in handling lithiums or reachargeable batteries. Store the batteries in a cool, dry, and ventilated area, and keep them in their original packaging until ready for use. Do not place loose batteries in a pocket, purse, or other container containing metal objects, and do not dispose of them with other waste uless permitted by applicable laws and regulations.

Additionally, upon the cell, one finds in bold capital letters:

"CAUTION: RISK OF FIRE, EXPLOSION, AND BURNS. DO NOT RECHARGE, DISASSEMBLE, HEAT ABOVE 212F (100C) OR INCINERATE. DO NOT MIX WITH USED OR OTHER BATTERY TYPES. KEEP AWAY FROM CHILDREN."

Most other lithium 123 cells contain the same warning.


IMHO, it is fine to use Lithium cells, once one understands the risks that are present with every single 123 cell, how to mitigate those risks, and if they are willing to risk at those odds.






I don't know, maybe one should not be able to even purchase Lithium Primary 123 cells unless they have passed a simple test showing their working knowledge of the real true and present dangers, and proper handling and use of the same. It could be very simple to set up such a license with today's web, and it could be automatically granted once one passed.

Overkill? Possibly, but with many people not reading instructions and warnings today, and the frequent lawsuits, maybe it would be wise after all.

We do require licenses for the possession and use of dynamite, and since these Lithium 123 cells are not far from dynamite, maybe we should after all.

Please don't ridicule those folks who opt for the safer approach of other battery technologies/chemistry. They may be much wiser than it seems after first glance.

***RANT MODE OFF***







Please remember, if you have one of these Lithium 123 cells fail on you, especially if you inhale the fumes, are cut by any of the flying material, or get it on your skin, please see a doctor immediately, and take the MSDS sheet with you, so they know the hazardous items like the very nasty HydroFluoric Acid.

Some CPF'ers have had tissue death around areas where they have been cut from the glass bezel shards when it looks like the glass was clean. Some cpf'ers have gotten rashes all over their bodies, and various other odd physical symptoms. 

Don't mess around go see the doctor, symptoms may not present themselves for several days, and could result in the shutdown of the liver or kidneys, and other things which seem un-related.


In case you don't feel the heed to visit the doctor immediately, read the experiences of one of our very own CPF'ers:


Lunarmodule said:



Unfortunately there is a darker side to this, I am finding out now. It appears I have absorbed some toxic materials through breathing and through the blood from the cuts. I slept most of the day, but awoke to overwhelming nausea and repeated vomiting. Ive got a strange rash covering both arms and most of my legs. I went to the after hours clinic and preliminary bloodwork showed some strange liver enzyme levels, one three times higher than the normal high range. The cuts, about a dozen of them, have all sealed up but are black compared to the reddened tissue surrounding them. Right after the incident, I flushed the cuts repeatedly with peroxide and removed the glass with tweezers. Then a bunch of Neosporin and a bandage. The doctor at the clinic repeated the same standard disinfection regieme, but is curious about the possibility of poisioning, thankfully low level. I went home and felt relieved, until I got home and vomiting started again, much worse than before. I followed SilverFox's advice and moved everything outside. I will find out later today what the other blood sample reveals. I need to find an MSDS type sheet for these cells, what compounds specifically may have entered my system. I feel terrible, like a bad case of the flu without a fever. The doc said there was nothing more to do besides keep changing bandages and disinfecting, watch and wait. I keep looking at my arms, which are completely covered in angry little red bumps, like measles. The doc indicated the liver enzyme results suggest the body is working full tilt to neutralize the toxins. He said as I suspected the rash is an allergic reaction to the foreign materials. Cheers to those CPFers that mentioned the bit about glass powder and residue. Clearly I shrugged off the significance of the acrid smoke too quickly.

I was going to rebuild the light, but for the time being until I feel normal again I dont want to go within 100 feet of that smell again (yeck!) If Kevin of batterystation wants the parts or someone else please drop me an email and let me know.

Click to expand...



A little later:



Lunarmodule said:



An update: Intrepid CPFer InFLux and all around nice fellow called me at home around noontime and I was feeling much better. Very nice, checking on my condition, which is not very serious thankfully.

I felt better until I got off the phone with the hospital that did the blood analysis. The doctor I saw yesterday referred my results to a toxicologist that confirms significant hydroflouric acid poisioning. Huge thanks to the CPFers that gave me the links for the MSDS sheets on the batteries. Finally my secondary exposure symptoms jibe with what I have read. Worst is the nausea and vomiting, which are at bay for now, and today I managed normal meals, OK. There is tissue necrosis (dead stuff) at the laceration sites, explaining the black color of the cuts. At higher inhaled concentrations complete shutdown of cardiovascular organs can happen with a delayed onset. The VERY good news is the exposure is relatively small, but significant enough to cause the nasty GI symptoms, skyrocketed liver enzyme numbers, and skin rash. Some friends came by at various times during the day and poked some fun at my appearance, the skin rash covering most of my extremeties resembles a childhood case of measles. It helps to laugh about it, the worst is definitely over. It seems to be clearing, I was going to head to the ocean for a swim but dont have the energy quite yet. The toxicologist advised lots of hydration and rest, easy enough. Apparently the hydroflouric acid released in gaseous form upon combustion is extremely damaging, and is particularly nasty in that the serious exposure symptoms have a very delayed onset as the radical free flourine disassociates from the acid form and wreaks its havoc on various systems. So on top of being the lithium exposion test pilot I get to be the hydroflouric acid guinea pig too! Reiterate thanks to all those wishing me well.

Click to expand...




Lunarmodule said:



Tremendous thanks to Nubo and Diesel bomber for providing HF toxicity links and MSDS info. Very timely and VERY helpful!!!

Click to expand...


06-09-2006, 11:11 AM, Two days later:



Lunarmodule said:



SilverFox and others have posted about the stuff from the combusted batteries being "real bad" for you in plain English. They are quite right. Moreso than I imagined. To relay my real world experience with this: even a SMALL amount of the gray gas expelled from the batteries during combustion inhaled can do significant DELAYED ONSET damage. I read about Icebreak and Bill Waites trying to replicate the failure, and I applaud their courageous and determined spirit, however I cannot stress highly enough that one should overexaggerate the danger of the fumes and wet char residue, which I handled with bare hands (no choice). This is not mamby-pamby MSDS Chicken Little the Sky is Falling scary sounding rhetoric... an MSDS would have you believe a car wash solution is so dangerous to handle you might want to invest in a full blown Hazmat suit in order to wash your car. They typically refer to catastrophic spills of material or somesuch. In the case of these batteries, I was shocked to discover almost all the MSDS was devoted to minimal discussion of how to deal with burned/burning batteries. There was a clear trend of disclaimer-ism: "in normal use the compounds contained within the metal can of the battery cannot come in contact with the user and thus are not subject to special handling precautions. There is a BRIEF mention of some of the potential decomposition byproducts of combustion, but the annoying phrase repeats saying this would only be applicable for abuse or disaster scenarios. That could stand revision. And to Bill Waites, PLEASE be super careful. You mentioned "fire is OK, an explosion is not....." in an earlier post. Well, what is happening or rather what did happen to me is the rapid venting was an out of control reaction producing large amounts of hydrogen. I recall that moment in high school chemistry of tossing a chunk of cryogenic sodium metal into a bath of water, it oxidized violently and liberated prodigious H2 (hydrogen) which eventually ignited from the intense heat of the vigorous reaction. Lots of bubbling, and a giant KaBOOM! as a climax. Strikingly similar to what occurred with the cells. The rapid venting (and I cannot emphasize this enough) is the only early warning sign but by itself is the true menace and real demon in this process. The hydrofluoric acid in this gaseous emission is horrifically toxic, I radically underestimated its impact on me, tricked by the delayed onset nature of the symptoms of its poisioning. I've turned the corner and improving, but I feel worse than when it first happened. I didnt sleep at all last night, threw up twice, and sweat so much I showered three times. I've got to get more rest, but the leg burns, I feel nauseated, and I'm still looking like a measles poster child. Nothing to do but wait it out. I can pass along to others that if you are exposed to a scenario of gray haze/smoke jetting from the battery, get yourself to a source of fresh air as fast as possible, and keep anyone else as far away as possible. Under no circumstances should you breathe ANY of the fumes if it can be avoided. In retrospect I should have gone outside instead of typing for 20 minutes in the same room with the evil haze. AVOID THIS STUFF AT ALL COSTS. There is nothing but a respirator, or better bottled air to cope with these fumes, they are more dangerous than I thought possible. BIll, I urge you to be extremely cautious if you insist on trying to induce this failure. If you manage a high pressure cell venting, the explosion is almost certain, as the cell vent exists to stop a runaway reaction. But the greatest danger is the chemical nastiness you can breathe. That needs to be emphasized in the MSDS sheets. And made common knowledge here. More than typical common sense suggests, take extra precautions to avoid any exposure to the fumes of burning batteries. 

Im feeling wiped out again, a lot of typing. Going to lay down for a while. Thanks again for everyone's support.

Click to expand...





Lunarmodule said:



Phone rings. Again. The toxicologist from Queen's Hospital asking questions. They want me to go back in. At least for more blood. I hate that part the most. I just now read StoneDog's post and feel terrible. Its not fun, but what I've got is minor and nothing compared to what could have happened if I fell asleep reading with that light on. Jon, I dont believe you did anything negligent and there is no WAY I could have forseen this, much less you, so dont worry. Be grateful as I am that there is only minor damage to me and surroundings. The scary part is the chemical toxicity of what I interpreted to be a very slight exposure.

Click to expand...



Please do not underestimate the danger of the byproducts of an exploded/vented Lithium 123 Primary, and see the doctor


There was also the SureFire Nitrilon G2 fire here at the Nuclear Plant, where they were banned, found it:


rube said:



I work at a nuclear power plant. A fire occured at another plant in my company. I'd appreciate your expert comments on the following taken from a company communication relative to the fire. I believe the issued lights were Surefire G2s

"a fire occurred in a small equipment locker in a security. The equipment locker contained small firearms and ammunition. The fire was extinguished and no injuries occurred.

Investigation results pointed to overheated lithium flashlight batteries as the source of the fire. (The type of lithium batteries involved in this incident were 3 Volt size 123.) These type of lithium batteries have a vent safety feature design. When these type of lithium batteries are used in a sealed flashlight, the safety feature of this vent is partially defeated by not allowing a vent path. The investigation team noted that this type of lithium battery failure appear to be isolated to flashlight usage.
Lithium batteries are also used in cameras, cell phones, laptop computers and etc. These product designs incorporate unobstructed vent paths.

Corrective Actions Taken
The following actions are being taken:
• Flashlights using lithium 3 Volt 123 batteries have been collected from Security, Operations and Chemistry personnel.
• Personnel were directed to turn in company supplied flashlights that use lithium 3 Volt batteries to their supervisors.
• Personnel are being prohibited from bringing their personally owned flashlights that use lithium batteries to their work site."

Click to expand...

http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=71161


It takes quite a bit of digging to find other reports, but here is another example:

The Flight Attendant had purchased the flashlight from a
store in Beijing. While the flashlight was turned on, the
passenger accidentally dropped the flashlight. A few
minutes later, while the flashlight was stored in a seat
pocket, the flashlight began emitting smoke and noxious
fumes. The flashlight became hot enough that it could
only be handled with oven mitts.

The airline reports that this is the second time a LED
flashlight, purchased in Beijing, has failed in this
manner. The first time it occurred, the flashlight was
being used at the home of an employee.
HAZARD
Consequently, as a safety precaution, we recommend
that flashlights with LED lights and 3 volt lithium
batteries not be transported in aircraft carry-on or
checked baggage.

http://www.haffa.com.hk/files/DG LED Flashlight Warning.pdf

(1) CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION (CPSC) AND DORCY INTERNATIONAL, INC. ANNOUNCE RECALL OF LITHIUM BATTERIES; 

Name of product: Fuji Power and A&T Fuji Power CR123A 3-volt lithium batteries originally provided with the Dorcy Spyder Tactical Xenon Light (Product 41-4200), also sold in packages of two flashlights under the name Dorcy Xenon Tactical Light.
http://www.interfire.org/features/recallview.asp?date=02092004


CPSC, Galls Announce Recall of Batteries Sold with Galls® H.A.L.O. Tactical Flashlights 
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announces the following recall in voluntary cooperation with the firm below. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. 

Name of product: Fuji Power and A&T Fuji Power CR123A 3-volt lithium batteries originally provided with Galls® H.A.L.O. Tactical Flashlight.

Units: Approximately 10,084

Distributor: Galls Inc., of Lexington, Kentucky

Hazard: The batteries originally provided with the flashlight may overheat or explode presenting a potential for fire or personal injury. 

Incidents/Injuries: Five reports of batteries overheating or exploding have been received, causing minor injuries such as burns and minor property damage from fire.
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml03/03195.html


February 2004
Browning brand CR123A Lithium (3-Volt) Batteries have safety recall.

The batteries were sold in two-packs and packed with the Black ICE 6V Xenon 6 LED Flashlights. Batteries are labeled “Mad in China.” Batteries can short out, resulting in a rupture of the flashlight canister and injury to the user.


Did you realize that in 2004, 63% of Lithium battery recalls were due to cells manufactured in China, and they only produced 34.5% of the batteries? That means Chinese batteries are twice as likely to be the subject of a recall:
http://www.batteriesdigest.com/id490.htm


The end of this page from the Pelican website:
"An additional safety related attribute of Pelican flashlights is the built in patented hydrogen purge valve that allows explosive gases to harmlessly leave the battery compartments. In addition to this patented safety feature, pellets have been encapsulated into every Pelican flashlight. These tiny catalyst pellets combine outgasing hydrogen discharging from batteries with ambient air trapped inside all flashlights, changing the mixture to harmless water droplets. This serves as an additional fail-safe not found in other lights. Battery powered flashlights are potentially dangerous due to the hydrogen gas given off by over heated battery cells exploding as the unit is turned on. 

This has resulted in occasions where the flashlight can explode, causing bodily harm. To combat this potentially dangerous situation, Pelican flashlights now incorporate a special one-way valve that allows small amounts of hydrogen gas to harmlessly escape, yet prevents the ingress of ambient explosive gases.

All federal and nationally accredited approval agencies now recognize this potential hazard and have set specific test procedures to ensure that these flashlights are not susceptible to self igniting explosions. Many popular competitive brands have still not incorporated these safety features into their products."
http://www.pelican-cases-flashlights.com/flashlights-chart-selector.htm


Also of note is this following item  cpf'er ckthorp  got off the Energizer site:
"Mechanical Containment: Containment of this battery in a manner that obstructs or defeats the safety vent or electrical disconnect mechanisms designed into this battery can result in fire and/or explosion and cause personal injury and device damage. This battery is not designed to be potted, enclosed in hermetic overpackaging, or sealed by any means that prevents
free operation of the designed safety mechanisms."
http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/lithiummangdioxide_psds.pdf




martytoo said:



Here you go. Notice how the bottom of the left cell looks indented in the pictures. Also the right cell is bulging due to the force of the explosion. I am happy that these are not as intense as what happened to Ron.














Click to expand...





rkboyer911 said:



Had my SF M6 in the truck (December in Missouri....COLD!!)
w/ SF batteries in it..got my light out to use it and it wouldnt turn on. opened it to put in new batteries and they had blown up in the melting my carrier  ......sent the light back to SF..thay have had it since Jan 27 and they still have not fixed it....so much for the 2 week turn around!!!!
They told me they have never had this happen I have talked to several ppl and this is happening ALOT!
Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=108000


Panasonic offers some basic Lithium battery safety tips here:
http://www.panasonic.com/industrial...df/Panasonic_Lithium_SafetyPrecautions_UL.pdf

Sanyo offers additional tips here:
http://www.sanyo.com/batteries/pdfs/lithium_E.pdf

Many of the older 123 cell Lithium Primary threads, where folks had difficulties with their Lithiums, my links are now broken. I hope you get the basic idea here...


.*


----------



## BentHeadTX (Jun 24, 2006)

Well put Newbie,
I don't use primary lithium powered lights that use the 3V chemistry for the hazardous nature of those cells. I do use the RCR123 battery in my Fire~Fly III but only the protected cells and it uses just one cell. Most of the explosions of lithium cells (or lithium-ion) are when multiple cells are used so I refuse to use those types of lights. 
The only person that uses my FF3 is myself, nobody else is allowed to borrow my light mainly because they would put it on max, smoke the LED and possibly start a thermal runaway. I am very aware what I am playing with and once the safe nano-technology A123 Systems RCR123s come out, they will be replaced. 
Since technology has advanced enough and Luxeon bins have gone high enough... I can get a single NiMH AA screamer light and have done so (MillerMods 1.7 watt L1P with UWAJ LuxIII) My FF3 is used for short periods of time as a keychain light is normally used. My EDC Peak Mediterranean with 2AA body runs NiMH and is used for long periods of time. I had an Inova X5 that used two CR123A batteries but it was replaced by a Peak Pacific AA flashlight. My family members use the Peak instead of the X5 now and it makes me feel better. 
My next light will be a 400 lumen screamer... running 8 NiMH AA cells... don't want to mess with multiples of lithiums to power it although it would be a smaller and lighter light. It is a flashlight after all, not a machine that is life and death if it is a little larger or heavier.


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 24, 2006)

Out of curiousity, have any of the reported events occured when the lithium primary was a single cell and not in series with additional cell(s)? Is the presence of an additional energy source typical of these events?

If the odds are as close as 1:1600 would that indicate that say a department that has gone through 5k of lithium primaries might be expected to have seen an event? If the odds are this low and there is no identifiable cause or set of precursors to an event then I feel the risk _is_ too great. 

I suspect that the odds are not in fact this low and if I am not mistaken, probabilities are based on an element of randomness that may or not be at play in these events?!?! Knowing a cell is dangerous does not in itself reduce the danger. Proper caution and care need to be defined to have substance. I believe some of these events occured in circumstances well within those that would be exercised by a knowledgable and prudent person and yet the events did in fact take place. Matching and testing cells prior to stringing them makes sense to me and I know that the majority of users do no such thing; they rely on the integrity of the product they have purchased.

It seems that there is a real and present danger but I for one would like a better understanding of just what the danger is, if at all possible!!!


----------



## jayb79 (Jun 24, 2006)

Has ther been any reports of single 123 cell lights venting w/flame? I have only head of multi cell lights having this problem.


----------



## IsaacHayes (Jun 24, 2006)

I thought recently another CPF'er had one go up that was a single cell light. I can't remeber who but it was recent.


----------



## NewBie (Jun 24, 2006)

McGizmo said:


> Out of curiousity, have any of the reported events occured when the lithium primary was a single cell and not in series with additional cell(s)? Is the presence of an additional energy source typical of these events?
> 
> If the odds are as close as 1:1600 would that indicate that say a department that has gone through 5k of lithium primaries might be expected to have seen an event? If the odds are this low and there is no identifiable cause or set of precursors to an event then I feel the risk _is_ too great.
> 
> ...




Please read my comments again, and notice I said *users* for the odds, not cells, see the post above...
(fixed at Lunal Tic's request)


----------



## 4sevens (Jun 25, 2006)

Unbelieveable! I just discovered this thread!


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Jun 25, 2006)

Good lord Newbie is it really necessary to re-post your entire treatise twice in the same thread. Once is a service for which we thank you, twice is meaningless flag waving and does a disservice to your intended audience.

As for Elektrolumens comments, I agree with the above statement "Wayne wants to sell lights". Nothing wrong with that but the reasons he states about being safety related might be his interpretation of a rule that states "no lithium batteries". It could just have easily been a rule made for other reasons monetary being one, standardization being another.

These are potentially dangerous items, that has been shown. The choices to use them and the manner of use is still a function of the individual. Additional information that can be used to make these decisions with better safety in mind is a worthy goal and I thank those that have made all these contributions.

-LT

edit: Thanks for the edit Newbie.


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 25, 2006)

Newbie,

Thanks for bringing all this information to bear here. I didn't want to side track this thread with an aside about the _odds_ and don't want to belabor the point even more but I don't think it is a service to the members to figure the odds and especially if you are going about it in what I consider to be a suspect manner. If an event is a statistical possibility, regardless of use within accepted practice, then it should be based on number of uses and not number of users. If all users consume these primary batteries in the same amount then the relationship would be transferable in proportion. 

The figuring of the odds is moot as any event that brings about bodily harm should be avoided, if at all possible. Until or unless we know how these events came about, especially if there was no mistake or improper handling of the batteries, knowledge of the danger does not necessarily preclude the danger itself. Aside from avoidance entirely, what is the reasonable and suggested method of handling these lights?!?! Should one assume that they are a time bomb and at any notice of oddity the light should be tossed away and considered a grenade about to go off? :thinking: 

If we are to benefit and be more aware of the dangers and do's and don'ts then we need to know what are the potential precursors of an event and how to avoid them if possible. 

Is a small percentage of these cells inherently unstable and likely to runaway in discharge regardless of handling and use or are there conditions within our control that will bring about an event??

I have serious respect for both the value and danger in the lithium primary cells. Unfortunately I don't have a good grasp on the danger inherent VS danger due to improper use and application. If an event is nothing more than pure random chance then I would be interested in the _odds_ but I suspect that the danger can be better defined than mere random happen stance and I take comments like proper respect and safety precautions to imply that there are precautions and avoidances which significantly either remove the risk or reduce it to acceptable levels. If not, is this just a game of Russian Roulette with the outside chance that one takes a bullet?

We need hard facts, good science and objective reason to prevail; none of which I can offer so I will step aside and leave it to others who hopefully can aid us in our understanding here.


----------



## NewBie (Jun 25, 2006)

I don't know that many new users around here have seen all the failures of 123 cells that some of the old timers have seen, so I've gathered a little more information and added it to my post above.

Please respect 123 Primary Lithium cells, they have earned our respect.


----------



## Flashdark (Jun 25, 2006)

I think McGizmo said it best.

Being born is a death sentence. I guess we could stumble and fall on a popsicle stick and drive it through our heart like a vampire stake, but I haven't stopped eating popsicles. On to more important things. PK - where in hell is our U3??!!


----------



## ouchmyfinger (Jun 25, 2006)

I never thought that knives could end up being safer to collect than flashlights.

I am very interested in hearing more about any known single cell based incidents that involve flashlights, as most of my lithium based lights take a single cr123a/rcr123.

It makes me sad, but until there is more meaningful data I am going to have to put one of my favorite lights on the shelf - my 5W HD45, whch happens to be my only multiple lithium celled light, and is also the light (in my collection) with the most power flowing through it. I hope to soon once again feel comfortable using it, but until some more conclusive data comes to light, its not worth the risk to me. 

Can anyone comment on how safe one can/should feel using multi celled cr123a based light -with- ZTS tested, matched cells? The ZTS only provides 20% increments - allowing for some error, that means you could end up with cells that do not contain the same amount energy.

Are the problems with mismatched cells caused at the end of the batteries life, when one's voltage drops before the others? Could circuits be designed to detect this, and refuse to work? (I claim very little knowledge here, just thinking)

It is unfortunate that this thread seems to have people using statistics as rhetoric to prove their points. The CPF population is not a representative sample of the overall population of users of lithium celled based devices. It may be representative of users of lithium based LED flashlights, but it probably isn't.


----------



## Hans (Jun 25, 2006)

IsaacHayes said:


> I thought recently another CPF'er had one go up that was a single cell light. I can't remeber who but it was recent.



If anyone can remember this, I would be very interested in a link or a detailed description of what happened. 

Hans


----------



## Topper (Jun 25, 2006)

Well I have several lights that use 2 or more cr123's. Now the PM6 I blew up was intentional so it really should not count. Now I intend to do some things I did not do in the past.
1 I will try to match cells (best I can) with a ZTS MBT mini
2 I will try to not allow a light to run very long that is not held.
I think holding the light helps dissipate heat.
3 I will take time to recheck cells already matched and used even
if it has just been sitting around for a few days.
I will not stop using my lights but I will be more careful.
I am unaware of a single cell venting all the ones I recall involved 2 or 3 cells.
Not to say it did not happen I just am not aware of it.
Topper


----------



## download (Jun 25, 2006)

Even a well packed Li-ion with protected circuit could go wrong.  See below:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32550


----------



## NewBie (Jun 25, 2006)

Hans said:


> If anyone can remember this, I would be very interested in a link or a detailed description of what happened.
> 
> Hans




This wasn't a 123 that blew, nor a flashlight, but it is a Lithium AA:



hookoo said:


> I had purchased a Turbo Charge cell phone charger about a week ago. http://www.turbocellcharge.com/
> Had no problems using with Nimh and Alkalines in this charger. It does get warm, but heard this was pretty normal. According to the products manual, lithiums are okay in this thing so I decided to give it a try. I put in a battery and connected to my phone. The battery capsule felt instantly very hot. Much more then in just normal operation. So, in under 20 seconds I quickly unscrewed the battery holder trying to avoid something much worse, and dumped out the battery on the table. It smelled of smoke and seemed to get even more unstable even out of the capsule. About 10 seconds later. A huge flame shoots out, and like a rocket it shot to the ceiling and bounced and started two small fires. one portion of the ( stuff inside ) landed on an cotton t-shirt by the laundry, that caught on fire. and the other on my wifes skirt. The battery itself melted my carpet. And a huge black stain remains. If it wasn't for the fire extinguisher, I don't think I would have a house. It was very hot and took the entire fire extinguisher to put out the fires.
> 
> What the heck happened?



You can follow it here:
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=121303&page=1&pp=40


----------



## BentHeadTX (Jun 25, 2006)

Thanks for posting the shot of the BS 1.5V AA cell... That is the first time I heard the lower voltage chemistry going up. I use the Energizer version for my red LED bicycle flashers but those stay outside so no worries. 

I've replaced the family light which was an Inova X5 that uses two CR123A batteries with a Peak Pacific with AA body. Maybe I should use the 2xAAA body and keep it loaded with alkalines so there is no way they can screw them up. I've found remotes with a NiMH and alkaline in them which shows me that teenagers never listen and are immortal. 

The lights my family uses are Peak AAA/AA lights and NiMH powered 2AA lights. Then the typical LED flashers on their bikes that I load with alkalines since they might keep them on until the battery dies. They also like camping out in tents and leaving the batteries on until they die so alkalines are a good thing. The only chemistry my family uses on a day to day basis is NiMH and a few alkalines... until I purchase my wife a notebook in a few months.


----------



## cy (Jun 25, 2006)

wow! what a lot of valuable info...

JS's decision to use NMH for M6R VS li-ions is begining to more and more like the safer choice.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Jun 25, 2006)

Now that A123 Systems has released their nano-technology M1 cells, lithium-ion explosions might become a thing of the past. Although the first cells are basically C sized, my hope is RCR123 sized cells will come soon. Their 3.3V rating might mess a few things up but they can go down to 2.0V so I am keeping an eye on them. 

Maybe all us CPF'ers should petition A123 Systems to start production of nano-tech 3.35V RCR123 batteries? Heck, Surefire should run, not walk and get with A123 for a rechargable M6 that does not have an explosion hazard.


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 25, 2006)

As I recall from chemistry class way too many years ago, a chemical reaction may well release energy but it initiatlly requires an activation energy to start. Is a single lithium primary cell capable of self initiating an event? It has been my impression that an event is much more likely if external energy is available, I.E. an additional cell or better yet, additional cells. In the case of a single cell event just brought to this thread (thanks Newbie), it would seem that external energy was present in the form the cell phone battery? Could this battery have initiated the event? If I follow the system, the lithium cell is to power the charger which charges the resident battery on the phone. Is it possible that energy was provided to the lithium cell instead of the other way around? 

I am not saavy enough to know if there is a difference in the nature of a circuit involving a converter in series with two primary cells as compared to a simpler circuit (incan) where the two cells are in series with a lamp which is essentially a simple resistor, yes? If you have two cells and one is not up to the task and ripe for reverse charging, will a converter allow this reverse charging as easily as an incan will? As a layman, it seems to me that an incan relies more heavily on the proper function and internal resistance of the batteries than does a regulated circuit system. 

I do understand that a constant current converter can demand increasing current from the cells as the voltage drops and one might even make the case that the current level set to the LED should be considered in terms of its demand on the cells when they deplete and their voltage drops. Now if the converter is a buck driver, once Vin drops below Vf, the converter just goes into idle and lets the batteries do what they can but does not push them. Consider a 2xCR123 light boosting to drive a 5W LED VS a 2xCR123 light using a buck converter to drive a Luxeon III. Is one system more demanding of the batteries than the other as the cells approach depletion? Is one system more likely to trigger an event if there is a suspect cell than the other. Are either of these circuits tasking the cells in the same fashion as a hot wire? For that matter, with all of these events, how many have involved a LED or converter based flashlight? 

We have the K2's now and some of these can require 7 watts of power to be driven at 1.5 amps. Now I personally feel that 7 watts is too much to ask from 2xCR123 and especially as most of that power is just plain heat that needs to be removed from the light. 

Is it safe to suggest that an event is a result of three posible causes:

1) external energy is provided to initiate the event
2) external demand of energy initiates the event
3) internal energy initiates the event

Now it seems to me that #3 is most unlikely unless there is some posible flaw in manufacturing that renders certain cells intrinsically unsafe.

#1 is possible in cases of charging, additional cells in the circuit or I assume elevated temperatures where heat alone provides the activation energy (possibly the form of activation energy in all cases?)

#2 is a condition that can be controlled in the design of the light itself and relates to thermal management as well as designed power demand on the battery.

The real and present danger in lithium primary cells needs to be illustrated with a fine brush and accurate renderings. We do ourselves and the industry a disservice if we use a broad brush with no attention to detail and specifics.

It would be most helpful if all reported events could be further detailed n terms of type of light source, cells used, possibility of external physical damage to cells, possibility of mismatched or unknown discharge state, etc.

In moving forward and provided the rug isn't pulled out from underneath us by legislation, I am confident that designs can be improved which not only safeguard against an event but also have features inherent to control or channel an event to some extent or other. The Pelican vent and hydrogen pellet has been brought up by Newbie. I thought the pellet was specific to alkalines but would it also serve a function with lithium chemistry?

Design improvments will only be possible if the nature of these events and more important, what may trigger them, is better undertood as well as addresed by the designers and manufacturers. In the case of regulated lights, there are means of thermal monitoring which I suspect is key to safe operation. There is also the fact that regulation can be used to keep drive levels and current demands down and conservative to start with. It seems to me that one obvious response to a posible danger is not to push the situation to begin with. 

Most of my comments and reasoning (if it could be termed such) is based on the asumption that these primary cells are intrinsically stable within reason and it is due to external forces and energies that events can and may occur. If there are a small number of cells that are manufactured and provided in an intrinsically unstable form then our designs and cautions are posibly for naught? If this is the case then the onus is on the manufacturers for better QC and if there is user available testing (ZTS) or other types of physical inspection then let us know what thismight be!! It is unreasonable to expect a casual or typical user to be held responsible for anything but obvious descrimination when it comes to using these cells. IE. if the thing is dented or oozing goo, don't use it.

We need facts, particulars and some folks who can take these clues and make sound judgments base on them.


----------



## x-ray (Jun 25, 2006)

Have any of the recorded incidents involved LED flashlights? All the threads I remember seem to mention incandescent lights.

Could these type of failures be due to the higher current of hotwire lights ?


----------



## NewBie (Jun 25, 2006)

McGizmo said:


> As I recall from chemistry class way too many years ago, a chemical reaction may well release energy but it initiatlly requires an activation energy to start. Is a single lithium primary cell capable of self initiating an event?



Of course it is able to start an event.

When the cell is made, there is tremendous power stored within the cell, just waiting for some form of release. A Lithium Primary is the closest battery to a stick of dynamite that I know of.

Both have the potential energy stored right in them.

Things that can make each go boom are very similar too.


If you can take a moment, check out this chart (too big for cpf):
http://www.molalla.net/~leeper/gavani~1.jpg

Notice how Lithium and Carbon/Graphite are on opposite sides of the chart...tremendous potential energy, and even prone to extreme corrosion in the environment...if you wanted something to corrode the most, those would be your choices, especially around seawater.


I'm also curious to know why batteries like the SureFire 123 Lithium Primary cell have a tendency to leak. Remember, the cell is very well sealed. You can store them in a nice moderately cool area, subject them to nothing, and they just start leaking. This has been well documented here on CPF many times. Could it be that something happened inside the cell, which caused the vent to pop?


A number of these failures we have seen have occurred while the flashlight is still operating. Often the only indication is a split second drop in light output, a vibrating feeling in the flashlight, a noise, etc. Trigger? That could be as simple as current flowing in a completed circuit, causing the chemistry to do it's normal thing, and deliver power. Or it could be as simple as cell self heating, or even that combined with the additional heat produced by the flashlight itself.


The hard part is to get things worked out well enough in the cell, that these typically catastrophic events which can be harmful to humans, to not occur. Cell makers go to great lengths to prevent this, as well as they know how.


Another very well documented problem is SureFire 123 Lithium Cells also have a strong tendency to have various states of charge. Some of them will have nearly no charge left in them, and others will only operate for a few minutes, before the light goes out. So the batteries have a tendency to self mis-match on their own. Plop these in a thousand lights, with another cell that hasn't degraded on it's own, turn them on and let them rip, it is definitely a betting man's game as to whether you get a boom.


Even if a cell was tested at the factory by a ZTS tester (or something that checks the cells in one way or another), it still does not prevent the cell from depleting itself later on, over time, but it might lower the risk.


Sanyo even mentions a strong physical force on the cell, nor handle roughly, both can cause issues- Doing so may cause heat generation, leaking, or bursting.


They go on to mention, do not leave batteries in the sun, and not to leave in high temperature areas. Doing so may cause heat generation, leakage, or bursting.


The cells were orignially designed for other applications besides flashlights. Sanyo warns not to short circuit. Have you ever measured the resistance of a flashlight bulb when it is turned on? It is essentially a direct short circuit. Their warning says it causes heat generation or bursting.


Sanyo warns against heating the cell, doing so may cause heating in the cell, leakage, or bursting.


Sanyo warns if there is any strange smells or leakage, keep away from fire to prevent ignition. You know how Surefire 123 Lithium cells are well known for leakage, what happens if it starts to leak in a light that is sitting (seals now compromised)? Could this leakage material cause a conductive path that causes further issues for the cell?


Sanyo warns not to force discharge the cell. Force discharging can cause the cell to drop to 0 volts (or less, reversed voltage), which causes gas generation. Well, if one cell is weak, and the other is strong, you essentially will force discharge the cell below zero volts. They warn that this can cause fire, leakage, heat generation, or bursting.


*Mind you, that operating temperature is the temperature of the device (in this case the battery), where if it was the surrounding temperature, they would use the term, maximum operating ambient temperature, or something to that effect...*

If one looks carefully at the Sanyo guide I linked in my previous post, one will find that the maximum operating temperature for a crimped Lithium Primary cell is 60C (140F), and they make a special cell that is laser sealed, which can operate up to 85C (185F).


It would be good to note the maximum continous discharge rating of the cells, while we are at it, as in a flashlight, it is a continous discharge. For the Sanyo CR123A cell, it is 1500mA. You are allowed to pulse discharge it at higher rates, but only for a short period.


Energizer also rates their cells at a *maximum* continous discharge rate of 1500mA, and a *maximum* operating temperature of 60C.
http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/123.pdf


Duracell ratest their cells for a maximum operational temperature of *75C*, and specifies no maximum current on the datasheet I am looking at:
http://www.duracell.com/Procell/pdf/Li123_US_OS.pdf


There are many scenarios which are very real, that cause issues. The hard part, is to find the one that is the one that most commonly causes explosions, fires, venting with flame, spews hot gasses (including the very nasty HydroFluoric Acid), etc...

I know a number of folks are trying to figure this out, at this very moment...


Remember, the battery industry often only fixes things under pressure from government regulations. A great example is the previous generation of, guess what, Lithium batteries! They even had problems with them when they were treated properly, even by trained people, such as firefighters, who had a number of defibrilators **violently** explode. In several cases, it was shown nothing was wrong, or done wrong, the cells just physically blew up. It took quite a number of events before the government forced legistation upon them, since the battery companies had their own lobbyists working to prevent the legistation. What we have now, are cells that have been improved since that time, and meet additional requirements.

One instantance of units/situations I'm talking about were the LIFEPAK® 500 AED (Automated External Defibrillator). In one of the instances, they were doing their routine check on it (imagine that, routine checks even). He informed the Assistant Fire Chief, it was moved, and the Assistant Fire Chief and one of the Fire Captains put a new cell in it. It then exploded after they got it back together, and turned the unit on. The force was so strong, it blew one of them right out of the room, thru the door, and slammed the other against a wall. The after action report showed that injuries sustained included a sprained wrist, burns to flesh, injured back, and upper respiratory inflammation. The chemistry that was involved at the time was an early lithium sulfur dioxide composition. Shortly thereafter, if I recall correctly, replacement cells that were SLA (Sealed Lead Acid), were in popular demand. Safer LIS02 cells now exist, and there is an option also for LiMnO2- for the very same unit.

See picture below:





Find the CDC report for the event, under their NIOSH section of their site:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/reports/face9939.html


Are the current forced government regulations enough?


----------



## Empath (Jun 25, 2006)

Something to watch for is endorsement from the battery industry for using the lithium cells for general purposes beyond it's "special purpose" intent.

When alkaline batteries were introduced, it's intended purpose was the demands of the [then new] solid state electronics becoming popular. Carbon zinc cells, in the sizes reasonable for use in the small electronic packages, didn't have the oomph or longevity for reasonable application. One of the very first ones to suggest alkalines for flashlights was Energizer, with their introduction of a halogen flashlight and recommendation of alkalines for powering it. It's pretty obvious that the industry continued to push the alkaline cells as the chemistry of choice for general use. Today, alkaline use far surpasses the use of carbon zinc.

One would think, given that same frame of reference, after several years of lights being produced that make use of lithium chemistry, the battery industry either hides their endorsement, or simply refuses to endorse it's use. Lithium cells are sold for specific purposes, and generally labeled for photo use. We've made use of some special properties of the cells to achieve particular purposes with lights. For tactical use, particularly with incandescent, we've utilized the increased power density, the flat discharge curve, run time, temperature tolerance and such. Most of those "advantages" are lost on the LED, and can be achieved through regulation circuitry.

Other than button and coin cells, the battery industry seems to ignore producing any lithium flashlights bearing their names, such as Rayovac, Energizer, and Duracell. They also seem to refrain from listing flashlights or general purpose on their product documentation and suggested uses on the product packaging. Admittedly, Surefire and Streamlight do sell lithium batteries labeled for such purposes; but then they aren't battery manufacturers. They're flashlight manufacturers, and their battery products are but custom labeled and produced by another industry.

Of course my observation of a lack of endorsement from the industry, is simply that. It's just an observation. Maybe the endorsement is there, but it sure seems well hidden. The lack of endorsement appears as consistent and deliberate now as it did before the push toward general use brought it out of the tactical use niche.


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 25, 2006)

Newbie,
Poor choice of words on my part. I understand that the cell has energy that can be used to initiate an event but is there something in its composition which would allow it to *SELF* initate the event? In the absence of external simulation or energy provided; electrical or thermal, can or will a cell go off on its own?

Are there any examples of a flashlight with a regulation circuit having an event? Any LED lights or SF A2 for instance? To my over simplified view of this, we know *not* to short a single cell let alone more than one in series but isn't an unregulated incan nothing more than a somewhat restricted (resistance) short?!?!? Newbie? Anyone?

With the examples and reported events, how many can be attributed to a single CR123 light or multiple CR123 light using a regulated circuit? Have any cameras using CR123 cells had events? The cell was originally developed for a camera I believe? It is quite possible that the casual camera user might well have mixed cells of different states of discharge. Is an event significantly more likely in an application devoid of any circuit regulation and coupled with heavy current demand or flow?

Should these cells be avoided due to intrinsic instability or is it a case of certain applications where these cells are subjected to conditions which could ripen into an event?


----------



## cy (Jun 25, 2006)

a dis-proportional of instances of primary lithiums/li-ion overheating/catching on fire originates from Chinese mfg's. 

in all fairness, a lot of this is pure numbers. mfg's in china enjoys one of the lowest skilled labor costs in the world. so it's natural that chinese mfg would capture a lion's share of the market. 

have wondered how much cost saving plays into these increasing number of failures? ignorance on the part of chinese mfg may play into this. witness all the protected/bare consumer li-ion cells made with flat tops. when devices they are meant to replace have raised nipples. Magnets used to bridge causing possible dead-short dangers are too common. 

defective products once produced somehow find their way to our markets anyways. Once a product is in the pipeline, it's going to get sold. defective or not. 

Part of this is lack of liability on part of chinese mfg. costs to bring a lawsuit against a chinese mfg is all but cost prohibitive. chinese sellers can sell with little to no liability exposure. VS if a US mfg finds a problem, you can bet they will terminate liabilities ASAP. for they know a lawsuit is coming down the pike. 

a glaring example is the li-ion charger that caught on fire very early in cpf li-ion life cycle. that very same charger is still being sold on ebay. 

IMHO Newbie has done a great service by putting together a number of lithium battery failures. establishing a pattern of how failures occur.


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 25, 2006)

I recall the previous lithium battery problems as ACR used them in their emergency strobes. We had batteries that were recalled and I think there was a lag time until a new lithium package was made available. For me, the real advantage to these lithium primaries is not so much their energy density but their long shelf life (nominal self discharge) and propensity to not leak and destroy a host while stored for future use. As the efficacy in LED's improves, to retain similar flux X runtime, we can either go to smaller cells of equal energy density or stick with the same size but in potentially safer, less energy dense cells. Ironically, I personally have steered clear of Li-Ion because from what I could gather, it was this chemistry and lack of regulation in offshore manufacture which was reported to me to be the most likely source of catestrophic and unwanted events! I had also heard that not all lithium primaries are created equal and Newbie's commenton batteries of Chinese origin being more prone to such trouble seems to give this substance. :shrug:

To try one last time to get clarification on what I think is a key point, is the danger inherent in the cell itself or its application? I suspect the latter and if that is the case then let's better understand the particulars of application and try to identify comonalities as well as any exclusions in at least the reported cases!?!


----------



## SilverFox (Jun 25, 2006)

Hello Don,

Perhaps the problem comes from the fact that sometimes flashlights are used continuously. This would allow the cell to heat up. The specifications for camera use consider a 3 second "on" and 7 second "off" cycle that allow for some cooling of the cell between pulses. Maybe we should be using our flashlights as Flash lights.

Tom


----------



## NewBie (Jun 25, 2006)

McGizmo-see the additions in my ?second? post, I've added even more Sanyo stuff, take note of the temperature comments.

There is another point, which I would be remiss, if I didn't mention it. I'll look for the reference later on tonight, which may have been one of Littlefuse's or Raychem's application notes.

In an effort to get more and more out of a cell, there has been a tendency in the battery industry to overcrimp the PTC in the Lithium cell. Why? It raises the temperature at which the PTC begins to rise in resistance, lowers the resistance of the PTC, and also makes a better, lower resistance connection in the cell.

Often this actually ends up damaging the PTC itself, and can even result in a short within the PTC, which causes a failure that is just like having no PTC in the cell.

As such, is a highly discouraged method of getting more performance out of the battery.

See, the PTC, starts to kick off slowly, it's resistance rising with temperature (and temperature caused by current). Often this temperature lies in the neighborhood of 60C, and really starts to kick in by 90C. The rise in resistance limits the current draw out of the battery, which then lowers the battery temperature, thus protecting it.


On recent cells made by Energizer/Surefire which say made in USA (Energizer also makes cells for other companies, which include SureFire, Panasonic, Streamlight, Browning, and others), I've noted what appears to be a routine over crimp of the PTC cell, on Energizer cells as well as the ones they make for SureFire, and the other above mentioned companies. Is it over crimped to the point of destroying the PTC protection mechanism? I have no idea, as I did not test for that. Could it just affect some cells? IMHO, very possible.

I see *zero* denting of the PTC on quite a number of Duracell batteries I have disassembled.

Example of the dent in the PTC, labeled as crimp line:





There are a number of good pictures and examples in one of my threads:
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=115844&page=1&pp=40

Anyhow, there is another possibility for you.


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 25, 2006)

Tom and Newbie,

I am somewhat aware of the thermal escalation in these lights in constant on and especially when left to themselves and when the cells approach end of capacity. I have monitored this in a few runtime tests. Some of these tests involved temperatures I would never see in use. I have no doubt that heat is part of the equation in these events but no proof or understanding either.

No one has offered any answer to LED or regulated incidents or events but now we have an additional example of battery gone bad offered by Newbie in yet another friggin revision of his ever changing post!!! A thread is no friggin record of communication if one goes back and continually changes what might have been part of the _record_!! Newbie, on a good day, I will read a post with comprehension to some extent. If you go back and change its content, don't count on me to visit your _history_ every time I come to a thread! Your practice of editing without identifying the edit and even worse appending much later in the time line is very disruptive and rude!! You don't need to quote yourself verbatum again in a future post but that doesn't mean you need to confine yourself to constant revision of a single post either!!

I don't know what's worse, trying to avoid an event with better knowledge gained through painful and frustrating dialog or just dealing with a damn event if it does arise!! 

OK, I will cool my jets and keep my fingers idle and see if some answers to so far ignored questions show up.


----------



## geepondy (Jun 25, 2006)

I'm thinking maybe I'm getting a little paranoid over the issue. I love my Eveready L90s and L91s and trust Eveready not to make a dangerous product. As for CR123s I think I'll stick with my tried and true Sanyos.


----------



## NewBie (Jun 26, 2006)

McGizmo said:


> Newbie,
> 
> No one has offered any answer to LED or regulated incidents or events but now we have an additional example of battery gone bad offered by Newbie in yet another friggin revision of his ever changing post!!! A thread is no friggin record of communication if one goes back and continually changes what might have been part of the _record_!! Newbie, on a good day, I will read a post with comprehension to some extent. If you go back and change its content, don't count on me to visit your _history_ every time I come to a thread! Your practice of editing without identifying the edit and even worse appending much later in the time line is very disruptive and rude!! You don't need to quote yourself verbatum again in a future post but that doesn't mean you need to confine yourself to constant revision of a single post either!!
> 
> I don't know what's worse, trying to avoid an event with better knowledge gained through painful and frustrating dialog or just dealing with a damn event if it does arise!!



My *frequent* revisions are due to me adding information to a thread, as when I start to add new info, nobody has posted yet.

I've been banned before for making relevant appicable information, with back to back posts. The specific stated reason was fluffing.

On some of my posts, there are up to 30 revisions, as I add info and also try to make it more clear, since not everyone thinks like me.

I think if I made 30 back to back posts, some of the moderators patience might wax a little thin, and I don't want to be banned again.


As McGizmo noted, most, if not all of the failures have been in incandescents. I've also been wondering a little more... If you carefully look at a typical high power incandescent, the bulb is fairly well connected to the positive terminal. Why does this matter? Lots of reasons, causes the head cell to get hotter, makes that cell more reactive, and it might end up getting depleted sooner. Huh? Yeah, think thermal transfer, the PM6 has outstanding thermal transfer to the first cell, especially the older lights, with the monster wire diameter spring. Much more so than in many other lights. Of course, there is also the additional thermal transfer of the body.

Consider again, the comments I posted above on the maximum cell temperature, especially the maximum operating temperature. With the cell heating up from current inside, surrounded by heat of the head through the body, with the additoinal thermal transfer provided by the heavy gauge PM6 old style spring, plus noting most of these failures seem to happen on high output (read as HOT bulb)...when pushing the cells to their limits, their internal temperatures are likely to be even hotter than their case temperatures.

But, we haven't been able to duplicate failure here.

Maybe, maybe not, but another idea...

Some of these may be cascade mechanisms, where you might need a cell PTC that was too much overcrimpled, as such, it bypassed the normal PTC mechanism that would throttle back the output just a slight amount (due to increasing resistance with temperature) when things heat up. It may not take much resistance in the PTC to have a very large affect on things, especially when you are pushing cells to their limits (or beyond their specs). The old PM6 happens to have decent thermal transfer to the cells, and happens to be a high output light...

The scenario would explain why, on many (not all) of the PM6 failures, they have happened while the light was actually in use.

A cascade failure would make it rather difficult to repeat the failure mechanism, when only considering one thing.

I wonder if someone could get cells without PTCs, so some of the PM6 testing that folks have been doing in that other thread, could then try and see if something happens.

Who knows, just thinking out loud, maybe I'll jiggle some random neuron in someones head, which allows them to connect something else.


----------



## moses (Jun 26, 2006)

I am VERY VERY grateful for this thread - especially the amount of work that must have gone into pulling the various threads and sources together . McGizmo, I'm with you that the probabilities may not be accurate given a non-random sample etc. 

However, the danger is obviously real. Very grateful because I've given these type of lights for my two precious boys (relatively young) and wife to use. For me, the risk is simply not worth it. I myself will continue to use it but with great care. (i.e. not dropping, not running very hot)

I'll be switching them over to AA luxeons which does have less output, bigger size - but is obviously safer.

Anyone know if rechargeable protected Li-Ions are safer?

Again, huge thank you for this thread. 

Blessings,
Mo


----------



## cy (Jun 26, 2006)

has anyone seen or heard of a failure in 1x primary lithium/li-ion in an LED light? 

I have not... repeating what been stated several times. multi lithium cells with incand seems to be a common factor. 

we need to keep things in perceptive. running a single lithium cell, primary or li-ion with luxeon simply doenot fit failure model we've seen so far.


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 26, 2006)

I am aware of events with Li-Ion cells during charging and I am aware of events involving multiple lithium primaries coupled with hot wire light sources. The only event I have ever experienced first hand was alk based and I just found the parts in the aftermath and was not witness to the event itself. None of us want to personally or even worse have anyone near and dear, take unknown risks. If I felt my wife were at undue risk having one of my lights, it would be gone in a heart beat. At present, I think she is at greater potential risk not having access to a light should she need it. I can count on her having the light sit idle until some future time that she needs it. I can't count on her checking up on the internal well being of an alkaline based light or confirming its useability in advance of need. 

Empath has a good point about the absence of battery manufacture approval with the CR123's and flashlights but then they may well consider the marginal gain not worth the legal exposure given an endorsement; especially one that by most people's standard would require qualification, serious qualifications. I recall talking to Mark in regards to the Kenrad HID and his comment that no battery manufacture would private label lithium primaries for his application or express any interest in providing him cells at all. Their concern was for the potential of trouble with mis matched cells strung in series to provide the 12 -14 volts required. Don't forget that to many a flashlight is a flashlight and global perceptions and statements can apply! :green:

There may be a significant commonality with the lights that have been involved in events and it may well be that this commonality is not shared across the entire population of Cr123 based lights.It would be a real shame to kill the whole crop when it only needed some weeding!


----------



## MSI (Jun 26, 2006)

I think the CR123 cells should get a built in protection circuit like some Li-ion cells have. That would prevent it from going into reverse and from being used too hard (and therefore probably prevent overheating). It wouldn't solve all problems, but it would solve some of the most likely causes, e.g. use of mismatched cells.
Adding such a protection shouldn't add much to the production cost of the cells since they are produced in such high volumes.

When it comes to overheating and triggering the PTC in the cells, that is something several ovners of SF M6 have managed to do, lucky for them the PTC didn't fail.


----------



## NewBie (Jun 26, 2006)

cy said:


> has anyone seen or heard of a failure in 1x primary lithium/li-ion in an LED light?
> 
> I have not... repeating what been stated several times. multi lithium cells with incand seems to be a common factor.
> 
> we need to keep things in perceptive. running a single lithium cell, primary or li-ion with luxeon simply doenot fit failure model we've seen so far.




Not on CPF. Refer to the sixth post in this thread, and the airline stewardess, but who knows what junk she purchased.

"The Flight Attendant had purchased the flashlight from a
store in Beijing. While the flashlight was turned on, the
passenger accidentally dropped the flashlight. A few
minutes later, while the flashlight was stored in a seat
pocket, the flashlight began emitting smoke and noxious
fumes. The flashlight became hot enough that it could
only be handled with oven mitts.

The airline reports that this is the second time a LED
flashlight, purchased in Beijing, has failed in this
manner. The first time it occurred, the flashlight was
being used at the home of an employee.
HAZARD
Consequently, as a safety precaution, we recommend
that flashlights with LED lights and 3 volt lithium
batteries not be transported in aircraft carry-on or
checked baggage.

http://www.haffa.com.hk/files/DG%20...t%20Warning.pdf"


----------



## Hans (Jun 26, 2006)

NewBie said:


> Not on CPF. Refer to the sixth post in this thread, and the airline stewardess, but who knows what junk she purchased.



Is there any indication that it was a 1-cell light? The link doesn't work anymore.

Hans


----------



## Longbow (Jun 26, 2006)

_Edit: Content removed. Keep it about the posts and topic, not about those posting. - Empath_


----------



## nocturnal (Jun 26, 2006)

Hans said:


> Is there any indication that it was a 1-cell light? The link doesn't work anymore.



It was an LED light, probably 2x CR 123 (judging from the approximate battery dimensions):

Working link to the file mentioned by NewBie


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 26, 2006)

I am obviously concerned as both a user and provider of lights that use CR123's. My gut tells me that in addition to questionable QC in some cases ( not all manufactures are alike in their production and conformance to standards) that there are clear lines and thresholds, possibly yet to be identified, above which these cells present a real and clear danger and risk and below which they can be presumed to be safe to use and present no real or present risk in all but the most of extenuating circumstances. 

Until such time as one event relating to a regulated light is brought forth, I will consider this distinction to have legitimate significance. If possible caue and effect can be demonstrated in the absence of a reported event, I will obviously take that into consideration.

Until such time as one event is reported specifically citing a single CR123 involved in an event with no external stored energy (charger or cell being charged) I will consider this distinction to have legitimate significance.

To be fair, I *want * to make these distinctions but have no intention of fooling myself with desire or false perceptions.

There is a good comment another thread about the merits of comparing the energy density in these cells to dynamite and such a comparison is good if you want to incite panic and knee jerk avoidance but it may be unfair in realistic terms to images that could be conjured. :shrug: I recall in physics class a film where a guy was standing on top of a big hill explaining that the energy stored in a single match stick, if all released at once, could blow up this big hill he was standing on. The reference was to nuclear energy and the means of releasing this energy is not readily available to most of us nor is it likely that such a release would come about through happenstance or abuse of the match.

I hope more facts and information will come forth in this thread and others so we can make educated decisions and have a better understanding of the potential risks and benefits involved with the CR123 cells in specific and lithium primary cells in general. 

It would be good to know how and if anyone is able to replicate an event on a bench test (hopefully with excessive precautions taken!!!) but since this *is* the internet, care should be taken not to provide a means or recipe to others who might harbor malice of intent!

At this point, I have a greater concern that the baby may go out with the wash than concern for my safety in using the lights I have. I have seen no indication yet that an LED based CR123 is prone or even remotly at risk of an event. I have seen the beginnings and issues brought forth that could spell restrictions and impediments to availablilty and transportability of devices we currently have in use which have *not* misbehaved or caused physical or bodily harm. This is perception and not claimed as fact.

Well while hunt and pecking here I now see that there is an example of a LED light with 2xCR123 cells that had an event. Does this light have regulation circuitry? Is it posible that the design allows for a direct short of the two cells in bypass of the intended circuit? This is really a bummer and if we must meet at the least common denominator, then our shot at excellence and optimal performance and design will be impaired ifnot removed al together! :shrug: 

The recommendation is that any light with LED's and CR123 cell(s) not be allowed as carry on or check in baggage. OK, transport the light sans batterys or spares? This is a nuisance but what if you are demanded to show function of the light? :green:

Is this a case of low end crap setting a standard from which all will be evaluated? If I built a car that had its wheels fall off, would it be recommended that autos not be used? *If *a pair of CR123 cells, regardless of QC and design and manufacture are inherently unsafe then that *is* a different story. :shrug:


----------



## cy (Jun 26, 2006)

that's a police multi led light using 2x CR123. known to be pretty low quality. I've purchased these for $8ea shipped to US w/cells. it's flat not fair to use this instance of failure to say a high quality Surefire or McGizmo light using surefire CR123's. 

doesn't fit the single LED model. so no documented failures for single cell lithium LED flashlights so far. 




nocturnal said:


> It was an LED light, probably 2x CR 123 (judging from the approximate battery dimensions):
> 
> Working link to the file mentioned by NewBie


----------



## NewBie (Jun 27, 2006)

Here is a page from one of the presentations I linked to, for clarification:







Now there is a great little manual for testing Lithium cells, how to treat them, and how to store them, which the US Navy published on 19th of August 2004, which may not be the latest, but contains much useful information, but can be dry in spots. Definitely worth a read!
http://www.molalla.net/~leeper/lithpowr.jpg


Did you know that burning Lithium metal can actually reach temperatures in the range of 3,000 degrees F? 


In the presence of water, it can also liberate hydrogen.


Class A, Class B, and Class C fire extinguishers are not of much use in putting out a Lithium fire?


----------



## frisco (Jun 27, 2006)

Great thread. Much to think about.
This is what I get out of it:

-Potential problem with Lithium batteries and flashlights.

-Potential problem with rechargeable LiIon batteries with flashlights, laptops, cellphones.

-No real scientific answers.(yet)

-Suspected reasons for failure are: unmatched multi cell use, heat, puncture, jolt, protection failure, external pressures, short.

-Use only name brand cells that have been checked/matched for multi cell use.(stay away from the cheapo off brands)

-Don't store lithiums in flashlights for long term.

-Don't run your flashlights down to nothing.... trying to get every last penny out of them!

-Only the educated/informed should use multi cell lithium powered flashlights.

-Never.... Ever let kids play with Lithium loaded flashlights. Never put Lithiums in toys and such !!!!

frisco


----------



## kromeke (Jun 27, 2006)

Do you realize that wood (yes, wood!) has an energy density of 1,600 - 4,709 Wh/kg (depending on type of wood and moisture content)? Wow! Wood=TNT. I would never equate wood with TNT in terms of energy density. Gasoline has an energy density of around 12,200 Wh/kg. Most people have experience with wood and gasoline, this would be a better comparison than TNT. 

High explosives in a flashlight going off would result in fingers blown clear off, possibly hands, shattered aluminum tubes (assuming the flashlight is aluminum) and shrapnel damage. In reality, endcaps get blown off, tempered glass gets shattered and propelled at a fair velocity. An endcap will produce blunt force trauma, but it isn't likely to break the skin. It would probably be akin to getting hit by a riot round ("rubber" bullet). It would hurt, but it generally wouldn't do permanant damage. It is unfortunate that one example of a victim of a venting event got injuries to his face by flying glass. I believe that it would be human nature to look at the business end of a flashlight when it quits working. The aluminum body of a flashlight will not produce shrapnel. Aluminum has been chosen for reloadable model rocket engines for that reason, light weight and the ductility of the material in case of a catastrophic failure. 

I personally am more concerned with resultant fire or chemical exposure from a venting event. TNT evokes explosions and blast damage. 

123 cells contain less than 0.6 grams of lithium. 2 cells will have just over 1 gram of lithium. 

Here is a quote from the Energizer MSDS on fire and explosion hazard data:


"In case of fire where lithium batteries are present, apply a smothering agent such as METL-X, sand, dry ground dolomite, or soda
ash, or flood the area with water. A smothering agent will extinguish burning lithium batteries. Water may not extinguish burning
batteries but will cool the adjacent batteries and control the spread of fire. Burning batteries will burn themselves out. Virtually all
fires involving lithium batteries can be controlled with water. When water is used, however, hydrogen gas may evolve. In a
confined space, hydrogen gas can form an explosive mixture. In this situation, smothering agents are recommended."

I am aware of the hazards of lithium batteries. My company has a device which uses 2 DD size cells, which each contain over 10 grams of lithium. The pack was tested by the Crane division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center. One test that they performed was a heat to rupture test. This involved wrapping heating tape around the pack and heating the pack (2 DD cells) to rupture. One pack ruptured at 210 degrees C and one at 190 Degrees C. It split open the aluminum tube which it was contained in. The aluminum split open at a characteristic (for aluminum) 45 degree angle in relation to the tube axis. There was no shrapnel. It was a violent event and would have produced an nasty injury, but we are talking about a large battery. This was a forced venting event. 

Using a single criteria for comparison (energy density) is unfair. I like to take a more nuanced engineering approach and not resort to hyperbole.


----------



## twl (Jun 27, 2006)

I'd just like to point out that the full-color chart shown above, attempting to compare a lithium battery to dynamite, is a LOG SCALE and not a linear scale, so the comparison of the lithium battery to the dynamite is not near as close as might initially be thought by first glance at that chart.

However, it seems clear that there is a good amount of stored energy there, which would be expected in an energy storage device.

I'd say don't overheat them, don't smash or dent them unneccesarily, and use single cell lights when possible.

Life has risks, and I also ride a motorcycle, despite my friends who feel compelled to recite the obligatory "gory stories" about somebody who got killed on one.


----------



## kromeke (Jun 27, 2006)

Here is a quote from batterystation:

"We interviewed 40 companies before putting our name on a battery. We chose half a dozen that had UL ratings and narrowed it down from there."

I'm not trying to take his quote out of context, and my comment isn't regarding Battery Station batteries.

Batterystation interviewed 40 companies. 6 had UL ratings. Here is my question (general question, not specific to anybody):

Where is the output (product) from the other 34 companies going? Are some of those batteries going into a cheap flashlight? Maybe a cheap flashlight bought in Beijing? Flashlight manufacturers are trying to make a profit. They don't want to have a product which says "batteries not included". They want to maximize profits. They may select the cheapest batteries on earth to put into their cheap flashlight. 

So, one example of a battery venting event on a plane involved a cheap flashlight with batteries of unknown origin. 

How many battery manufacturers are there? How many have performed UN or UL testing on their lithium batteries? 

There are quality goods made in China, and there are really low quality goods made there as well. Pretty much like any other country. What is the low quality to high quality output ratio?


----------



## davidra (Jun 27, 2006)

I noticed today that on Battery Station's website it suggests that their AA lithiums should be returned or "used carefully"....is this based on this thread, or is there something else we should know about?


----------



## Glass (Jun 27, 2006)

Lithium batteries have a lot of stored potential energy... that is why we use them. I understand this and am willing to take the risk (though I believe it is a very small one).

Know that there are risks.
Take steps to minimize the risks to an acceptable level.
Move on with life.

I am not attempting to offend anyone here, but, if it scares you that bad to have a litium powered flashlight in your hand, switch to something a little less terrifying.

You are at greater risk, statistically, of getting killed in a car crash on the way to the store to buy the batteries than from getting hurt *AT ALL* by the batteries themselves.

Again, I do not intend to offend anyone but for the love of God, people...

The sky is not falling.

Patrick


----------



## amanichen (Jun 27, 2006)

Glass said:


> You are at greater risk, statistically, of getting killed in a car crash on the way to the store to buy the batteries than from getting hurt *AT ALL* by the batteries themselves.


The issue here isn't how likely you are to experience a battery failure, it's that most people aren't aware of the consequences. The "far more likely to get in a car accident" argument is stale and tenuous, and isn't relevant in this case. *Lithium battery failures should be compared to other types of battery failures, not car accidents.

*In general, alkaline batteries will take lots of abuse, and leak a little if improperly handled. Most people are smart enough not to try to recharge them. NiMHs are also fairly stable: your wife and kids, who probably don't follow the instructions to the letter, can use them and probably will never experience a failure. Most batteries come with a warning that usually says "may leak or explode if improperly handled." In the case of lithiums, catching on fire, venting toxic gases, and sending shrapnel flying is a reality. Realistically speaking, alkalines and NiMHs don't explode or light on fire.

Lithium batteries aren't timebombs, but most people aren't aware of the potential danger. I think the purpose of some of the comments in this thread, and in similar threads is to* show people that the consequences of slightly mishandling a lithium battery can be much more dangerous than the consequences that come from being a complete idiot with other battery chemistries.

*How likely it is to happen to you depends highly on a number of factors, some of which are not known at the moment.


----------



## Brighteyez (Jun 27, 2006)

I'm confused. Since when did batteries start getting UL approvals or ratings?




kromeke said:


> Here is a quote from batterystation:
> 
> "We interviewed 40 companies before putting our name on a battery. We chose half a dozen that had UL ratings and narrowed it down from there."


----------



## kromeke (Jun 27, 2006)

There are both UN and UL regulations on batteries. The UN is involved because of modern day shipping and air travel. UL is involved because an insurance company does not want to cover liability for a company that sells non UL approved products. 

lithium cells can generally be shipped by air if they are considered exempt. This is in regards to UN approval. To become exempt, the cell must pass a series of tests. This is because lithium batteries are considered dangerous goods. In general, 123 cells are exempt, but I'm not sure if that is for a given design, or it if is made exempt on a case by case basis. I've had to learn a lot about this because my company's product has some lithium cells in it. The DD size cell we use is exempt, but when I combine 2 into a pack, the pack becomes non-exempt, and we must ship it in accordance with Class 9 regulations. We could get the pack exempt, if we submitted it for testing(and it passed), but getting a pack tested for UN approval costs a lot. For us it is a trade off, as our device is a low volume production item. If our pack had 3 DD cells in it, then we could not get an exemption no matter what, as a 3 DD cell pack has more than the allowable amount of metallic lithium to be eligible for exemption.

I'm not sure what UL rating involves, but I believe you can rest assured that if you purchase a lithium battery on a store shelf, it has undergone UL testing. 

I would imagine that you could not get a battery imported to the US without some sort of approval, probably multiple approvals. You certainly cannot ship it by air if it is not UN exempt.

Edit: I don't know when this started, but after the ValuJet crash in 1996, shipping regulations became more strict. If I ship our pack via air frieght, I can get in deep trouble, even if nothing happened. I'm watching the outcome of the UPS onboard fire eagerly. I'm curious to know what caused it. My first reaction was: I wonder if it involved lithium batteries?

Edit 2: Actually 123 cells do not have to undergo UN testing as their lithium content is below the threshold required for testing. Here is a good summary of some of the shipping regulations.


----------



## Sprocketman (Jun 27, 2006)

Anyone thinking about alternatives to lithium cells might be interested in this page on how to use two 1/5A cells to replace one CR123. It's an old page and I can't find the 1/5A cells listed for sale any more.

http://www.helmets.org/randys/arcbatts.htm

I may dump my RCR123's and go back to those old NiCds. My FFII won't be as bright but I EDC it in my front pocket, close to things I really care about.

At this point I'm still looking for an answer to McGizmo's question about single cell lights in normal use. 

Sprocketman

.


----------



## Tesla (Jun 27, 2006)

amanichen said:


> The issue here isn't how likely you are to experience a battery failure, it's that most people aren't aware of the consequences. The "far more likely to get in a car accident" argument is stale and tenuous, and isn't relevant in this case. *Lithium battery failures should be compared to other types of battery failures, not car accidents.
> 
> *In general, alkaline batteries will take lots of abuse, and leak a little if improperly handled. Most people are smart enough not to try to recharge them. NiMHs are also fairly stable: your wife and kids, who probably don't follow the instructions to the letter, can use them and probably will never experience a failure. Most batteries come with a warning that usually says "may leak or explode if improperly handled." In the case of lithiums, catching on fire, venting toxic gases, and sending shrapnel flying is a reality. Realistically speaking, alkalines and NiMHs don't explode or light on fire.
> 
> ...



Back when I was in college and working part-time in a full-service gas station (probably, some here can still recall that era), I was witness to a car battery exploding. At the time, I was unaware of the possibility of it (there were no warnings etc. on car batteries in that era), but learned after the fact that it was not an uncommon event. My point is twofold, I suppose: 

1) Life is inherently dangerous and few are aware of all the potential dangers that exist out there.

2) We still use car batteries in spite of the risk because they provide a utility that most feel they can't forego. From personal experience, I'd be much more concerned that my car battery would explode the next time I got a jump-start than I would about my flashlight exploding.


----------



## Glass (Jun 27, 2006)

amanichen said:


> The issue here isn't how likely you are to experience a battery failure, it's that most people aren't aware of the consequences.



Some of the previous posts seem to indicate that the likelyhood of catastrophic failure is a big deal to some people. People are talking about using AA powered lights because there is this perception that AAs are so much safer than the "dangerous" lithiums.

I am no expert on chemistry or electricty but I do have a residue of common sense. If you stress any device, batteries included, beyond its design limitations, there is a chance that it could fail in a big way. Yes, lithiums can go "boom" far worse than an alkaline AA, but that is why I use them. They have more potential energy.

The reason I made the over used car wreck analogy is that vehicle accidents kill thousands every year but millions choose to take their chances because they have to get from point "A" to point "B". Several people have been hurt by defective or abused Lithium batteries but I choose to take that risk because I see it as an acceptible one.

Also, it has already been pointed out several times that warnings are printed all over the outside of the batteries. I think someone should be smart enough to make themselves aware of the consequences and dangers by reading the warning on the battery itself.

Again, I mean no offense to anyone.

Patrick


----------



## JMJ (Jun 27, 2006)

Excuse my ignorance, but this thread initially freaked me out. I use both a Surefire Z2 and M6 as duty lights. So far I have never had a problem, but I do follow all the precautions on storing, handling, and taking care of my lights.

My question is this: How does one go about finding which batteries would be considered of higher quality and better QC? Am I to assume that from a few posts in this thread that battery station batteries are good? What about surefires? I've only used surefire batteries to date but was just thinking of picking up some battery station batteries until I crossed this thread.

Thanks.


----------



## NewBie (Jun 28, 2006)

kromeke said:


> Most people have experience with wood and gasoline, this would be a better comparison than TNT.
> 
> High explosives in a flashlight going off would result in fingers blown clear off, possibly hands, shattered aluminum tubes (assuming the flashlight is aluminum) and shrapnel damage. In reality, endcaps get blown off, tempered glass gets shattered and propelled at a fair velocity. An endcap will produce blunt force trauma, but it isn't likely to break the skin.
> 
> ...




Actually the comparision to TNT was made by the *United States Naval Surface Warfare Center* and *United States Army Communications & Electronics Command*.

Here, see for yourself:
http://www.molalla.net/~leeper/lithexpl.pdf


It bothers me that manufacturers want to make the public think there is no hazard at all, and all that happens is a little puff, or a little bit of liquid leakage. While they may do that, they are capable of much, much more.

It is kinda like hiding something, imho. The presentation I just linked above as some example photos, and if you will bother going to the first page in this thread, you will see examples of how a flashlight nearly took someone's eye out, darn near punched a hole thru a solid oak door, and plenty of other examples. These are the real life experiences of people using those tiny Primary Lithium 123 cells. The folks around here only compromise a very small cross-section of typical users. Yet we have had plenty of these cells cook-off.

Please go back and look at page 1.

The typical DD Lithium cells you refered to are not made in a LiMnO2 chemistry that I am aware of, and if they were, I doubt they would just split the side calmly. These DD Lithium cells are of a *much* safer chemistry, and even though they are monster sized cells, they typically cannot sustain anywhere near the discharge abilities of a LiMnO2 chemistry. I can't rightly say that I have ever heard of or seen a LiMnO2 DD cell. But they do exist in the safer chemistries, which are uncommon for typical consumer use..

An example of a chemistry that you can get a DD in, is the Lithium / Sulfuryl Chloride Chemistry
http://www.electrochempower.com/Products/Primary/HighRate/CSC/3B36.pdf

Notice how it's rated discharge current is only 1.0A, for this truely monsterous sized lithtium cell, where the Lithium 123 Primary LiMn02 in that little tiny form factor can sustain 1.5A continously.

Completely different balls of wax, and imho, it is not very responsible to compare an unrelated fairly safe chemistry, that is for the most part unavailable to the typical consumer, to these *very* special cells.

Furthermore, a cell of this type is actually specified for operation at 93C (a whopping 199.4 degrees F) to these 123 Primary Lithium cells, most of which are only specified for operation to a mere 60C.

If you take a look at some high end cells, such is found in specialized industries, you find some of these laser sealed hermetic DD sized cells made by companies like SAFT, in the Li-SOCl2 chemistry, where they actually *guarantee* hermeticity to 100C.
http://www.saftbatteries.com/130-Catalogue/PDF/primary_selector_guide.pdf

Tardian makes Li/SOCl2 bobbin wound cells that are actually specified to 150C (302 degrees F) operational temperature ranges. Again, this is another one of those high end lithium cells.

Tardian also makes a lower cost Li/SOCl2 DD cell which is rated for 450mA discharge rates:
http://www.tadiranbat.com/prodpdf/viewpdf.php?datasheet=TLH-5937.pdf

This Li/SOCl2 DD cell chemistry is atypically used in a little different type of application than you find our 123 Primary Lithium LiMnO2 cells in. Lithium thionyl chloride 3.6 V cells have the highest energy density and voltage of all commercial lithium types, with a service life of up to 15 to 20 years. These cells are ideal for applications requiring very low continuous-current and/or moderate pulse-currents. Extremely long service life and low self-discharge make them ideal for life-saving devices such as automatic external defibrillators that must be ready for use at all times without risk of battery failure.

A good comparision of chemistries can be found here:
http://www.tadiranbat.com/lithiumsnotalike.php

The point here is that we have actual examples shown on page 1 of this thread, of failures. Pictures speak thousands of words.

So you can take a very special chemistry low discharge rate Lithium cell, one that is designed for temperatures that far exceed what our consumer grade 123 Primary Lithium cells can take. It doesn't really prove all that much...


Since you brought it up, could you please show us a photo of one of the DD cells, next to a 123 cell, and also give us a link to the datasheet to this very special DD cell you are talking about?


BTW, it often isn't a good idea to compare carrots with watermelons, they are very different things...


.


Remember, yet again, we are pointing out the actual failures we have seen, complete with photographs of the results where these cells have failed, and nearly cost people their eyes (another inch and that eye would have been really messed up by that SureFire 9P).

It is not that all these cells are always going to violently come apart, nor is everyone going to end up as messed up as Lunar Module did from chemicals poisons that came out of his tiny 123 cell.

Nor will every cell launch endcaps at velocities to nearly penetrate solid Oak doors.

The point is that the potential is most defintely there, and end users should be informed of it, and learn how to minimize the very potential risk, and why it is important, as the pictures from page 1 of this thread, clearly demonstrate.


----------



## Anglepoise (Jun 28, 2006)

Sprocketman said:


> At this point I'm still looking for an answer to McGizmo's question about single cell lights in normal use.
> 
> .



You are not alone. I believe that none of the battery experts( and we have a few here) want to stick their necks out by stating that single cell use is safe.

However I have read up on everything I can get my hands on and believe that a single cell flashlight , using a CR123a or R-CR123a, sliding into a well fitting
body and without a strong spring or magnets that might damage or short , is probably safer than a two cell version. There is no question in my mind that 2 cell use comes with extra responsibility to 'match' cells.

My VW car has 3 pages devoted to what the battery might do under certain circumstances.

I am still troubled by the whole situation but until I have more information I will continue single cell use but with extra care.


----------



## cy (Jun 28, 2006)

so far no one have come up with even one instance of 1x CR123 LED light giving problems. 

conclusion is... single cell LED lights are not part of failure model. 

Since I'm running Surefire M6 w/M6R nmh pack, not a problem. rest of my EDC rotation are single lithium/li-ion cell LED lights. 

only exception is 27LT, running 2x li-ion.


----------



## kromeke (Jun 28, 2006)

Quote:
BTW, it often isn't a good idea to compare carrots with watermelons, they are very different things...

Kinda like lithium batteries to high explosives....

I never stated the type of chemistry in the DD cells, because I was using it as an example of a violent rupture event. I'm glad that twl pointed out the Log scale on the graph. The energy density of TNT is more like ten times the energy density of lithium chemistry batteries, not "approaching the energy density of dynamite"

I feel that you are doing a disservice by comparing lithium chemistry batteries to high explosives. It seems that it has already scared other readers and I believe it is excessive. I'm trying to be a voice of reason, not excessive scaremongering. 

For the record, the Lithium-thionyl-chloride DD cell that we are using does indeed does have a lower current capacity, but Lithium-thionyl-chloride cells have a slightly higher energy density than LiMnO2 cells. They also have a flammable liquid electrolyte. The ones we use are made by Tadiran.
If you feel my comparison is wrong because the chemistry difference, fine, I feel that your comparison with TNT is improper. 

The Navy probably put TNT on the slide because they do use large lithium batteries and they are often present in the watertight compartments of a ship, and yes, putting water on a shipboard lithium fire is probably a bad idea. I would consider that to be a confined space, and hydrogen gas buildup is a bad thing under those circumstances. How many CPF readers are currently shipboard and/or in a confined space? I believe the person who put TNT on the chart was merely trying to give batteries (and the potential hazards) the attention they deserve, not make a comparison with TNT to batteries.

I'm not trying to start a flame war or be a smart ***, I just feel that you are inducing a panic that isn't warranted. 

In other threads on battery failures and safety, I made my own personal assertations that I will only try to use big name batteries specifically in multi-cell lithium battery flashlights, and more generally in all lithium powered flashlights. I currently don't own a flashlight that holds more than 2 lithium cells. I'm not at all worried about it. My single cell flashlights, even less so. 

It appears that in the first Pelican M6 incident the one with the sticky, that cell brands were mixed. This is a no no. The latest Pelican M6 incident, who knows? The cyclops light? again, who knows, the incident that Paul in Maryland had? who knows. The cheap flashlight bought in China? who knows. The only common thing I see, is all these incidents but the first one, had cheap batteries. The incident with the Surefire 6p on the other forum, that one had Surefire batteries. Surefire batteries are probably the cheapest domestic made batteries available. I think I see a pattern here. But it is all anecdotal. Unless you can trace it down to a specific cause, these are all minor incidents. 2 of the incidents caused injury. 

If you want to compare lithium batteries to explosives, fine. I will take anything technical you say with a grain of salt. You are free to do the same with me. This isn't a popularity contest, and I'll let anyone else here make their own decisions. They can do the research and come to their own conclusions. I think that when my rating gets up to "flashaholic" it will be time to throw in the towel. If I become a "flashaholic" maybe that is a sign that I've got a problem and it is time to quit.

Edit: I don't see the navy comparing lithium batteries to TNT. I see TNT on a chart of energy density of batteries and someone seeing said chart and making the comparison. Can you point out some text in which the Navy compares lithium batteries to TNT? Do you understand logarithmic scales?


----------



## NewBie (Jun 28, 2006)

*Re: Now I'm really getting worried about lithium batts...*



kromeke said:


> Quote:
> BTW, it often isn't a good idea to compare carrots with watermelons, they are very different things...
> 
> Kinda like lithium batteries to high explosives....
> ...




Okay, how about I say it again, if it wasn't clear:

Actually the comparision to TNT was made by the *United States Naval Surface Warfare Center* and *United States Army Communications & Electronics Command*.

Here, see for yourself:
http://www.molalla.net/~leeper/lithexpl.pdf


Do you think that the multiple failures shown on page one are just the result of a gentile puff out of the cell? I don't see it that way, and on that point, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Shooting glass into someone's face, and nearly punching holes thru solid oak doors are not gentile events, imho.

The difference in the chart, if you look at the Lithium Primary cells, on the horizontal scale you will see sit at about 250. TNT is 1375. The ratio there is 1:5.5 Not 1:10

Page 13 of the presentation will show you some of the results of abusing Lithium Primary cells:
http://www.molalla.net/~leeper/lithexpl.pdf


When you mentioned the size of your cell, DD, it was pretty obvious that you were in one of the *extremely safe high temperature chemistries*(as well, a low discharge rate chemistry to boot- especially when you consider relative size between a DD cell and a 123 cell). A whole different ball of wax, and construction quality too. And bigtime cost. Tardian makes those special cells that can operate up at 150C, where our consumer cells are specified to 60C. That is well over twice the temperature, with entirely different cell construction approaches and materials, suited for those extreme environments.


Remember the point is, to point out the potential real failures have in reality, happened, with additional photos, so folks understand the real true risks, and treat their cells with a little more respect.

Right now, *per user* here on cpf, we are looking at odds in the range 1:1600 of something going wrong (and I know we are missing a few in the count). Some of these events could have been prevented, had folks known just a few simple rules.

BTW, those special chemistry Lithium DD bobbin cells (Li/SOCl2), are quite awesome, and are very nice, extremely safe cells. Have you ever tried the hybrid ones with the special hybrid layer capacitor on them? Hopefully they can get them up to the 150C (302 degrees F), of the Li/SOCl2 bobbin DD cells some day.
http://www.tadiranbat.com/lithiumsnotalike.php

Though, it would be nice if they could get the prices down to something reasonable, but with the robust chemistry that can take so much abuse, and special cell construction with laser sealing, I wonder if they can even bring the prices down much.

Those Li/SOCl2 DD cells you use are like the Army tank of Lithium Primary cells.


In response to your last line paragraph, I won't say much, except you were the one comparing carrots to watermelons, as we can leave it at that, and I'm very certain you can understand that...LiMnO2 vs. Li/SOCl2


----------



## amanichen (Jun 28, 2006)

Glass said:


> Some of the previous posts seem to indicate that the likelyhood of catastrophic failure is a big deal to some people. People are talking about using AA powered lights because there is this perception that AAs are so much safer than the "dangerous" lithiums.


Yes, but without any statistical data of lithium battery failures, you can't say something is far more likely than another.



> I am no expert on chemistry or electricty but I do have a residue of common sense. If you stress any device, batteries included, beyond its design limitations, there is a chance that it could fail in a big way. Yes, lithiums can go "boom" far worse than an alkaline AA, but that is why I use them. They have more potential energy.


One of the stories here involves batteries sitting inside a light in a kitchen cabinet. The batteries seemed happy to explode without any human intervention. Were these batteries being stressed beyond their limits?

Is there a clear set of things you shouldn't do with lithium batteries, included on instructions and/or a warning label?

We all know that NiMHs and alkalines shouldn't be short circuited, overdischarged, polarity reversed, etc. And the same goes for Lithiums. However, in realistic use, there seems to be a razor thin line between "proper use" and "abuse" of lithium batteries. Whereas, in the real world, you have to intentionally try to get an alkaline or NiMH to send shrapnel into your face, and toxic gases into your lungs.



> The reason I made the over used car wreck analogy is that vehicle accidents kill thousands every year but millions choose to take their chances because they have to get from point "A" to point "B".


The reason that the automobile comparison is irrelevant is because you're not forced to use lithium batteries. Living in a modernized country, you often can't avoid using motorized transportation, because the alternatives are highly impractical, and realistically you don't have a choice.

With batteries, you have a choice of many different chemistries.



> Also, it has already been pointed out several times that warnings are printed all over the outside of the batteries. I think someone should be smart enough to make themselves aware of the consequences and dangers by reading the warning on the battery itself.


*In the real world* alkalines and NiMHs AAs don't explode and light on fire, while lithiums do. I dont' care about the "potential" for something to happen...the actual instances of alkalines and NiMHs exploding or lighting on fire is a non-issue.

The problem is that many warnings are GROSSLY overstated both in magnitude and likelyhood, which completely dilutes their meaning. When a butter knife has the same set of warnings as a chainsaw, the meanings of the warnings become severly diluted. This is because *modern day warning labels protect manufacturers from lawsuits, and don't protect the users from injuries.*

Realistically speaking, to protect the user, alkalines and NiMHs don't need warnings about exploding and toxic gases and venting flames; lithium batteries do.


----------



## Glass (Jun 28, 2006)

So far all we have is anecdotal evidence and stories about lithium batteries catastrophically failing. And yet, some peoople are already getting freaked out by, what appears to be, a few isolated incidents.

A battery sitting in a cabinet explodes. Yeah, that could have been a defective battery or any number of other things. My point is that I don't think the risk is that high and I am not going to have a knee jerk reaction. You said yourself that we need data. Fine, get your data. It still won't dissuade me from using lithium powered lights.

As far as I am concerned, I am forced to use lithiums because I need very bright lights in small packages. Currently, major manufacturers are not making AA powered lights that fit my needs and have the same level of output as the CR123 powered ones.

I fully agree there is a risk to using lithium batteries but there is a risk to using anything that contains hazardous materials. I think people are getting overly concerned based on a few isolated incidents. Do we need hard data about the failure rates of Lithioum batteries? Sure, if that will make you feel better. I, for one, will just take some very basic percautions and go about my life.

Patrick out.


----------



## Cliffnopus (Jun 28, 2006)

Glass said:


> I, for one, will just take some very basic percautions and go about my life.
> 
> Patrick out.


Yup ! Amen to that.

Cliff


----------



## mcmc (Jun 28, 2006)

This is for CR2 Ion users:

I checked on my 3v lithium primary today, and after only a week or two of use, the bottom has a slight indent. Looking into the body, the negative contact is raised and seems to have a sharp edge, as it is not a nub but a short cylinder of sorts (I think - it's a bit hard to make out fine detail in there as the alu-bronze is shiny).

Has anyone else seen this with their battery? Any ideas on a solution (spring?) - as I would not like this to go off on my keys, obviously... XP


----------



## mchlwise (Jun 28, 2006)

Glass said:


> So far all we have is anecdotal evidence and stories about lithium batteries catastrophically failing. And yet, some people are already getting freaked out by, what appears to be, a few isolated incidents.
> 
> I, for one, will just take some very basic percautions and go about my life.



I'll bring the car accident issue back up, because I think it IS relevant, at least for these points: 

All it takes is a few isolated incidents and two or three pictures of what can happen in an automobile accident where someone wasn't wearing their seatbelt to persuade me to tell my kids to put theirs on. 

An automobile, as has been brought up, is an indispensible part of modern life. Once educated about the dangers, most people will want to take appropriate precautions to make sure they and their loved ones are as protected as they can be while they use them. 

A flashlight, on the other hand, isn't indispensible to every single person living in the modern world. Sure there are those who need them for their job, etc., and there are the occasional instance where it can be a lifesaver, but the vast majority of ordinary people go days, weeks, or months on end without so much as touching a flashlight. 

Personally, with flashlights being much more of a convenience than a necessity, and the proliferation of GREAT flashlights that use proven "safe" AA batteries, and after being educated as to what MAY happen with lithiums 123's, the precaution which I am taking to protect my family and loved ones it to NOT have lithium powered flashlights in my house. 

Overkill? Maybe. But it's the precaution I've chosen to take. Much like putting a seatbelt on. It's done millions of times a day with absolutely no benefit to the millions of people who put them on and don't crash. The chances are really quite small that you will be in a car crash. But what if you are? The chances may be quite small that a lithium battery will blow up. But what if it does? 

You guys are certainly free, as is the motorcycle rider who just went by my window with no helmet on was, to assume the risk. Most likely you'll be just fine. Until the issue gets a little more figured out, I'm not gonna assume that risk to myself or my family.


----------



## mcmc (Jun 28, 2006)

also, it doesn't look like there are any incidents with cr123's used in hds's - is the heat-sensing regulatory circuit able to avert disasters in a way that other lights cannot?


----------



## batterystation (Jun 28, 2006)

Very good thread. Long reading but very good.

Short story:

A few years ago, I went outside to start my 1990 Ford F150 pickup truck down at the lumber yard. When I hit the starter there was a huge BOOM that sounded like a shotgun under the hood.

Upon lifting the hood, I saw that the entire top of the battery had blown off with enough force to dent my hood from the inside. There was acid splattered all over the place. Baking soda took care of most possible corrosion quickly.

What had happened was my water level got WAY down and I did not know it. The level was lower than the plates of the battery. When heavy current was demanded of the battery, something sparked or glowed and set off the hydrogen gas in the top three inches or so of the battery. Boom it went.

What if someone had been examining something under the hood when I hit the starter? Could I have prevented this? Added water? It was a maintenance free battery, not meant to be opened but in fine working order.

I am in total agreement that these things need to be handled with caution. I have burned the midnight oil trying to figure out how some of these things could have been prevented and am at a loss. The AA was pulled because it was new enough that it could be halted with a loss. It was also UL tested but something still went wrong. For anyone that thinks we are not serious about safety, the AA project passed UL but was canned at a sizable loss.

Since the Lunar incident, we have tested over 20K of our CR123A batteries and have weeded out some that were not 100%. They will be tossed or used here in single cell LED flashlight demos. They are not bad, just don't match the others. I hate the thought of someone getting hurt playing with a flashlight. Good grief, it is supposed to be a FLASHLIGHT not a bomb.

Just want everyone to know we are doing our best. That I assure you.


----------



## NewBie (Jun 29, 2006)

One of the safer Lithium rechargeable technologies (click on link on page to watch video):
http://www.valence.com/SafetyVideo.asp

----
Someone mentioned shipping of lithium cells. Here is a story about some of the studies that have been done:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_29_18/ai_n6280925

Other failures of LiIon cells:
http://wcco.com/consumer/local_story_148150249.html

CBS news story on the event:
http://wcco.com/video/[email protected]

Apple Powerbook fire:
http://www.powerbook-fr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1154

----

Apple Ipod catches fire after user abuse:
http://www.mantissa.net/blog/2006/06/18/how-not-to-fix-an-ipod-shuffle/

----

Xmas Day... Our new iPod Speakers Nearly Burned Down Our Home
http://www.1esc.com/Applefusion.html

----

In one of the threads here on cpf, someone mentioned that Lithium Polymer rechargeable cells would be safer. This is another technology, like the LiIon rechargable cells, where you can find plenty of examples of failures on the internet, usually due to abuse, but it demonstrates what can happen with them. An example (you may need to refresh the page a couple of times to get all the photos to load, for some reason):
http://klaudius.free.fr/lipo.htm

This guy had a fire in his house:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=747114#post747114-

Videos of abused LiPoly:
http://chemistry.about.com/gi/dynam...ttp://www.utahflyers.org/movies/Lipofires.wmv
http://www.utahflyers.org/movies/Lipo2.wmv
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3690260570423705609
http://rchomepage.com/~dna/LipoFire.wmv
http://www.helihobby.com/videos/LithiumBattery.wmv

Battery bunker testing:
http://www.utahflyers.org/movies/lipo3.wmv


As far as that emergency landing by UPS, it was in fact Lithium cells on board:
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060620/BUSINESS/60620045/1003

Find a photograph of the fire that continued for several hours:
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060621/BUSINESS/606210499


Fed-Ex (Federal Express, also has a lithium battery package catch fire):
"According to NTSB records, a company's improper packaging of lithium batteries was the "probable cause" of an Aug. 7, 2004, fire in a freight bin at FedEx's air hub in Memphis, Tenn. The bin had been raised on loading equipment and pushed halfway onto an airplane when loading personnel smelled smoke. "

More details on the AC Propulsion (San Dimas, California) Lithium Ion batteries (rechargeables) which caused the fire:
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2005/HZB0501.htm

"On June 30, 2005, a package containing lithium-ion batteries was discovered at the United Parcel Service (UPS) airfreight terminal in Ontario, California. One of four battery packs within a package had caught fire and been completely destroyed during transportation. The fire was out and the package cold when it was discovered. The package containing the battery packs had flown on UPS aircraft from Shanghai, China, to Anchorage, Alaska, and on to Ontario. "


Lithium Primary shipping banned on passenger flights:
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/faa001.htm


Please respect your batteries and treat them properly, you can lower your risk in doing so.


----------



## kromeke (Jun 29, 2006)

*Yet another Lithium battery thread.*

_Moderator edit: There is no need to start a new thread in order to argue every point being argued in another. This post has been merged with the present running thread. - Empath_

Lithium battery safety (yet again!)

As some may have noticed in the "lithium explosion/fire thread" thread, I stated that I did not like the comparison between high explosives and lithium batteries. I also got a little snippy with the same topic in the "Now I'm really getting worried about lithim batts..." thread. First I'll apologize for getting snippy. 

Now the source of this comparison comes from the interpretation of a chart in the document "Lithium Battery Safety: Good Batteries Gone Bad" http://proceedings.ndia.org/5670/Lithium_Battery-Winchester.pdf

I felt that the chart on page 7 was misinterpreted so I decided to contact Mr. Clint Winchester to better understand it. I had a little dialog via email with Mr. Winchester. I asked him for permission to quote him here. 

First I asked him to clarify the chart and specifically, what did the vertical line above the 1375Wh/kg=TNT mean. I also asked if it was fair to compare lithium batteries to TNT and what the purpose was for the line on the Delivered Power and Energy Comparisons chart.

His reply:

_ The chart on page 7 is a mod of a common available comparison plot we
use called a "Ragone Plot" that compares performance of a battery type
or various battery types and chemistries versus discharge rates and
relates the power and run time available based on the intrinsic energy
of a battery design. You can also plot internal combustion enegines and
capacitors and fuel cells and be meaningful - if you do it correctly.

1375 WH/Kg is the approximation of the energy content of TNT. At least
it's a common value. The actual value will vary with conditions - but
its there as an approximation.

People describe some serious events with some types of batteries as an
explosion - these are usualy just a pneumatic/hydaulic pressure release
that went "bang". That leads to comparison with common explosives. In
reality - the better usage is black-powder (as in
charcoal-sulfur-oxidizer) since the chemistry of a battery assmebly is
closer to a macro-assembly of fuel/oxidizer than a micro/nano assembly
as in TNT and high-explosives. TNT can detonate, black-powder cannot.
The work-function for black-powder is about 1/2 of that for TNT - and
that is the PVT work-function not the brissance of TNT. But nobody has
a feel for black-powder. TNT everyone can relate to when dealing with
highly energetic events since TNT driven events are very well documented
and used as distance-mass controls.

The vertical line is essentially there to indicate "beyond here there be
dragons...." as a conceptual point. We are pushing chemical limits for
batteries to increase energy and power densities. In the case of SOCL2
and CFx cathodes, the anode/cathode combination - theoretically -
exceeds TNT. Practically - the energies accessible are lower - but the
potential for a reaction are still there.
_​ 
The "beyond here there be dragons" is a reference to what was found on early maps. Unknown areas on maps were labeled as "beyond here be dragons" This may be a myth, but you get the meaning of the phrase.

I then told him the context in which a TNT to Lithium battery comparison was being made. I felt that the TNT comparison was sensationalist with regards to commercially available lithium batteries.

His reply:

_ And I agree - for solid cathode Manganese cells (CR series) of a
consumer nature (Duracell etc) the analogies to TNT are wrong and
incorrect. Now - if you drop a 10 lb weight from 8 feet onto a 2/3A CR
cell the bang, fireball and spray of molten and incandescent lithium
might make you rethink a bit. For BR series - the electrolyte is pretty
safe but the lithium-metal/fluorine reaction can be a might "hot".

Again - for my money - black-powder (as in C-S-KNO3) is the closer
analogy.

And we test a lot of batteries here at Carderock as an R&D Engineering
Design activity. More R&D than Crane, but similar.
_ 
I hope we can put the TNT analogy to rest. I'd like to comment that one can easily buy fireworks (which contain black powder) and that TNT is much harder for one to obtain. 

Also, I asked him about CR123 failures and if he could give me any information on them. I also made a comment on PTC devices.

His reply:

_ Let me get back to you on the CR123
issue. The nice thing about PTC is they respond to both current and
temp. I tend to think of cells w/o PTC as being dangerouos. Of course
- you need to know the value fo the PTC plomeric material being used.
Not all cell suse the same material under the caps as part of the crimp
over assembly. It has been shown that battery series arrays more than
7-Li-ion cells or maybe in this case 9 to 10 Cr123 are inherently
dangerous because they'll blow a PTC into a carbon conductive sheet in a
series-parallel battery array. This was reported by NASA a few years
ago. Made a serious mess of a test chamber._

There is one major problem with these forums in that the membership is self selecting. Anybody can join and anybody can not participate. This is not inherently bad, but this means that informed opinions from qualified persons may not be present. There is a good spectrum of expertise here, but it never hurts to have some more.

There has been some injuries caused by CR123 cells venting. It would be good if we can determine what happened.

Moving forward: 

I have asked Mr. Winchester for any information on CR123 cell failures. I also asked for any statistical data. I don't know what Mr. Winchester can provide, but I hope that we can get some more data points from him and the organization he works for. 

I'd like to take a second to thank Mr. Winchester, The Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, and of course NewBie, for sticking to his guns and making me do some more homework. I'd also like to thank the CandlePowerForums, and their members, especially those who have shed some blood sweat and tears for their contributions. 

I'd like to ask the members of this forum not to swamp Mr. Winchester with email. I am very thankful that he took the time to answer some of my questions, and I have told him of this forum. Maybe we will be lucky enough to have him as a contributer.

Back to my lengthy post:

Has a list been compiled of battery manufacturers? I'd like to see one broken down by battery chemistry. I'd like to compile a list of known batteries with the UL logo on them. 

I'll start with what I know:
Kodak 123 cells. They are labeled as made in the USA for Kodak. UR logo has date imprinted on side

SureFire SF123A labeled Made in USA no UL logo has date imprinted

Duracell Ultra 123 labeled Made in USA no UL logo has date imprinted

Batterystation CR123A labeled Made in P.R.C no UL logo has date printed on bottom with ink which rubs off easily

Tekcell CR123A. They are labeled as made in Korea by Teckraf Co. LTD UR logo has code on side (lot? date? it doesn't appear to directly correlate with a date)

This is a sample of the cells I have on hand. Please contribute with your own cells that you may have on hand. 

The backwards UR logo is a UL logo. It is for a recognized component part. 

I would not assume that lack of a UL logo does not necessarily equate with them not having passed a UL test, but those that do have the logo I believe can be said that they have gone through UL testing. I don't know if UL testing is indicitive of much, but it is an indicator. 

I'd like to hear more about UL 1642 here is a summary of the scope of this standard:
http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/1642.html

There has already been a lot of effort put in on making these batteries safe. They were not put on the market haphazardly. I am trying to organize some information in regards to what standards lithium batteries are made to.

For this thread, I'd like to limit its scope to 123 primary cells. For me, this is the first dragon to slay.

Edit: _thanks Empath, I started a new thread due to some new info (at least it was new to me) regarding the series connection of 7 Li-Ion cells and 9-10 Lithium primary cells blowing the PTC. But this is a fine place for the comment. No complaints here._


----------



## VidPro (Jun 29, 2006)

never had a alkaline blow up, ever, never had a carbon battery blow up.
but 2 times i had high capacity ni-??? go balistic and start a fire.
one was a Ni-Cad pack, and the other was a Ni-Mhy pack.
both exploded without properly venting, due to misuse.
they did not have:
shrapnel
the materials inside them did not burn
they did not rocket across the room, because they were held down, but the wad in them did.
each incident started a fire, not from the battery, but from the short that occured.

Capcitors in computer power supplies have blown up many times now, one time a users computer started flaming the few thing in it that could burn.

when my computer power supply (1 of many computers), went up i would swear it would have caught the whole house on fire if i was not here, it was just a simple short, lotta smoke a hint of flame but nothing that was spectacular.

then another few times here and there, that a wire went Red , from a short.

the big difference with this chemistry is that it can burn even after a venting. but i have as of yet to see it with known manufacture (brand name) li-ions.
and 4th of july is comming up too :-(

that is just to point out that ni-??? can start a fire, and burn your house down, and i bet so can your computer. we dont leave bacon frying on the stove and walk away (ok mom did but we got it out)
so i dont think running anything when your out would be so good. like charging batteries with no common sence 
remember tube televisions

did you clean the Lint out of your dryer vent? MANY fires have now started over that. we switched to a aluminum vent tube in the next instalation, and think about clearing it.

Series bateries CAN reverse charge, especially with certian curcuits, how many cases of lithium are due to a charge and a discharged one together?
or a good one and a bad one? so telling your family to not play battery games , when the light goes out , might be important.

if were going to use the stuff, knowlege is going to be better than fear, if were not going to have knowlege, then it should not be used. which is really going to mess up fuel cells and mini fission reactors


----------



## gdict (Jun 29, 2006)

Batteries explode sometimes....

Is your flashlight going to explode? Probably not.

I have used hundreds of 123 cells over the years and have countless friends that have done the same without a single Lithium battery incident. I sold SF 6P's when that was all that "Laser Products" sold other than their Tac-lights. Not once had I ever heard of any issues with Lithium cells until some ******* at Northwest airlines drove his forklift into a pallet of bulk packed CR2's. I can see that causing a fire. Is that justifiable cause to treat Lithium batteries like they are explosives? No. Properly packaged and handled cells are harmless. 

Time for a reality check.


----------



## kelmo (Jun 29, 2006)

As I recall not so long ago there were some posts concerning Surefire batteries being duds out of the box. This is more of a concern to me as I don't want to rely on backup cells that don't work. Did this contribute to catastropic battery failures? Who can say. I am concerned about this issue but I will continue to use lithium batteries, following all manufacturer's recommendations of course.

Just my 2 cents.

BTW, some of you guys-n-gals are waaaaaaaaaay to smart!


----------



## mikeymoto (Jun 29, 2006)

kelmo said:


> BTW, some of you guys-n-gals are waaaaaaaaaay to smart!



For that I thank and applaud your participation! :goodjob:


----------



## NewBie (Jun 30, 2006)

*Re: Yet another Lithium battery thread.*



kromeke said:


> As some may have noticed in the "lithium explosion/fire thread" thread, I stated that I did not like the comparison between high explosives and lithium batteries. I also got a little snippy with the same topic in the "Now I'm really getting worried about lithim batts..." thread. First I'll apologize for getting snippy.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




Did you know that if cells that pass UL testing, it doesn't mean they won't vent? You can have a cell with a UL logo on it, and still have it shooting crud out the end at +392F.

The categories I had listed from an old UL 1642 test were:

-Overcharge
-Forced Discharge
-External Short
-Impact
-Crush
-Nail Penetration
-Hot Oven

The criteria for each level were:
Level 0- No Change
Level 1- Leak
Level 2- Smoke less than 200 degrees Celcius (392 F)
Level 3- Smoke more than 200 degrees Celcius (392 F)
Level 4- Fire
Level 5- Explosion

IMHO, one really needs to know what levels a battery passed for each criteria during the UL 1642 testing.

As I see, this battery under test, which I am looking at, at the time- had to pass the UL 1642 Level 3 criteria to pass the manufacturers requirements (where the requirement level was set by the manufacturer), which meant that it could vent hot smoke, leak acids and fluids, poisonous gases, but was not allowed to catch fire or explode. This meant that it "passed" UL 1642.

Unfortunately, most folks do not know about details like this, nor do the battery makers tell you about them.

Example, go look up the SureFire batteries, and show me where they say they meet UL 1642, and then tell me to what level they passed each category...

If you push a company like Kokam hard enough, they will give you information on their latest UL tested cells. In their case, their UL1642 cell passes the testing, with nothing above Level 2, but includes Level 2 failures, which actually did occur.

This is their new 4th generation cell, which has new technology in it. It also is tested to UL1642, UL2054 and SBA G1101. Abuse of this cell results in smoke that is at a temperature less than 392F. Pictures of what it does under abuse (note no fire):
http://image.rcuniverse.com/forum/upfiles/62637/Om33827.jpg

It is a far cry, from older cells that used to do stuff like this:
http://www.helihobby.com/videos/LithiumBattery.wmv

However, not all their cells pass, with only Level 2 failures. As such, you will find their cells will pass UL, but they don't pass Level 3, only level 4 and level 5 failures (see the criteria and the failure mode after it). But they are UL1642, UL2054 and SBA G1101 certified...:
http://www.kokam.com/english/product/kokam_safety_02.html



As far as the TNT reference, it is a point of reference to give a person an idea of just how much potential energy is in the cell.

I'll leave you with this, your quote from Mr. Winchester:


kromeke said:


> _
> 1375 WH/Kg is the approximation of the energy content of TNT. At least
> it's a common value. The actual value will vary with conditions - but
> its there as an approximation.
> ...






kromeke said:


> _ And I agree - for solid cathode Manganese cells (CR series) of a
> consumer nature (Duracell etc) the analogies to TNT are wrong and
> incorrect. *Now - if you drop a 10 lb weight from 8 feet onto a 2/3A CR
> cell the bang, fireball and spray of molten and incandescent lithium
> ...



*Remember, nobody here said they were the same as TNT.* TNT is a point of reference, and is very clearly shown on the chart. Thats all, thats it. If you think someone said they were the same as TNT, I would have to figure you were very mistaken. Of note, they were the ones that put the line, and the TNT reference in their presentation.[/b]

Chart:






The full presentation, a **GREAT** read:
http://proceedings.ndia.org/5670/Lithium_Battery-Winchester.pdf


To demonstrate the potential, take a look at the actual failures folks have had are found back on page 1. These are real, not imagined, most of which are events our very own members here on CPF have experienced.

The point is to be aware of the dangers, how to properly store cells, learn how to properly treat the cells, know when not to use a damaged cell, know you are not supposed to use to a partially discharged cell in a battery stack, not to mix brands, to know that the stuff that blew out of the end of the cell is dangerous (and has messed up one of our members pretty bad), be aware that the residue and the smoke is dangerous, know the signs that something is wrong (cells getting really hot), so on and etc.

Awareness/knowledge is probably 99% of the battle, and you can reduce your risks quite significantly, if you just do a few simple things. Even so-where things were done right, some of these events still happened.

These ain't your grandma's cells she used in her Eveready 2D cell flashlight...


For those interested, the internal construction can be found here:
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=115844&page=1&pp=40

.

DURACELL UL testing (remember fire is level 4 and explosion is level 5- note the results of the test):
http://www.duracell.com/oem/primary/Lithium/safety.asp#underwriters

Note their disclaimer at the bottom:
Caution:
In illustrating these tests, Duracell does not intend to suggest that similar abuse testing be performed on DURACELL Li/MnO2 batteries or any other manufacturer’s lithium batteries. As discussed throughout this site, all lithium batteries are not the same. *Performing these tests in the manner described in this section or other abuse tests could result in fires or rupture of some batteries and serious personal injury and property damage.*

DURACELL's listing is MH12538:
http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/...n=versionless&parent_id=1073747351&sequence=1


Energizer is UL Listed as MH12454 
http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/123.pdf
Shipping in bulk is not allowed on passenger aircraft, with some exceptions (note how all the cells have the same UL Listing number):
http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/transportlithium.pdf

UL's listing for MH12454:
http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/...n=versionless&parent_id=1073747351&sequence=1

*The appearance of a company's name or product in this database does not in itself assure that products so identified have been manufactured under UL's Follow-Up Service. Only those products bearing the UL Mark should be considered to be Listed and covered under UL's Follow-Up Service. Always look for the Mark on the product.*

Under the Lithium Category which they are filed:
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPONENT IS DEPENDENT UPON ITS INSTALLATION AND USE IN COMPLETE EQUIPMENT SUBMITTED TO UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES INC.
http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/...n=versionless&parent_id=1073747351&sequence=1

Eastman Kodak batteries UL Listing MH17286:
http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/...n=versionless&parent_id=1073747351&sequence=1

Radio Shack 123:
http://www.radioshack.com/product/i...&kw=lithium&kwCatId=2032056&parentPage=search
Radio Shack's 123 Cell UL listing MH14688 (catalog number 23-155):
http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/...n=versionless&parent_id=1073747351&sequence=1

Sanyo 123 UL Listing MH12383:
http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/...n=versionless&parent_id=1073747351&sequence=1

UltraLife 123 UL Listing MH14240:
http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/...n=versionless&parent_id=1073747351&sequence=1

MATSUSHITA/Panasonic 123 UL Listing MH12210:
http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/...n=versionless&parent_id=1073747351&sequence=1

I do not see SureFire or Streamlight Cells listed.


So, what's this UL marking stuff and all, about?
http://database.ul.com/glistinterf_00-1-frnt.pdf


----------



## Empath (Jun 30, 2006)

*Re: Yet another Lithium battery thread.*



gdict said:


> Properly packaged and handled cells are harmless.



The same can be said for nitroglycerine. That's not to compare lithium cells to nitroglycerine. It's more to illustrate that the dismissal of concern isn't in our interest. How often do you here of accidental nitroglycerine explosion? Infrequent events are not due to the safety of the product. It's due to identifying the potential hazard. Pegging safety on the odds doesn't address the issue at all. The solution to the problem is in identifying where in the manufacturing, packaging, handling, or use of the cells an unacceptable risk occurs. Infrequent nitro accidents aren't indicative of a safer nitroglycerine; it's indicative of how safety can be seriously considered, even in a product as touchy as nitro.

Hazardous events can result from misuse and accidents with alkaline and carbon-zinc cells too. Although they don't appear as potentially destructive, the results can still be as destructive. Houses have been burned down, even resulting in death. People have received severe burns, and caustic exposure from them. If such accidents can result from alkaline and carbon-zinc cells, in spite of their highly developed production techniques, certainly the hazards are inherent in lithium cells also. A big concern is the additional and more potent chemical makeup of lithium cells.

Lithium cells can be used in reasonable safety. We wear watches containing them, put phones up to our heads that contain them, and hold cameras up to our faces that contain them. In most cases, there's no problem. However, since there have been problems, as users, it's reasonable to attempt to identify problem use, handling, or flaws that permit the problems. It's reasonable for the manufacturers of the cells to know too, how to safely contain the power contained in them. It's also important for those designing products that make use of them to understand the hazards and safety needs in engineering their use in their products.

We've taken a technology that was introduced for the longevity demands of certain low-drain devices, and the momentary high-drain demands of other devices, and attempted to utilize them in a product that demands a sustained high-drain application. The safety considered in their design for the sustained low-drain application, and the momentary high-drain application is not sufficient for the expanded use area of sustained high-drain applications. The battery manufacturers are responsible for that project. Recognizing and designing devices that minimizes this limited design is the responsibility of the flashlight designers. The recognition of the limited design, and acknowledgement that we're using a product for something other than it's intended purpose, and taking every precaution merited, is the responsibility of the user.

If all three of these responsible groups don't live up to their responsibilities, then the future access could be jeopardized or delayed.


----------



## NewBie (Jul 1, 2006)

Well said Empath.


----------



## Quickbeam (Jul 1, 2006)

With all the current concern about lithiums, I purchased a ZTS Mini-MBT tester from Thomas-Distributing. I did not get the larger MT-1 charger since I don't test the additional cells handled by the larger tester. There are several threads about the advantages of testing the cells right out of the package and grouping cells by the initial state-of-charge. We should expect improved runtimes and hopefully reduced chances of a burst cell.

I just finished testing ALL of my Titanium cells. Testing cycle was repeated until 3 consistent readings were shown on the meter scale. The meter reads 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%. Batteries that read less than 100% aren't really dead and may provide long runtimes. However they may not be delivering the same current and/or voltage as cells with other readings. 

Here are the results:

100% = 18
80% = 8
60% = 10
40% = 10
20% = 8
<20% = 10

Total = 64

Obviously I could have easily put a <20% cell and a 100% cell in the same light, but that doesn't mean that the batteries would have burst. It does, however, mean that some of the energy from that 100% cell is probably going to be wasted trying to bring the <20% cell up to par.

Just for fun, I'm going to do a couple of runtimes with the same 2-Cell light loaded with two <20% cells and again with two 100% cells, then again with a single <20% and a 100% cell and plot the differences to see the effect of mixing cells of dramatically different initial state-of-charge.


----------



## Topper (Jul 1, 2006)

I am looking forward to seeing your results.
Topper


----------



## NewBie (Jul 3, 2006)

Topper said:


> I am looking forward to seeing your results.
> Topper




Hey Topper.

I finally caused a set to vent, after a month of trying. Instead of cross-posting, take a look here:
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1485564#post1485564


----------



## CroMAGnet (Jul 3, 2006)

ABout a year ago we [edit: I mean a CPF member] had the Pelican M6 explode in someones kitchen cupboard. Since then, all my lithium powered lights have become single cell lights. I prefer to carry a Jil DD or McGizmo single cell creation with a spare battery or two. The only worry I have now is over draining my unprotected cells.

I do use 4 or 7 L91 Energizer Lithium batteries in my mag mods. (Actually as back-up) Do you guys think these lower voltage light have the ability to vent and explode also? Have there been and reports of them exploding?


----------



## NewBie (Jul 3, 2006)

CroMAGnet said:


> ABout a year ago we had the Pelican M6 explode in someones kitchen cupboard. Since then, all my lithium powered lights have become single cell lights. I prefer to carry a Jil DD or McGizmo single cell creation with a spare battery or two. The only worry I have now is over draining my unprotected cells.
> 
> I do use 4 or 7 L91 Energizer Lithium batteries in my mag mods. (Actually as back-up) Do you guys think these lower voltage light have the ability to vent and explode also? Have there been and reports of them exploding?




I'd have to figure there might be a chance, look here:
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=121303&page=2&pp=40


----------



## CroMAGnet (Jul 3, 2006)

Thanks Newb' 

That's a bummer.


----------



## VidPro (Jul 3, 2006)

CroMAGnet said:


> ABout a year ago we had the Pelican M6 explode in someones kitchen cupboard. Since then, all my lithium powered lights have become single cell lights. I prefer to carry a Jil DD or McGizmo single cell creation with a spare battery or two. The only worry I have now is over draining my unprotected cells.
> 
> I do use 4 or 7 L91 Energizer Lithium batteries in my mag mods. (Actually as back-up) Do you guys think these lower voltage light have the ability to vent and explode also? Have there been and reports of them exploding?



dont forget that a single super omni potent light could also be drawing power off the battery so fast, as to simulate a continual short. battery still heats up.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Jul 3, 2006)

Very good information about primary lithium cells
As a CPF'er, it is obvious I have quite a few flashlights and I do have some CR123A lithium cells laying around. My Inova X5 uses two CR123A batteries but those were taken out of circulation. Waiting for a Peak Pacific 2AAA stainless steel light to come in to be my families "go to" light. I just feel better knowing that no matter what they do, it will be hard for them to mess up an alkaline powered light! 
We are talking flashlights... why use something that can have problems when it is not needed? To them, the Fenix L1P is prefered over the X5 since they can pull NiMH batteries out of the camera, wireless keyboard, mouse or whatever is laying around when needed (had a short power failure this morning) The L1P works well for them although it will be replaced by the Pacific stainless 2AAA when it ships. They prefer the longer size of 2AAA or 2AA lights and it is much harder to lose. Their concern for a flashlight is that it works when you turn it on and spare rechargables or alkalines can be used if it goes dim. 
I use my Fire~Fly III but prefer they don't mess around with it. I told them that that specific light uses a hazardous battery if it is abused. My Nano charger I keep locked away to avoid them charging the battery with the polarity reversed. When I charge the li-ion, I am around and check the voltage after the charging is complete. 
My family uses LED lighting on their bicycles... those lights use NiMH batteries. I've trained them into using only the batteries inside the lights and when they die, to recharge them together and throw in alkalines if they need to go somewere. The camera is treated the same way and I do label the cells to be used together. Those NiMH cells get cycled/tested every 6 months to ensure they are close to each other in capacity. Sanyo Eneloop AA NiMH will replace those NiMH cells once they become available. 
My concern is those Li-ion cells in the cell phone and laptop... wish A123 Systems and Valence would come out with replacement cells soon.


----------



## cy (Jul 3, 2006)

seems failure mode of litium cells involves multi cells, possibly with reverse current flowing from strong cell to weaker cell. 

lithium cells are known for huge discharge rates, coupled with suspected reduction of PTC/construction quality of new supply of primary lithium cells from China, possibly contributing to latest rash of mulit primary lithium cell light failures. 

multi-cell NMH lights are looking like the safer choice for high powered lights. until new data apears... I still trust single cell lithium lights...


----------



## NewBie (Jul 5, 2006)

VidPro, did you see this Streamlight Scorpion that blew?
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=114455&page=3&pp=30


----------



## chocho (Jul 7, 2006)

This thread has definitely made me cognizant of the potential dangers of high-energy lithium cells. In years past, I would think nothing of throwing a flashlight or two into my stash of 4th of July fireworks before loading them into my vehicle. I helped put on the night show for all the people in the subdivision.

This year, I unloaded the cells prior to transport. That will be standard practice from now on.

-C


----------



## NewBie (Jul 7, 2006)

chocho said:


> This thread has definitely made me cognizant of the potential dangers of high-energy lithium cells. In years past, I would think nothing of throwing a flashlight or two into my stash of 4th of July fireworks before loading them into my vehicle. I helped put on the night show for all the people in the subdivision.
> 
> This year, I unloaded the cells prior to transport. That will be standard practice from now on.
> 
> -C




I am very glad to hear folks are taking the wise course of action and I commend you for your wisdom. Would you believe one fella was keeping his Lithium 123 light with his ammo?

You can catch up on what we have learned so far, on post 647, here:
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1492092#post1492092

A teaser shot, I think I'll stop carrying my Lithium 123 cell lights in my front pants pocket, or learn how to sing, "Chestnuts roasting on an open fire..." :


----------

