Slashdot Mirror
New Rules May Raise Cost of Buying Gadgets Online
ericatcw writes "Buying your next laptop or smartphone online could suddenly get a lot more expensive if a little-known US Department of Transportation proposal to tighten rules around the shipment of small, Lithium-Ion battery-powered devices by air goes through, says an industry group opposing the move. The changes, designed primarily to reduce the risk from Lithium-Ion batteries, would also forbid air travelers from carrying spare alkaline or NiMH batteries in their checked-in luggage, according to the head of the Portable Rechargeable Battery Association. The proposal is under review until March 12. It can be viewed and commented upon by members of the public."
Seriously. Look at it. Just look at it:
http://xkcd.com/651/
moox. for a new generation.
The proposed rule itself is pretty inscrutable (as usual, I suppose), but the article's examples are all over the map. Some of the examples seem like the small-scale sort of thing that would indeed cause inconvenience to ban: individual electronic devices sent air-freight from NewEgg to a consumer, or spare batteries in checked luggage. But it also mentions that existing regulations exempt "a pallet containing thousands of lithium batteries" from hazardous-material reporting and packaging requirements... and in that case the change doesn't seem too unreasonable to me, because maybe a pallet with thousands of batteries really should be subjected to the packaging and reporting requirements?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"would also forbid air travelers from carrying spare alkaline or NiMH batteries in their checked-in luggage" If it's so "dangerous" to be in the checked bags, then why is it safe to be on carry-on bags?
Ban humans on flights. The even present threat of spontaneous combustion threatens us all.
I record my sleeptalking
. . . I find them much more annoying than exploding Lithium Ion batteries . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
This would result in all the gadgets I use in flight (Nintendo DS, iPod, Laptop) to be stocked away, making airtravel an even bigger pain in the ass.
How many incidents with batteries occur anyway? The figures suggest that a small percentage of all batteries are potentially dangerous, and I've never seen figures of how many people die of these batteries. Small fires can be put out by the cabin crew, and it certainly sounds it's going to cost a lot more than it will generate in terms of safety
Pardon me, but when the second sentence ends with "argues George Kerchner, executive director of the Washington D.C.-based Portable Rechargeable Battery Association," I tend to think that article doesn't have much credibility.
Would we pay attention if an article said something like:
So, some lobbyist for the battery cartel (Big Battery?) says new regulations will make batteries costly. I don't buy it. Sounds that Energizer Bunny's gotten too fat on his wide margins.
Forbid forbid forbid, that's all I hear coming out of the "land of the free" lately. I went to the US 2 months ago, and I have never heard "you can't" as often as I did when I was there.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
"Sec. 173.220 (d) Lithium batteries. Except as provided in Sec. 172.102, Special Provision A101 of this subchapter, vehicles, engines and machinery powered by lithium metal batteries that are transported with these batteries installed are forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft."
Laptops, cell phones, iPods, etc. are all "machinery powered by lithium metal batteries". And it doesn't say anything about shipping or checked luggage, it says they shall be forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft!!!
One could argue that they are not "machinery" in the conventional sense, but this is far too vague. In my experience, when the language of a law allows it to be enforced in some way, eventually it will be.
All the more reasons to build a planetary maglev transit system. Unless Tesla's going to come out with some kind of electric airbus, we better start building the future now. Heck, it'll even create jobs and save the economy.
As far as I can tell, the specialized batteries are used to maximize the power density in small, power-hungry devices.
Example: I have two digital cameras from Canon. The older one (A80) uses standard AA batteries. However, it is a bit larger and less capable than the newer one (SD600), which uses a special Li-Ion battery. If the SD600 were made to use AA batteries, then it would have to be a little bigger.
It's all an engineering/design trade-off. Standard cells mean more battery space and weight but readily available replacements. Custom batteries mean less weight and more power, but require special chargers.
Why not make standard, box-shaped cells to save space? You could do that, but the casing would have to be made stronger (leaving less volume for the energy storage chemicals) to prevent distortion of the casing. A cylinder is better able to redistribute forces around it, where a flat surface caves in or bows out. What about that boxy 9-volt battery? I saw one cracked open once; it was six 1.5v cylindrical cells in series. Again, a set of trade-offs: energy per unit volume vs. structural integrity.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Because you never know when the next flight might be threatened by lithium-powered underwear
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
As a resident of Hawaii this proposal causes me great concern. The majority of the people here buy electronics items online that come by air shipping. The price is generally 10-20% cheaper online due to the high cost of living out here. It sounds like a real boon to the local merchants but it sucks for the consumer looking for the best prices. I know we're small but I hope they think of us before they enact this ban.
If only they'd invent a standard battery a little smaller than an AA. They could call it an AAA or something.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
While he acknowledged the department's figure of 40 air transport-related incidents since 1991 involving lithium batteries and devices powered by lithium batteries, Kerchner said it is a small number in the context of the 3.3 billion lithium batteries transported in 2008 alone.
This is a pressing matter. 2.105263158 "incidents" per year is obviously unacceptable.
...the battery inside an already-padded box for a new notebook PC might need to be packaged in an additional fiberboard box along with extra shipping documents, he said.
Obviously this is a ploy set up by HP's packaging engineers.
You're now limited to a maximum of two batteries with between 8 and 25 grams of lithium in them. They ... must be carried now in plastic bags... If you carry on three such batteries, security will take one of them away.
So forget bringing multiple 9-cell batteries on a plane. FedEx'ing the whole thing sounds better and better every day now, since TSA can sieze anything they want, including your data and now your expensive extended batteries.
So when buying stuff with batteries in, check the cheapest and slowest shipping option. If it comes by USPS or UPS Ground, it won't be a problem.
Even cigars? I would gladly pay double for this. It sounds more like "Heaven-Air" to me. But I want to be the only one smoking. I hate enclosed smoky rooms.
But I'd settle for reasonably-sized seats...and no children or young men on their way to Vegas to get crazy.
You are welcome on my lawn.
What do batteries look like on security scans? Can the scanners not penetrate them? If the scanners have trouble with them, then I submit that this is a veiled attempt at stopping terrorists from hiding bombs in or behind lithium-ion batteries.
(d) Lithium batteries. Except as provided in Sec. 172.102, Special
Provision A101 of this subchapter, vehicles, engines and machinery
powered by lithium metal batteries that are transported with these
batteries installed are forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft. *
Are electronic devices part of "vehicles, engines, and machinery?" I hope not. Else you can't use your ipod. 172.102 isn't in the linked article so I don't know what the special provisions are.
I sleep hooked up to one of them darn fangled cpap machines ... planning a trip soon and bought a 222Wh lithium-ion battery to allow me to go camping etc.
found out I can't use the bloody thing now!
This was discussed ad nauseum at photography forums last year. Key is to read the actual proposal and not depend on the warmongerings of a journalist trying to attract more traffic to his site:
Cartridges packed with equipment to be packed in intermediate packagings together with the equipment they are capable of powering.
The fuel cell cartridges and the equipment must be packaged with cushioning material or dividers or inner packaging so that the fuel cell cartridges are protected against damage that may be caused by the shifting or placement of the equipment and the cartridges within the outer packaging.
All the rule is basically doing is requiring that batteries are transported in such a way that they cannot short out. Either by putting them in the device they are made for (so your gameboy is safe) or by putting them in a special container (the big Li-Ion batteries for SLR's come like that in the box anyway).
After the Great Battery Scare last year with all those laptops combusting spontaneously their was little choice but to start with at least some regulation regarding the combustable nature of these batteries. The requirements are minimal and reasonable and quite frankly I have yet to see anything shipped commercially that doesn't meet those standards.
The proposed rule itself is pretty inscrutable (as usual, I suppose),
.
But don't worry - we can rely on all those helpful and well-educated airport ground staff to correctly and consistently interpret the law and offer balanced and sensible advice to travelers.
We can also re-assure the check-in person that we haven't got batteries at the same time we're assuring them that our luggage has never left our side (even in the trunk of the bus, or when we left it behind the desk at the hotel while we went for lunch); avoiding asking whether the rules on flammable liquids applies to our bottle of "Jungle Formula" and assuming "has anybody given you anything to carry" only applies to ticking teddy bears and bags of white powder handed over by suspicious-looking johnny foreigners. (Seriously, in the entire history of air travel has anybody actually given the "wrong" answer to those questions?)
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Sure people could use batteries in a dangerous way, but at least there are others that could do something about the fire/damage. Down with the checked luggage, I assume the plane would not react until things were much worse...
How many incidents with batteries occur anyway?
It seems obvious that planes are falling out of the sky daily because of the innumerable detonating batteries but it's all hushed up by people in dark suits. Presumably so that the public won't panic.
Thankfully I've converted all my gadgets to using a steam-engine attached to a little turbine. Carrying a few bottle of highly flammable alcohol is much safer than those unpredictable batteries.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Not sure about alkaline and NiMHs, but the cabin crew is not going to be able to put out a lithium battery that's on fire. They self oxidize. And what would you think they could do? Pour water over it?
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Far more efficient than light rail would be a "separate security envelope" for commuter flights.
Requirements:
*Plane too small to take down a big building even with full fuel tanks. Think no more than 20-30 passengers. Sorry Southwest.
*Domestic flights only.
*No checked baggage, only carry-on, and only 1 or 2 full-sized items or equivalent. BUT items normally checked for size like golf clubs could be carried on. No items like guns and such, sorry, ship those ahead.
*Pre-screened, green-lighted passengers only, ID verified with fingerprint or other biometric to prevent boarding via identity theft. This will be designed for the regular business traveler, not vacationers. People who are rejected in pre-screening will have administrative appeals and can sue in federal court if necessary. This is to speed up the line by virtually eliminating passengers who need to be pulled off for watchlist reasons.
*There will be baggage screening and a last-minute, expedited passenger screening to check for recent events (did a passenger suddenly land on a watch list after he got green-carded?).
*Takeoffs and landings are at commuter-only airports or terminals or in a segregated security zone. While you aren't supposed to connect to a "non-commuter" flight, if you do, you'll have to go through "regular" security, so plan a 2+ hour layover.
This should cut the "arrive before departure" time down to 30 minutes or less. You'll still have to worry about parking, waiting on the tarmac, and the rental car though. The latter can be addressed by express bus or rail service from the airports to major in-city destinations, such as convention centers, sporting arenas and other venues on event days, major hotels, and major businesses that generate a lot of commuter traffic.
Civil libertarians will have a fit on the pre-screening and fingerprint requirements, and I'm all for removing them if it won't defeat the purpose of reducing net travel time compared to the status quo. The alternative is keeping the status quo or very expensive new rail (which will likely have its own security- and security-theater delays).
By the way - I probably would not fly in the face of fingerprint requirements on general principles, but many people would and it would make overall air travel more efficient.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"I can't see the need for special batteries for every single device. How is that progress? (And Apple and Logitech have one step stupider and made devices with irreplacable batteries)."
It's progress toward Vendor Lock, nothing else. Volume makes it cheap for vendors and easy to inflict on the public.
Desktop computing is the last holdout of standard form-factors, but desktops don't have batteries.
"Perhaps a battery size standard law is required instead?"
From the POV of economic production, replacement, and being able to re-use old notebooks whose dead batteries turn them into throwaways, that's a good idea.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
"Spoken like someone who is too self-important and socially inept to ever get to the point of being a parent."
Spoken like a parent who cannot control their screaming snot monsters and thinks that having them around is a blessing for bystanders.
If it screams, stop it from screaming.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Not sure about alkaline and NiMHs, but the cabin crew is not going to be able to put out a lithium battery that's on fire. They self oxidize. And what would you think they could do? Pour water over it?
From TSA: Primary lithium batteries cannot be extinguished with firefighting agents normally carried on aircraft, whereas lithium-ion batteries are easily extinguished by most common extinguishing agents, including those carried on board commercial aircraft.
Primary lithium cells are non-rechargeable cells (what devices use them?); most cells carried on board would be lithium ion. Given that a fire from one could be extinguished it seems that since it would be more easily discovered early in the cabin vs in cargo a cargo ban seems reasonable. I fly a lot and can carry all my battery needs in carry on luggage; in fact I never check luggage unless absolutely necessary.
As for cargo flights, where significant amounts of batteries would be carried, figuring out how to safely do it seems reasonable. Given the lack of problems so far it would seem that significant changes would not be needed; but one can never be sure of what a change in regulation will cause. Perhaps fire suppression systems in containers carrying batteries? Then again, that will take space away from goods and result in higher per item transportation costs.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Googling the quoted text got one hit, Hazardous Materials: Revision to Requirements for the Transportation of Batteries and Battery-Powered Devices, etc.; Correction .
I don't speak bureaucrat well enough to be sure, but this seems to be a year old rule, one that is already in force.
As anyone who can read could tell you, the rule-making linked in the summary is for a final rule. The final rule isn't open for comment anymore - it's already published, already effective, and would require a new notice-and-comment cycle in order to change.
The rulemaking PHMSA is proposing is at PHMSA-2009-0095. PHMSA is not required to listen to any comments posted on the link above, because that docket is closed. Therefore, if you want your comments to be read, you should use the above link.
Because the analysis of many people has been on a rule that's only tangentially related to the rule-making at issue, much of what's been posted in this thread is 100% wrong. For instance, many people are saying that the rule would prohibit people from carrying spare batteries with them.
Not only can you continue to bring your electronics on the plane, you can bring spares for the devices as well, so long as you take the reasonable step of taping over the terminals.
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
So, the NSA finally classified Sony as terrorists?
Visit www.growingbettersoftware.com to download your free copy of the book
I tried... and was greeted with
This Account Has Been Suspended Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.
You might want to fix your sig 'til you get that taken care of.
...I will only fly completely naked.
Let‘s see how long they can stand that, before they overturn the laws. :P
But I can raise the bar too, by employing this technique: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9yLKnC5bho
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Lets call the US the "No Fly Zone".
Well, In any case, I always use ground shipping because it's cheaper, so why would that affect me?
Do you mean that cargo imports from China or other manufacturers locations are dangerous to cargo planes and they don't properly use bubble wrap to ensure these devices don't collide between each other?
What I don't get is, if they were dangerous, how did they become so widely used in the market and why just until now they figured out that it could cause an accident?
Come on guys. Use your Geek fu. This isn't hard:
... duct tape.
Got batteries with accessible conductors - use duct tape to cover them.
Got annoying, noisy children or adults - use duct tape to cover them.
Got a terrorist trying to blow up the plane - tape 'em to the seat with
Just give out a roll to each flight attendant and you're golden. Nothing hard about this at all.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Li-Ion batteries are available in standard sizes as well, some are AAA sized. They run $3 - $6 online. Many of those special batteries are, in fact, just aaa or aa sized LiIon batteries sealed into a proprietary carrier and marked up a few thousand percent (since the new "battery" is oh-so-special). The only thing that's "special" about the chargers for those is that they are designed to fit that proprietary carrier (and ONLY that carrier) and so they get marked up as well.
Looking at the battery for the SD600, a pair of standard CR10440 LiIon batteries would be smaller and last a bit longer (CR10440 is aaa sized).
LiIon also come in a AA size and others. I have yet to see a "special" battery that couldn't have been be replaced by mass manufactured off the shelf batteries. Either the engineers are all stone cold stupid (seems unlikely) or it's a scam. Probably some pretentious "designer" who doesn't care at all about usability thinks that putting a round battery in would make the product seem "common" or "cheap".
If that was a common thing, you could easily get replacement batteries for your laptop at the drug or grocery store. You could interchange batteries between your still camera, video camera, laptop, flashlight, etc. etc. A charger that works on all of them would be $10-$15.
Before you say they do it to protect the device from the wrong type of batteries (since a "aaa" LiIon is 3.7V rather than 1.5 or 1.2), the device already has to gracefully handle undervoltage.
Not really. It would just be one more stupid bureaucratic idea that would impede progress to very little useful gain. You would end up freezing design at one level with no ability to change other than to get the law / administrative order changed. You do realize that most of the battery packs you complain about are really pretty standard under the shell - they are comprised of a few fairly standard cell types that are packed in varied configurations. There is a thriving aftermarket for battery pack replacements even for oddball electronics. Don't need no stinkin laws.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I've not seen anything but charter planes doing this since 9/11, but then again, I haven't been looking.
The person in an upstream post wanted to fly from Dallas to San Antonio. There are bound to be commuter airports in the Dallas and San Antonio areas that allow small-plane commercial traffic.
If there is enough demand to build a train, surely there is enough demand for a commuter airline, or even a "big airline" operating a commuter jet, to advertise "We are the real air bus - Dallas to San Antonio in 90 minutes - from our parking lot to your rental car."
Given the poster's comment, I doubt such a service exists in that market.
If there is not a market for this service, then I can't see the market for high-speed commuter rail either.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
here has been no evidence that lithium ion, nickel metal hydrid, nor aklaline batteries present any kind of danger to air travel. Regulstions such as these are reactionary knee jerk responses to problems that do not exist. Please consider the times in which we live, humans are connected 24-7 by devices powered by these batteries. Money spent of these regulations would be better invested in foreign intelligence, even though the public already has such an extremely low chance of dying on a terrorist act anyway. Getting back to the point, this measure only serves to harass airline passengers, increase spiralling costs of air safety and further send a troubled nation into panic while buying us absolutely no 'real' safety. Myself and every other reasonable person in the united states are apposed to this measure.
Interesting. Lithium non-rechargeable sound like the ones I see in the grocery stores that are made as alkaline substitutes. The batteries I work with are Lithium-Ion rechargeable. I'd like to know how they expect to put out the rechargeable ones. So far as I know, they can't be put out. I would really like to know what they think could be used to extinguish them.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Interesting. Lithium non-rechargeable sound like the ones I see in the grocery stores that are made as alkaline substitutes. The batteries I work with are Lithium-Ion rechargeable. I'd like to know how they expect to put out the rechargeable ones. So far as I know, they can't be put out. I would really like to know what they think could be used to extinguish them.
According to what I could find they recommend Halon extinguishers are effective, followed by cooling of the battery.
Relevant links I found are:
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2009/SAFO09013.pdf
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/batteries.shtm
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Are those exploding batteries in your pocket, or are just glad to see me?
Fire spreads to stuff that can be could extinguished if you can get to it.\b If the fire kindly limited itself to the battery, it would not be an issue.\b It takes a long time to get down from 30,000 feet unless you turn the plane into a lawn dart like the valuejet crash.
That sounds like it would make a lot of sense. Amtrak already has a route from Fort Worth to San Antonio, the "Texas Eagle", but it's dog slow. According to Amtrak, a one-way trip from FW to SA is $30, but takes 7 hrs, 45 min. According to Kayak, I can get a flight from DFW to SAT for about $155 one way, but it only takes an hour of flight time. According to Google, it would take about 4 hrs to drive one way. It seems like if you could build along the existing rights-of-way for the existing rail, you could put in an pretty awesome high-speed rail system for not-so-much money. One way to work it might be through the "Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority". They are primarily focused on toll roads around Austin, but could provide a venue to study high-speed rail capabilities.
Air travel in Texas is messed up anyway. I went to visit my sister in Austin, and it was cheaper to fly to Austin, through DFW, than it was to get a direct flight to DFW and drive down.
Utilize a Halon, Halon replacement or water extinguisher to extinguish the fire and prevent its spread to additional flammable materials.
Ok, this makes some sense. But as to the battery itself:
After extinguishing the fire, douse the device with water or other non-alcoholic liquids to cool the device and prevent additional battery cells from reaching thermal runaway.
... Ok, so the battery is on fire and they want you to douse it with water. A LITHIUM battery... Cripes, I'm thinking these guys don't know what they are talking about. By the way, here's the doc I deal with at work
Hm.. This page has some interesting things on it.
*Water may be used to extinguish packaging fires if batteries have not ruptured; water is not an effective extinguishing agent for a battery fire.
* For small fires involving the battery [extinguishing] media such as Lith-X or copper powder may be used, but should be applied with a long handled tool. Do not use CO2 or Halon directly on a battery fire as the exposed surface of the contained lithium may react with these materials.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Read the regulation. It does nothing of the kind. The point of not allowing batteries in CHECKED baggage is so that the "small fires" are in an area accessible to the cabin crew. There is no ban on the devices in carry-on. And if the airline just installs fire-suppression equipment (halon?) in the cargo hold, there is no need to ban the batteries in checked-luggage either. The airlines can recover their costs by raising the checked-bag fee by a buck or two.
We are the 198 proof..
The regulation link in the main article is a regulation that already took effect in January. The new regulation under discussion is the one referenced by parent. And that regulation ONLY discusses Li-ion batteries. Nothing about NiMH or Alkaline except to contrast their relative safety with the fire risks of lithium.
Don't fall for scare-mongering industry whores that masquerade as journalists.
"Sec. 171.12 North American shipments.
(a) * * *
(6) Lithium cells and batteries. Lithium cells and batteries must
be offered for transport and transported in accordance with the
provisions of this subchapter. Lithium metal cells and batteries
(UN3090) are forbidden for transport aboard passenger-carrying
aircraft.
(i) The provisions of this paragraph (a)(6) do not apply to
packages that contain 5 kg (11 pounds) net weight or less lithium metal
cells or batteries that are contained in or packed with equipment
(UN3091).
"
There are similar provisions for international travel, but citing a different regulation.
We are the 198 proof..
When laptop batteries began exploding left and right if you looked at them wrong, I gave my father a call.
He worked for many years at the Lithium Corporation of America, where they mined and refined Lithium ore for all sorts of purposes (shoe rubber, axle grease, pool chlorine, etc, etc..).
I asked him about the exploding batteries, expecting a tirade on how bad manufacturing was to blame, rather than lithium.
Instead, he surprised me with a rant about the old-old lithium batteries - small things about half the size of a double-A battery - used in (pro-)photography flash units. "They banned those from passenger flights because if you hit one with a hammer, it would go off like a shotgun shell. The whole point of using lithium in a battery is because it releases stored energy quickly, to recharge the flash." He seemed a bit shaken and a little surprised that one of those exploding batteries hadn't taken down an airliner.
I don't know why people worry about this kind of thing being made law. Why am I not worried? Think about it.
Who are the people who use planes all the time? Business people, government workers.
And who are the people who need to use their laptops on all those plane trips? Business people, government workers.
And who are the people in real control of all of the laws in the country? That's right, the wealthy business people, the lawmaking government workers.
In 2010+, No law or regulation is ever going to happen that makes air travel require you to not have a working computer. It is just not realistic given the players involved.
After extinguishing the fire, douse the device with water or other non-alcoholic liquids to cool the device and prevent additional battery cells from reaching thermal runaway.
... Ok, so the battery is on fire and they want you to douse it with water. A LITHIUM battery... Cripes, I'm thinking these guys don't know what they are talking about. By the way, here's the doc I deal with at work
Hm.. This page has some interesting things on it. [findarticles.com]
*Water may be used to extinguish packaging fires if batteries have not ruptured; water is not an effective extinguishing agent for a battery fire. * For small fires involving the battery [extinguishing] media such as Lith-X or copper powder may be used, but should be applied with a long handled tool. Do not use CO2 or Halon directly on a battery fire as the exposed surface of the contained lithium may react with these materials.
Interesting stuff. I'm glad to see NAVSEA requires no venting for sub batteries; I wonder what they use on fires? Purple K was the old standby; made a hell of a mess though. A fire on a boat would be as dangerous as on a plane.
What's interesting is the divergent recommendations - on says Halon is OK; the other not. The FAA recommends dousing the battery in water to cool it after the fire is out. Halon was always the magic fire stopper since it interfered with the reaction with out reacting with the flammables; maybe that's not the case with Li-Ion cells? I don't know but am genuinely curious; especially as a real frequent flier.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Thanks for the research. Glad to see my feeling that something was fishy with the original article is confirmed.
Too bad your clarification is too late to get any traction. Slashdot time runs even faster than Internet time.
I get ground shipping free and automatically unles I choose air
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
This is true, but the AAA might not have usable energy capacity before it would have to be recharged/replaced.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
You can buy Gadgets online?
Errrr... Ummm...
Why didn't anybody tell... me?
Thanks,
Dave Small
(formerly of Gadgets by Small)
Three AAA cells takes up a slightly larger area as the SD600 battery (I did a direct comparison on my desk right here) but the AAA battery (three cells) is also nearly twice as thick. A three-cell battery using the CR10440 in parallel (since the two batteries have almost the same voltage) would have 1500 mAh (500 mAh each in parallel) vs. the 760 mAh of the SD600 battery.
The trade-off is camera size. On either side of the battery is the SD card and the display controls, so there wouldn't be any room for the AAA cells unless the camera was made thicker.
So you are correct in that a battery made of AAA Li-ion cells would last longer (nearly twice as long in fact) and be slightly cheaper ($27 for the Canon battery on sale at Amazon.com) but the battery would also take up nearly twice the volume.
You point is well-taken, but my point still stands--it was a trade-off in size vs. battery interchangeability. Depending on what features you wanted in a camera, you can go with one with a proprietary battery or one with standard battery.
As far as interchangeabiliy goes...
I'll use my MacBook Pro as an example, as I have the battery information readily available. Battery voltage is about 12.5V right now, fully charged, 10.76V when the battery is nearly empty. Battery capacity is about 5500 mAh fully charged. Fully charged, that means in contains about 247.5kJ of energy.
A single AA-size 3.6V nominal Li-ion cell with 900 mAh capacity contains about 11.7kJ of energy. To provide the same amount of energy, you would need over 21 CR14500-series cells. Your number also must be divisible by three, as three cells in series provides 10.8V-the minimum I've seen on my MBP. So you need 24 cells total. Eyeballing the AA cells I have here and comparing to my MBP, the battery volume is roughly the same, not taking into account the interconnections and moldings required to hold 24 cells in an 3x8 battery pack.
So you have 8 groups, three cells per group, to match the 13" MBP battery. 24 cells, at $4.50 sale price from the link given above (bulk price for 24 cells), is $108. The normal price of $7.95 means the cells come to $190.80, slightly less for bulk pricing. You also need to charge all 24 cells at once; you can't mix cells of differing charges, otherwise some cells will have to supply more current than others and potentially exceed their current rating. BTW, I neglected current rating in the discussion as I don't know what the current rating is for a Li-ion cell. It would have to be at least 300mA, as I've seen a peak of 2.4A on my battery and dividing that current over the 8 groups yields 300mA from each. I'm going to assume that each cell can handle 300mA.
Weight: I've seen similar cells at 21g each, but they also had lower (800mAh) capacities. Using 21g anyway, that is 0.047 pounds (rounding up a wee bit from 0.0462 for the extra capacity) per cell, or 1.13 pounds for the battery pack; again, that does not include the interconnecting wiring or holders. I don't know what the MBP battery weights, and I'm not pulling mine apart to check.
So to compare:
13" MBP battery: 247.5 kJ of energy, rated for 1000 charge cycles, and $129 for Apple to replace if it goes bad. Not user-replaceable. Internal connections all soldered together for reliability.
CR14500 battery pack: 280.8 kJ of energy (13% increase), rated at 600-800 charge cycles (20% fewer), similar
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
NAVSEA actually requires that they not vent at all, or not vent outside of the container. Normally batteries have safety circuitry to prevent the overcharging/discharging that would lead to thermal runaway or venting. That document covers batteries for Navy & Marine Corp Aircraft, Ships and Subs. Note that the FAA recommends halon to put out the secondary fires (i.e. carpeting), not the primary fire (battery). A lithium battery on runaway isn't fire in the normal sense as I understand it. It isn't consuming oxygen as performing another chemical reaction. I just don't see how they expect to stop the reaction.
One of the byproducts of a lithium-ion fire, from what I have been told, is Hydrogen Fluoride, which produces this stuff when inhaled. Nasty stuff. This is one reason allowing power outlets on aircraft for charging consumer electronic devices has a few people I work with nervous about flying. So far as I've figured it, the only thing I could do is grab the battery, toss it into the lavatory on an aircraft, shut the door and get the pilots to go low and slow enough to vent the atmosphere of the cabin. Somehow I doubt they could do it fast enough given the lethality of HF.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Every reference I could find on the SD600 battery listed it as being 3x4x1, so a AAA would easily fit. What is the real size then? Why are you assuming 3 aaa's since 2 would already exceed the capacity of the SD600 battery? (1000 vs. 760mAh).
Keep in mind that if more devices used COTS cells, they would get cheaper and be available at every corner drug store.
You should also note that the LiIon cells in question are 3.7-3.6 nominal, they all charge to 4.2 V max and like any battery will drop off as they discharge. Different formulas have different discharge curves (with NiMH having the interesting property of a nearly constant voltage and falling off a cliff at the end). The upshot is that the same cell might be listed as 3.6 or 3.7v but actually have the same max and min voltage and discharge curve.
The same thing applies to the cycle ratings of the batteries. They degrade slowly over time, so the cycle rating will be a function of the criteria applied. The very same cell might have it's capacity de-rated in order to claim more cycles if that's what's called for.
Looking at the Macbook, 7 groups of 3 would actually exceed the Macbook battery's capacity, no need for 8 groups.
Those cells can do at least 1 amp.
Like now, you would retain the option to have the laptop charge the batteries in place, it's just that you'd gain the option to charge them externally.
The point though is that with minimal thought I can present COTS options on-par with the proprietary options without even getting in to minor equipment design changes that could easily eliminate the minor short-comings including the issue of wasted space.
It's also notable that if battery manufacturers saw any demand from equipment designers for a standardized flat battery pack, they'd gladly come up with one that fits a wide range of devices so long as there is a small bet of effort to use the COTS part.
All of that suggests that there really isn't much in the way of good reason to have "battery packs" be like expensive and hard to find snow flakes.
That's not even getting into the devices with internal "not user serviceable" battery packs that are just standard cells (minus any labeling or specifications) soldered together and shrink wrapped (or duck taped).
I have a Ricoh GX100 that takes either a proprietary cell or a pair of AAAs (with no adapter or anything required). While the proprietary cell does give better life, the advantage of AAAs is they're considerably cheaper so I can carry more spares, AAA chargers are common (most AA chargers also do AAA) and as a last resort you can buy single use ones from almost anywhere.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I don't have a ruler handy, but I got my dimensions based on taking the battery out of my SD600 and laying it on the desk next to a AAA cell. The SD600 battery is slightly thicker than one radius of the AAA sitting next to it. It is about 1-2 mm shorter than the AAA's body (not including the nub at the end of the cell), and three AAA cells wide.
I don't know why I assumed three AAA cells; perhaps it was because three were the same width as the SD600 battery and I went with that. Yes, 2 Li-ion AAA cells would do the trick, but there would still have to be concessions made in the camera design for the wider cells.
My math showed that it would take slightly over 21 cells, so 7x3 would not provide the same energy. Are you using the 4.2V to calculate the energy content of a cell? If so, then yes, the 7x3 battery would be more than sufficient. You still need to design in the means of holding the cells, and the notebook would still need to be somewhat thicker to accommodate the AA cells. Putting a standard AA cell (I presume that AA alkaline is the same dimensions as AA Li-ion) next to my MBP, the notebook is only 1-2 mm thicker than one cell. The structure used to hold the cells would take up space, so the notebooks's dimensions would have to change.
Add to that the fact that the geometry of the cells has a limited set of physical arrangements, the form of the final device is somewhat restricted. You are correct that a lot of battery packs are just shrink-wrapped cells soldered together, but a lot of other packs are custom-shaped to fit the volumes allocated to them.
Two other examples to note: my iPod nano is thicker than a AAA cell, so that option is out. The portion of my Motorola RAZR that contains the battery is also thicker than a AAA cell, so that option would be out as well. As devices get larger though, then the standard cells start to become more of an option.
I suspect there is some marketing and customer research too: Joe Sixpack buys a camera that requires "AA Lithium cells" but only gets the "AA" part, and can't figure out why his camera doesn't work with new batteries. A Li-ion cell can't go below 2.5V (per Wikipedia) which is still a full volt above your standard alkaline cell, so a device using Li-ion cells will shut down (or not even start with insufficient voltage. Sure, the device could sense what cell is installed by checking the voltage, but that adds complexity to the device, especially if you want to try detecting a mix of alkaline and Li-ion cells (which I would not expect to be a good idea in the first place).
In reverse, You have a camera that uses standard alkaline AA cells but Joe just grabs the first pack of AA cells he sees on the shelf. He drops in cell that has twice the required voltage and his camera releases the magic smoke that makes it work.
There may be other factors that we haven't considered, like heat, weight, etc. Speaking only for myself, I'm not a battery design engineer so I wouldn't know all the design criteria that goes into battery selection.
I think we've both pointed out the pros and cons of each type battery packs. The pros of a standard-size cell are: more readily replaceable and potentially lower costs (volume production). The cons are limited geometries that would require extra structure to hold the cells and restrictions on device form to accommodate such structures.
Pros of custom-formed packs: fitted to fit the exact volume allocated, allowing for the desired device form. Cons: proprietary form fact
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?