Slashdot Mirror
Chevy Volt Fire Prompts Safety Investigation For EV Batteries
Three weeks after undergoing a crash test, a Chevy Volt caught fire. The car's battery was determined as the cause of the fire, though GM said its protocols for deactivating the battery following a crash would have prevented it. Either way, the National Highway Traffic Safety Association is now on the case. They're planning additional testing of the batteries, though they were quick to say, "Based on the available data, N.H.T.S.A. does not believe the Volt or other electric vehicles are at a greater risk of fire than gasoline-powered vehicles. In fact, all vehicles — both electric and gasoline-powered — have some risk of fire in the event of a serious crash." According to the president of an engineering firm, "If a lithium battery is pierced by steel, a chemical reaction will take place that starts raising the temperature and can result in a fire... If the piercing is small, that reaction can take days or weeks to occur."
... it causes death 100% of the time
Do you want to know why the American economy is swirling down the shitter? It's became Americans have become nancies. They have become sissies, if you will. They don't have the guts to take real risks. They don't have the guts to try something new.
Maybe this shouldn't be surprising. America often has been a backward "conservative" nation for much of its history. Aside from a few generations at the very beginning of America's modern history, the tolerance for risk has been decreasing rapidly. Without real risk you can't have real gain.
This story is a perfect example. This is clearly a very minor issue with a simple solution: if the vehicle gets into a collision, change the fucking batteries! But America as a culture will overlook this, and will overlook the immense economic and environmental benefits that these vehicles would bring, because they are TOO FUCKING SCARED to take what's a very minor risk.
This happened with an old laptop battery I had which was pierced after a fall and left in a metal trash bin. Nothing serious resulted but people need to be aware that damaged batteries are always dangerous. The fact it happened ona volt seems irrelevant. Maybe they can release a new car and call it "duravolt" (like duracell batteries except with a volt tag).
Yeah, you're totally right, the exact same type of low-voltage, low-wattage batteries used in sub-$300 laptops are also used in $30,000+ electric vehicles. There's absolutely no difference between them.
ARE YOU FOR REAL? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU THINKING?! SERIOUSLY! WHAT THE FUCK!
Especially in an accident. Not sure why the Volt would get singled out. There's all of six of them on the road. Hell, VWs don't even require accidents to burn up.
All hail the new Pinto.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
How long before we see a TV show or mystery novelist use an intentional puncturing of a battery to kill someone weeks later?
I give it two years, any other guesses?
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
And fuel fumes case an explosion if an open flame or an electrical sparc is present. What's your point?
I was always skeptical of the Chevy Volt, not because of its technology per se, but because of the "executor". In this case, engineers at Chevy.
After living in a household that owned Chevys for decades, and seeing how poor workmanship was an almost guaranteed feature in all those vehicles, the Chevy left a bad mark on my mind.
Even simple stuff like seats were poorly done. The cars over heated in the summer, and many of them would just lose power when you needed it most.
Needless to say, I do not think I will ever own one even if given to me as a gift.
If the piercing is small, that reaction can take days or weeks to occur."
Even a small piercing into the skin of a LiON battery pack is more than enough to short and cause an immediate fire. The exciting part of lithium battery fires is that the oxygen is in the cell and dousing it with water only intensifies the reaction!
So, if you find yourself unable to release the seatbelt after an accident you might as well commit suicide before the flames get ya. That would be my advice to Volt owners.
Lol? We all know that gasoline cars catch fire at the slightest! Happens on movies all the time!
Does wonders for greenhouse gases
* My brothers '72 Capri caught fire in the garage and nearly burned our house down.
* Windmills only kill condors left, but not right.
* Radar ground clutter is well known.
* Using heater uses energy of course. Can't blame Obama for laws of physics being inconvenient sometimes.
* I tend to agree with you on the silliness of ethanol.
Private market is no paragon of virtue. Recall AIG?, Enron? BP oil spill? Bhopal chemical leak? etc. etc.?
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
It's been a while since college, but I remember the Lithium in water experiment very well.
Next NHTSA will discover that 20 gallons of gasoline sitting under the back seat is also a fire hazard.
-ted
read "the other side of innovation" also see article here http://www.hybridcar.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=822&Itemid=122 you may need to get the text version here - http://lkcl.net/ev/curious_state_of_hybrids.txt
innovation is virtually impossible for mass-production companies to "slot in" to the "efficiency engine". they literally can't do it. there are also legal issues that need to be taken into account, such as a guaranteed 7-year-supply of parts *after* the vehicle's *last* mass-production run is finished.
the article above goes into detail.
http://lkcl.net/ev
you _can't_ put a material that spontaneously catches fire when exposed to air and water (lithium) into a car!
You realize that you're talking about lithium-metal right? All mainstream electric vehicles are using lithium-ion which is a different technology. A lithium-ion battery _will_not_ catch fire when exposed to air and water. Lithium-ion batteries will catch fire when heated to above around 120C which can happen by an internal short circuit, or if punctured by a piece of metal.
Stop spreading FUD. Lithium-ion batteries are much safer than lithium-metal batteries, which is why lithium-ion batteries are being used despite their lower energy density.
Just don't take the Thermite Paintwork option if you by a Hydrogen car and you should be O.K
If a lithium battery is pierced by steel
Are you saying we are using steel in cars again? I thought with the exception of the drivetrain, they were pretty well all plastic today.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
My cousin's ex-eyebrows are interested in your views on the safety of gasoline and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Rgds
Damon
http://m.earth.org.uk/
after 150 years, the design of the lead-acid cell has not really been improved on. rainer partenan's nanotech aluminium-based battery which has (had) a 5x storage capacity improvement for its weight over NiMh was thoroughly discredited. research grants 15 years ago by the U.S. Govt were *only* given for batteries with a voltage over 2.0 volts, in order, one can only assume, to prevent and prohibit the funding and discovery of aluminium-based battery technology.
we therefore have to work with what we've got: it's no good saying "oh we have to wait yet _another_ decade or two until someone comes up with the goods" FUCK that, there are more ways than one to skin a cat, ok?
so the alternatives are to skin the vehicle down to an absolute minimum required, then make it *look* from the outside (for social acceptance as well as driving safety reasons) like it's a "full-on square back-sided car" jobbie. in other words, you stuff a massively-streamlined body inside an empty outer shell. this is the principle behind what i'm working on - http://lkcl.net/ev
it's _not_ all about the batteries. we _have_ all the pieces of the puzzle already - have done for over 5 years now. it's just that nobody's put them all together... yet.
I would rather have a battery catch fire than a CNG fuel tank explode. There have been craters left where those vechicle used to be.
Electric vechicles are like SSD's. They cost more, have less range, limited (write) recharge cycles and reliability issues are still being worked through as the technology is new.
Even as I reject and poke fun of the technology in its current state...there is no denying it is the future.
I was always skeptical of the Chevy Volt, not because of its technology per se, but because of the "executor". In this case, engineers at Chevy.
Have you actually met an engineer at GM, Ford, or Chrysler? Where does your bias against them come from?
After living in a household that owned Chevys for decades, and seeing how poor workmanship was an almost guaranteed feature in all those vehicles, the Chevy left a bad mark on my mind.
You need to separate worksmanship from parts' sourcing. When the overall vehicle quality was suffering from the big three, they were also doing a lot of lowest-bidder dealing for parts; making almost nothing themselves. The workers can make sure that the parts are assembled correctly, but if the parts are crap because some bean counter in an office found they could save $.43 per car by sourcing a critical bolt through a fly-by-night machine shop run in a former communist state, you can't blame the worker when said crappy bolt fails. The worker did his job, someone else fucked it up and got away with it.
Even simple stuff like seats were poorly done
Even the seats had parts coming from all over the planet. Tracks, motors, upholstery, etc, all coming from different sources. Regardless of what you want to believe, the workers had no say in this matter and had to assemble what was in front of them regardless of how crappy the parts were.
The cars over heated in the summer
So you are now blaming GM for solar radiation? I've stepped into Hondas in the summer that were plenty warm as well. Or are you talking about the engine overheating, as a result of the crappy water pumps, crappy gaskets, crappy hoses, and crappy radiators - all of which came from different companies?
and many of them would just lose power when you needed it most
That is a sweeping generalization. If you can't support it, there is no point in responding to it. If I responded by telling you Japanese cars are boring, I would expect a similar response.
Needless to say, I do not think I will ever own one even if given to me as a gift.
You are free to hate on any company you wish. You would do yourself a favor to actually have facts behind your hatred though.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Everyone seems to have forgotten the Volkswagen bug (the original ones). The magnesium transfer case burned wonderfully. Damned hard to put out.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Mostly because I wonder if any post inspection was done of this car. Was it charging when it caught fire? Usually after these tests the cars are not "drive able" so what are we truly dealing with?
I am no Volt fan, its an over priced and depending on your leaning the subsidy is too high or too low. Seeing the price of the all electric Focus it leads me to believe battery tech is not ready for prime time, or I should say in this day and age, not ready for the 99% club
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
because a tank full of liquid, flammable and explosive fuel is so much safer.
/s
First off, You sound like you own stock in Chevy and the like. I hope you do not: Let me elucidate:
I have not met an engineer at Chevy. What I have met are mechanics that have to deal with the 'crap' Chevy has produced over the years. Trust me, it's ugly. Not a single one painted a good picture of Chevey vehicles, with almost all of them reporting something to the effect that it is like "those vehicles have an expiry date (read mileage), at which point, they all are as good as junk." No other major car manufacturer has the same problems especially with leaking coolant and intake manifold gaskets.
I do separate those two, and guess what, I do not care. What matters to me as a consumer is what product I get at the end. If other car manufacturers can deliver 'quality' cars, I expect the same if not better from an all American company like GM. Is it too much to expect?
See above. All a customer cares about is the experience. Source your parts from the moon or wherever you wish, but deliver a good reliable product. If mistakes happen, and they do, after all we're human, own up to them, like one major foreign company did a few years ago. What's wrong with that?
Yes, I am talking about the engine. These engines, especially from the Impala line, overheated like hell during summer. Other cars never overheated, but they were being driven on the same roads. Explain that.
OK...I agree. I over generalized. Sorry!
You want the facts? Head here:
oh the humanity!
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Hilariously, that's what caused the fire. The fuel tank is DRAINED after collision. Apparently people doing the test didn't drain the battery, as the manual told them to in addition to draining the fuel tank.
First off, You sound like you own stock in Chevy and the like. I hope you do not: Let me elucidate:
No, I do not. I'm just tired of people who are bashing without factual basis. As I stated at the end of my message, you are free to hate GM as much as you want, but you would do yourself a favor to base your hatred on fact and not just your own feelings.
Have you actually met an engineer at GM, Ford, or Chrysler? Where does your bias against them come from?
I have not met an engineer at Chevy.
So then it is shown that your bashing the engineers at GM is baseless.
What I have met are mechanics that have to deal with the 'crap' Chevy has produced over the years
And that relates to your demonstrated hatred of GM engineers how?
It doesn't.
No other major car manufacturer has the same problems especially with leaking coolant and intake manifold gaskets.
Which is not intrinsically the engineers fault. If the engineers designed a part and then the bean counters allowed it to be made in a way that significantly deviated from the design, you have no justification in bashing the engineer for it.
You need to separate workmanship from parts' sourcing.
I do separate those two, and guess what, I do not care
Hence you are not separating them. If you don't care about the distinction then functionally you are not separating them.
Other cars never overheated, but they were being driven on the same roads. Explain that.
Really? No other car, made anywhere, by anyone, ever overheated? You don't help to make a sensible argument when you reach for sweeping generalizations like that. I can say with certainty that there was at least one car not sold by GM in the history of time that overheated in the summer, somewhere.
OK...I agree. I over generalized. Sorry!
You would make a better argument if you did it less often. I presume the apology was only for your original over-generalization, you have made at least two more since. That said I'm not sure who you are apologizing to; it doesn't help me to see you apologize and then repeat the same offense; if you want to improve your discussion habits you might want to apologize to yourself and then stop with the over-generalizations.
You want the facts? Head to a Chevrolet-bashing website:
You have demonstrated that you hate Chevy. Good for you. The fact that you view them as the evil of the world, while using almost no unbiased evidence to support it, suggest you either don't know what you're talking about or you just have an axe to grind and see them as a good target.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
And here they are, from the 2-hour training session for first responders to Chevy Volt accidents. It's necessary to open the trunk and cut 12V cables at two points with heavy wire cutters. The cut points are marked with yellow tape printed with a firefighter hat and wire cutters. Here is GM's official instruction sheet for this. There's also a battery disconnect switch inside the center console of the vehicle, where a big plug is turned and removed. That's the normal procedure for disconnecting power during service.
So that's the documented "protocol following the crash". That's what GM says to do, and what a first responder or a tow company would have done if they did everything right. It would have had little effect if a battery had an internal short.
The Prius, Civic, and Ford Escape each have completely different battery disconnection procedures. The first responder community is not happy about this. They want a standardized, easy to get at way to quickly disconnect the high voltage battery in an emergency.
This article is nothing more than a propaganda piece for a culture that is soaked in petroleum. There is a significant portion of the US population that hates the idea of driving anything that doesn't threatens the complete domination of the internal combustion engine. I've had "discussions" with these kind of people and it's not "fear" per se but more of a deep seated ignorance and an environment hostile to technological progress. To those people, anything that gets more than 40mpg is a threat to everything they believe in and they viciously attack anything and everything that challenges their oil-based ideology.
The article plays on this undercurrent of hatred; the title demonstrates that the author is more interested on stoking the fires of the regressives' political ire than the fact that one test car caught fire after an accident. I'm glad they're looking into it, but ANY car has the potential for catastrophic failure after crashing. A leaky fuel line here, a loose wire there and POOF... up in flames.
No, you've confused the instructions for first responders with the instructions for the dealerships doing post-crash repairs.
Per a post elsewhere:
Still it's a good thing NHTSA is looking into this (while not picking solely on GM). After the Toyota unintended acceleration issue the US auto safety regulators looked bad because they appeared to have not paid attention to the early warning signs, and that ended up being bad for the regulator, the regulatee, and the consumers. Even if this turns out to be a total non-problem, it will help debunk fear-mongering against EV technology. IMHO.
No, you've confused the instructions for first responders with the instructions for the dealerships doing post-crash repairs.
Yes, the maintenance instructions say to pull the battery pack. But that's part of repair, not a caution item to be done before even storing the wreckage. What's needed is a quick way for first responders and tow people to check for an internal battery short on a damaged vehicle. Maybe something like temperature-sensitive paint on the battery - "If this square is red, battery may explode; back off and contact HAZMAT". It's going to be a rare problem, but you want to know before moving the wreckage if there's a short.
Do they test gasoline powered vehicles with tanks full of gasoline? If not, why are they testing EVs with live battery packs?
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
Lets face it if you rode up to the regulators today on your horse and said: "I have a new idea for a product. It will be a giant metal shell on wheels. People will sit in it and move at 60km/h in opposite directions on a narrow road only a meter appart. The metal shell will become the subject of about half of your efforts to control how people use it. Best of all it runs on a highly volatile mixture of hydrocarbons."
There's no way a car could be invented today.
Well, as the nanny state has turned our world upside down in the effort to promote this not-ready-for-prime-time "solution", I predict that whatever else they determine, it will be emphasized that these cars are essential to the future of the nation.
God forbid they ever let the market work.
--- Bill
"Three weeks after undergoing a crash test, a Chevy Volt caught fire"
I think if you could not get out of the car within three weeks after you've been in a crash, you have bigger problems than the battery catching on fire....
Whether its poor engineering, workmanship, or parts (or a combination thereof), it doesn't make any difference if its junk.
It does when someone - for example, the person who started this thread - incorrectly assigns all the blame to one of the three.
And when someone says that their "car overheated", almost nobody with an IQ over room temperature will think the complaint is about the interior temp.
When you specifically talk about a car overheating in the summer, it could be the interior. Whether or not you have the intellect - and that is always questionable when an AC is posting - to know it, cars can also overheat in the other three seasons.
Let me emphasize if a car is crap, its crap. Doesn't matter why,
You're simply wrong on that. And being as the post I replied to was incorrectly assigning blame to the engineers - and even more so trying to claim that the engineers are responsible for new speculative problems - you're off-topic as well. You really should read more of a discussion before you inject yourself into it. Of course, you won't be back to reply after this so it doesn't really matter.
,br>
Seriously dude, your entire response makes absolutely *zero* sense
It's not my fault you lack the ability to follow the thread back to its origins and see what was being discussed. Why you chose to reply to me is anyone's guess, but it is rather clear why you replied AC.
crap-wagon for a car
There are many, many, worse cars that have been made than any that have been discussed in this thread. I knew someone who had a true crapwagon in the form of a first-generation (to the US) Hyundai Accent. It accented how much safer it is to walk on the freeway than to drive that miserable pile of failure. That car was barely capable of doing 62 mph downhill with a stiff tailwind with two people (including the driver) in it. It never should have been certified to be driven on the roads in this country as it posed a danger to the driver, any unlucky passengers, and everyone else who had to share the road with it. By comparison every car mentioned in this thread is reliable, comfortable, efficient, safe, and powerful.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
You realize that you're talking about lithium-metal right? All mainstream electric vehicles are using lithium-ion which is a different technology. A lithium-ion battery _will_not_ catch fire when exposed to air and water. Lithium-ion batteries will catch fire when heated to above around 120C which can happen by an internal short circuit, or if punctured by a piece of metal.
Stop spreading FUD. Lithium-ion batteries are much safer than lithium-metal batteries, which is why lithium-ion batteries are being used despite their lower energy density.
listen to yourself. stop spreading FUD... but you're ok with lithium-ion batteries exploding if short-circuited or heated to above 120C, mm?
at least with lead-acid cells you _only_ get warm acid thrown on your face if you short-circuit and boil them, which if you're desperate can be washed off with lots of water. you can't wash burning lithium off your face, can you.
so, thank you for the corrections - it allows me to more accurately state that, thanks to the use of lithium (in any form), death can be caused only by short-circuit or heating the cells above 120C rather than that the death can be caused by exposure to air and water.
honestly :)
You are very very close.
The saving grace of a tank full of flammable, explosive fuel is that it MUST join with the low-density oxygen available in the air in order to detonate. This places a fundamental physical limit on how fast the reaction can take place.
Note gasoline fires pose a big problem if the gasoline vapor and air can mix, then be ignited in a closed container.
By observation, note most car fires go on for hours, limited by how fast gasoline escapes from the tank and runs down the street, ablaze.
Production of non-reactive "products of combustion" accumulate around the reaction, slowing down ingress of fresh oxygen needed to sustain the reaction, placing physical limits on how fast the reaction can be sustained.
Not at all like a gas tank filled with gunpowder.
The explosion is limited to the amount of reactants that are mixed in the proper ratio ( as the chemists would say "stoichiometric ratio" ).. Reactants not mixed in the proper ration have leftovers which fail to react until they also "find their partner".
In gunpowder, the reactants are already mixed in the right proportions, physically right next to each other, just waiting to be triggered into reaction.
Physics dictates just how fast, given mixing energies and the quite low density of air, how fast this can happen.
A battery, though, is a bomb. Both of the reactants are within millimeters of each other, separated by only thin membranes, designed for collection of electron flows. A significant mechanical disruption will place the reactants in physical contact with each other in just the right proportion, much as gunpowder. The whole cache of chemical energy stored can be released in milliseconds.
Its a real tribute to battery manufacturers that laptop computer explosions are not commonplace. The things have about the same energy as a hand grenade or stick of dynamite. A cellphone battery has about the same energy as an M-80 firecracker.
Incidentally, its about the same as the energy in a hot-water foot-warmer bag.
Think of it this way: if you discharged your laptop battery into a resistor in a foot-warmer water bag full of cool water, how hot would it become as you drained your battery? Well you get an idea of how much your laptop warms your lap. Think about burning that stick of dynamite by powdering it and burning it slowly. Same thing.
Think of the energy stored in a mousetrap. So little energy that it would be quite hard to measure the heating it could do to the water bag should the energy stored in its spring be released as heat. Yet its quite destructive to the mouse.
What makes it so destructive is the RATE of energy release. The dynamite, and battery, ( and mousetrap) release their stored energy in an instant.
This is just the physics of what we are dealing with.
That is what makes an awareness of the physics governing the operation of our stuff just that much more important as the sophistication of our devices increase.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
That's incredibly ironic, since the *actual* reason the economy is in the shitter is because of reckless risk-taking (over-leveraging).
It's not ironic at all; because although the actions were risky there was no risk TO THOSE TAKING THEM. They were basically forced by the government into issuing loans no sane bank would make, told they would be backed up by the government...
The main point stands, the people of the U.S. are becoming coddled. We have to stop the bailouts and let the largest institutions die the deaths they have earned. We have to make it more respectable to take care of yourself than to take a government check for whatever, at all levels of society...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hey, not joining in on the bashing here, but you do seem to be simply nit-picking bogaboga's post while ignoring the main point. Chevy cars are historically unreliable. Maybe they have the most amazing engineers in the world working there. Maybe. But who cares if the end product is crap?
I live off the grid, have plenty of spare power from my PV panels, which I plan to use to keep the thing charged. I don't have to commute (retired) anyway, except to the beer/munchie store. I don't *have* to drive more than once a week or so, and one charge will get me to town and back fine.
I also have a 2011 Cruze, and it's easy to see why they are the #1 selling car these days - the thing rocks, and I love it. Granted GM (and other american companies) turned out shit for a few years. I'd just say that it's not universally true now, though I'd not get a Ford (software by MS, scary) or a Chrysler, who still use hot glue to hold their cars together, cheap crap (except for the price).. Bob Lutz really turned GM around. For many years I just bought GM commuter cars used (and real cheap due to people thinking they must be worn out after 100k), with 100k miles on them - no maintenance past changing oil had been done, and I drove them another 20k miles the same way, till I got bored and got another GM - no issues whatsoever - the bashing is just out of place, you euro-trash jerks. Go back to worshiping apple or something, and get off my lawn. GM is BACK.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
There's no way a car could be invented today.
In a world where cars (or some other technology that performed the same functions) didn't already exist, demand for them would be great enough to overcome any safety concerns.
In a world where something similar already existed, there would be no need for cars anyway.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
That arguement falls down for two reasons.
a) if something like this didn't exist our world would likely be as it was during the time it was invented, and we would likely have thought "What is the point of that? I have a horse!"
b) You're ignoring my point that we have become an insanely litigious society. It's not a necessity that will or won't allow us to move forward, its the fear of getting sued the first time something like this causes a death.
The only thing that saves the car is entrenchment. Take a look at typical industry today while you're at it. Why is it today we say nuclear power is too expensive whereas in the 60s it was seen as a way to finally make cheap power? Our society has changed for the risk averse where these days people are much more concerned about building an intellectual property portfolio than build equipment.
You need to separate worksmanship from parts' sourcing. When the overall vehicle quality was suffering from the big three, they were also doing a lot of lowest-bidder dealing for parts; making almost nothing themselves. The workers can make sure that the parts are assembled correctly, but if the parts are crap because some bean counter in an office found they could save $.43 per car by sourcing a critical bolt through a fly-by-night machine shop run in a former communist state, you can't blame the worker when said crappy bolt fails. The worker did his job, someone else fucked it up and got away with it.
Aren't the people who specified the crappy parts workers too? They are employees of the company, after all. "Workmanship" does not just apply to the assembly of the vehicle, it applies to the entire design, engineering and construction process.
If poor components were used, that's poor workmanship on behalf of the company.
... and then they built the supercollider.
You realise that the hydrogen had basically nothing to do with that fire?
"The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
Aren't the people who specified the crappy parts workers too? They are employees of the company, after all. "Workmanship" does not just apply to the assembly of the vehicle, it applies to the entire design, engineering and construction process.
If poor components were used, that's poor workmanship on behalf of the company.
Not necessarily. The people who specify the parts sources are generally not considered workers in the automotive industry as they don't have any physical role in the assembly of the vehicle. Similarly in construction the people who select the materials are not generally considered workers unless they are also actually involved in the construction process.
So no, if the parts are crap, then workmanship is not necessarily the problem. If the parts are assembled poorly because the worker doesn't care or is inadequately trained for the job, then it is. Workmanship in the case of the automotive industry is understood to be the act of final vehicle assembly. The bean counters at GM are less connected to workmanship in the context of a vehicle than an office receptionist in a hospital is to a neurosurgery procedure.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
An EV battery has a specific range, determined by
- rolling resistance
- wind resistance
- battery weight
A 1.6kW/h of energy stored in lead acid cells takes around 50kilos. If you drive at 30k/h (20mph), you can ignore wind resistance, and you will get around 30km of range on that energy (I have driven an EV on lead, and this is what I achieved -- two wheel, light vehicle). Mostly because of the Peukert effect. If you draw at higher than C/20 from a lead pack, the amount of stored energy will be reduced. There is also a reduction at lower temperatures -- at 0C you can discount the pack by 50%. PLUS, you can't drain the pack below 80% DOD because you will shorten its life. Your vehicle WON'T be getting 30km per 1.6kW/h of lead battery, Since it is MUCH heavier, I would estimate at 1/3 that (assuming you keep total vehicle weight to 500 kilos). And, I would also estimate that you will only get 200 charge cycles (or less) from your lead pack.
Lead is really a HORRIBLE technology. if you REALLY want a tech that works like lead, but is completely "safe" try Edisons NiFe batteries. Electric cars built in the early 1900's with this tech still have viable batteries. Same weight problem, but you won't be limited by the number of charge cycles.
But, NiFe suffers from the same problem as Lead -- horrible energy storage for its weight. Lithium is currently the best option But.. LiPo may "explode", and you appear afraid of that. So, try LiFePo4 batteries. 1.6kW/h for between 500 and 800 dollars; won't explode; slightly less energy dense than LiPo; 1/4 the weight of lead; and has 1 to 2 THOUSAND recharge cycles. Available commercially now -- try pingbattery.com or google for A123 cells.
I've driven lead and lithium instead of gasoline now for two years. Take it from someone with the experience.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
But, you are only planning to use the batteries for accelerating! (as an aside, the 5 hours per gallon generator run time is probably "no-load").
The batteries will sustain that load for only a few minutes. And will take hours to recharge.
Think of using capacitors instead. Less energy storage, but they shouldn't die on you.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Apparently, there are a number of drugs that are in this same situation. They were used for years, decades, centuries? before the FDA was established, and thus were pre-approved the moment the FDA started up. I found out about this, when I saw a feature on TV about one of these: Colchicine. Recently, some company went and actually did all the testing necessary to bring it up to FDA's expectations of safeties and standards, and they found that most people were being prescribed more than they should have been. In exchange for doing all the leg work on the matter, they ended up getting an exclusive permission to market the drug for a period of time. Oddly, a form of "patent" after the fact. Of course, Colchicine can't actually be patented, just no other company can get FDA approval to make it until the companies exclusive period ends, so effectively a form of patent.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Apparently, there are a number of drugs that are in this same situation.
Alcohol would be the obvious comparison. It causes more fatalities for the user, and more fatalities to innocent bystanders not to mention the social implications, depression, and abuse than any other illegal drug in existance.
It's another case of a mind altering drug that would be heavily regulated if it were discovered in todays society.
Apparently, there are a number of drugs that are in this same situation.
Alcohol would be the obvious comparison. It causes more fatalities for the user, and more fatalities to innocent bystanders not to mention the social implications, depression, and abuse than any other illegal drug in existance.
It's another case of a mind altering drug that would be heavily regulated if it were discovered in todays society.
Marijuana was also around well before the FDA, yet it is banned. And alcohol was banned itself for awhile, as well as being restricted or banned in a whole bunch of religions.
What I was attempting to point to were medical drugs that are not FDA-approved, but since they are known to be efficacious and were around before the FDA, the FDA labeled them with "around before us", and thus they were acceptable to use as MEDICAL drugs.
The whole history of recreational drugs is a long and different affair.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Funny you mention that. A friend of mine just started taking Colchicine [ColSys (tm)] for elevated uric acid in the blood. I'm old enough to remember an episode of "Quincy" where it was being marketed as a plant growth stimulant for pot and killing pot-smoking kids left and right. Apparently it's used on plants to induce polyploidy.
Interesting quote:
Colchicine's ability to induce polyploidy can be also exploited to render infertile hybrids fertile, for example in breeding triticale (x Triticosecale) from wheat (Triticum spp.) and rye (Secale cereale). Wheat is typically tetraploid and rye diploid, with their triploid hybrid infertile; treatment of triploid triticale with colchicine gives fertile hexaploid triticale.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
but you're ok with lithium-ion batteries exploding if short-circuited or heated to above 120C, mm?
I'm just saying be realistic and stop making it sound as if lithium-ion batteries are intrinsically dangerous so that you can push your agenda for your design
A lithium-ion battery will not normally reach 120C. It will only do so if damaged or if there's a defect. Just like you don't want to be driving around in a car with a damaged gas tank. You're in just as much danger sitting on top of a tank of gasoline as you are sitting on top of a lithium-ion battery pack.
Lithium-ion batteries are not any more intrinsically dangerous than other high energy content materials. Whenever you concentrate high energy things, they must be treated with respect. Just because you have to take different precautions when working with lithium-ion batteries as opposed to gasoline, does NOT mean lithium-ion batteries are more dangerous.