3 ms·
A few people here do mention LiFePO4 batteries as a safer alternative. As a total battery-noob, honest question: assuming the author had indeed used LiFePO4 fo
by black_puppydog 3y ago
A few people here do mention LiFePO4 batteries as a safer alternative.
As a total battery-noob, honest question: assuming the author had indeed used LiFePO4 for the build, with standard (-ish?) over- and under-charge protection.
How much safer would this be? It's still a relatively big battery pack (read: chemical energy) sitting in someone's broom cupboard, isn't it?
- jacquesm 3y agoA lot because they suffer less from thermal runaway and are more resistant to physical damage. That's why the better tool brands use that chemistry too and why you see car manufacturers switching to them. I think LiIon was a huge mistake and that as various pieces of gear that have them built in ages that we'll see more and more issues with them. They're everywhere: cameras, laptops etc, stuff that has a service life of 10 years, sometimes more and as they age they become more dangerous, especially when people re-purpose them. I've rebuilt a couple of packs for brand name cameras and e-bikes and it is very interesting to take apart the old packs to see what you find inside. More than one had the start of a fire in them, evaporated wiring, scorch marks and so on. I'm pretty sure those are the good ones ;)
- wongarsu 3y agoDense energy storage is almost inherently dangerous. LiIon are great for applications where you actually need that density. But the scale of those use cases has made it ubiquitous and cheap, leading to LiIon to be used in many cases where the density isn't needed at all and is just a pointless risk.
- droopyEyelids 3y agoThe concept to research here is thermal runaway. There is a lot of chemical energy in wood, too, right?
- NegativeLatency 3y agoYes but generally if I’m rough with a piece of wood it doesn’t start a fire.
- jacquesm 3y agoDepends on how rough ;)