TylerDurden
100 GW
Prolly not at the courthouse...nutsandvolts said:This would look kinda cool on the back of my xtracycle .
Prolly not at the courthouse...nutsandvolts said:This would look kinda cool on the back of my xtracycle .
Good point.gogo said:What I'm hearing is that someone needs to engineer battery packs that bear the "some assembly required" description. If the cells have already been certified, maybe jumpers in between the cells so that the pack enclosure becomes a shipping container for legal purposes?
OneWayTraffic said:This was always going to happen. Lithium is an explosive metal, and carries risks. Safer modern types of batteries like LiFePO4 are too recent to be reflected in laws yet.
Guys, before you jump all over GTA1, remember he is just egging us on. He's the one that jumped on this forum recently and began extolling SLA, including SLA's future "improvements". He doesn't even understand the differences in various Lithium chemistries. From here on out I plan to just ignore this troll and keep my fingers crossed that the nice light LiFePO4 that I've enjoyed for the last year and a half don't explode and burn.$50,000 is a pretty petty fine for the risks irresponsible behavior poses.
Perhaps the penalty need to be upped to lifetime bans from air travel (aka being on the "no fly" list, and fines of $1m per infraction, and / or lifetime imprisonment.
Bringing potentially dangerous cargo on board should be no less an offense than bringing firearms, mercury, or explosives on board an aircraft.
frodus said:This from Dave Kois at EVComponents:
"No need to be concerned yet. This ruling did not adopt any new rules for the
transport of lithium batteries. If the person who posted the information would have
read the document he linked to he would have known this. It is highlighted in yellow
in several places in the document. The ruling does however make some changes to the
transportation of batteries in general, which are only voluntary for now but will be
implemented starting January 2010. I will follow up with the appropriate
authorities as well as our freight broker to determine what we will be required to
do. It does look like they are looking at drafting new rules specifically for
lithium batteries in the future and I will certainly be on top of any new
developments with this including the commenting."
It does sound like there's more to the story.....there may be cause for concern, but has ANYONE contacted the appropriate authorities yet to find out the details?
Rassy said:GTA1 wrote:
Guys, before you jump all over GTA1, remember he is just egging us on. He's the one that jumped on this forum recently and began extolling SLA, including SLA's future "improvements". He doesn't even understand the differences in various Lithium chemistries. From here on out I plan to just ignore this troll and keep my fingers crossed that the nice light LiFePO4 that I've enjoyed for the last year and a half don't explode and burn.$50,000 is a pretty petty fine for the risks irresponsible behavior poses.
Perhaps the penalty need to be upped to lifetime bans from air travel (aka being on the "no fly" list, and fines of $1m per infraction, and / or lifetime imprisonment.
Bringing potentially dangerous cargo on board should be no less an offense than bringing firearms, mercury, or explosives on board an aircraft.
nutsandvolts said:It's not people taking battery on planes that is the concern, it's shipping from sellers to buyers! How will you or anyone get batteries? There is plenty of demand for lithium batteries, so I think the shipping companies need to work this out, so they follow safe procedures. Looks like I may be sticking with tool batteries for some time.
I sure as hell wouldn't wait for bureaucracies to get this done.cycle9 said:I have started to work towards this certification for all the packs we sell so that we can ship them to comply. But it is going to be time consuming and expensive, and we'll have to pass the costs on (batteries are not a money maker to begin with).
Doctorbass has a Serial/Parallel switching system, but it uses big contactors.nutsandvolts said:I've been thinking about this for some time: I want to make a circuit board that can reconfigure my battery pack dynamically. It would be able to change the pack from lower votage higher capacity to higher voltage lower capacity. On the latter configuration it would be like a stock low speed bike with lots of range, on the other configurations (there could be several) it would basically join more serial groups together for more speed and climbing ability. The building blocks of cell strings could be small enough capacity to meet those transport limitation requirements. Perhaps they could even be stock tool batteries in their original enclosures. Has anyone had similar ideas?
The devices reduce the diode losses and might be used as SS-relays, but all connections will add some loss (and risk of failure); so the fewer connections, the better.nutsandvolts said:What about those "ideal diodes" or some variant of them? Couldn't losses be minimized that way?