Matronics Email Lists Forum Index Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
 
 Get Email Distribution Too!Get Email Distribution Too!    FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Lithium Battery Article in Kitplanes

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
user9253



Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 1920
Location: Riley TWP Michigan

PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2014 7:17 pm    Post subject: Lithium Battery Article in Kitplanes Reply with quote

There is an article by Dean Sigler in the November 2014 issue of KitPlanes Magazine discussing lithium batteries. There is a picture of lithium batteries being charged inside of a fireplace. Should aircraft lithium battery boxes be made of firebrick? Smile
Joe


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

_________________
Joe Gores
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:16 pm    Post subject: Lithium Battery Article in Kitplanes Reply with quote

At 22:17 2014-10-06, you wrote:
Quote:


There is an article by Dean Sigler in the November 2014 issue of
KitPlanes Magazine discussing lithium batteries. There is a picture
of lithium batteries being charged inside of a fireplace. Should
aircraft lithium battery boxes be made of firebrick? Smile

Just got home from the little trip to Canada. Delightful time
but didn't get to do the kayak trip. Too cold. Quite
memorable for a host of other reasons.

I've done some preliminary charge/discharge experiments
and I've 'discovered' some interesting things which for
the moment I'll have to catalog as anecdotal because I
did not rigorously control test conditions or record
data. While sitting on airplanes (lots of them!) over the
past week, I've designed a test plan that requires some
fabrication and programming.

If my preliminary discoveries don't fall to closer
scrutiny, I'll have some interesting 'meat' to include
in my next installment of the lithium saga.

I tried to get the KP article but the website is
not responding at the moment. Will try again later.

Bob . . .


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2014 5:49 am    Post subject: Lithium Battery Article in Kitplanes Reply with quote

At 22:17 2014-10-06, you wrote:
Quote:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>

There is an article by Dean Sigler in the November 2014 issue of KitPlanes Magazine discussing lithium batteries. There is a picture of lithium batteries being charged inside of a fireplace. Should aircraft lithium battery boxes be made of firebrick? Smile

Had a great vacation trip punctuated by broken
airplanes and overnight stays in travel at both
ends . . . what are the odds?

Got a look at the article cited. This is pretty
much an academic assemblage of published facts
about the various lithium products being studied
and tried in MOTIVE POWER applications where
energy density and charge/discharge protocols are
much more demanding. The article is probably
accurate but minimally relevant to what we're
doing . . . or proposing to do with lithium battery
products.

Getting a lithium battery to burn is like any
other catastrophic energy release in that it
takes a combination of stacked conditions. In
the case of an ENGINE CRANKING / STANDBY POWER
battery, the first condition we'll strive to
minimize is the choice of chemistries.

My preliminary findings working with the 26650
liFe cells purchased off eBay suggest that their
ratings, and coincidentally their in-service
risks for abuse, are strongly influenced by the
boundaries on charge/recharge limits. Many articles
I've read suggest that optimum battery life is
achieved if the cells are cycled between about
80 and 20 percent of their chemical energy limits.
The hybrid vehicles program their battery management
systems to keep routine cycling of the cell packs
within these or similar limits thus accepting
a designed-in de-rating of battery capacity.

This de-rating along with choice of a chemistry
with the most robust resistance to conflagration
suggest that fire-brick battery boxes are probably
overkill. Lowered risks for LiFe fire not-withstanding,
the lithium products finding their way onto TC
aircraft ARE being housed in enclosures that
ASSUME a potential for the worst . . . said
enclosures are designed to contain a battery
fire and vent products of combustion overboard.

Know too that these offerings have a significant
proportion of procurement expense tied up in the
battery management system electronics!


[img]cid:.0[/img]

http://tinyurl.com/l6xbev7

As of this date, I'me aware of no similar
prophylactics against catastrophic failure being
offered to the OBAM aviation community.

My cursory studies of the lithium question have produced
some enlightenment and mild surprises . . . but the
data gathering methodology was too coarse . . . it seems
that differences as small as 0.1 volts per cell in charging
voltage can have a large effect on energy stored. I've
go more cells ordered and I'm assembling better data
gathering tools.

One thing I can offer at this stage of the study is
to strongly object to any marketing of a lithium product
with words that speak to "lead-acid equivalency" . . .
these are an entirely different breed of cat and to
suggest that an end user can expect performance and
maintenance issues to be a matter of drop-in equivalency
is at best disingenuous and at worst a tad fraudulent.

To the snow-mobiler or biker who's interests are largely
limited to engine cranking and service life, the loose
application of words like 'equivalency' is not terribly
egregious. Airplanes are be VERY different in operational
expectations, system integration and failure modes management.

In the mean time, know that the article cited in the
subject line of this tread has little significance to
the issues we're wrestling with here on the List.

Watch this space . . .


Bob . . .


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List



8d9208f.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  86.3 KB
 Viewed:  3475 Time(s)

8d9208f.jpg


Back to top
ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2014 6:50 am    Post subject: Lithium Battery Article in Kitplanes Reply with quote

I'm a bit puzzled as to why we, the E/AB community, would seriously consider Lithium batteries for the main battery. To save weight or space? The savings are insignificant and the unknowns and risks are not insignificant. Lithium chemistry makes sense for highly portable electronics (laptops, tablets, phones) but not so much for us.
Sure, we DO build and fly *experimental* aircraft, but there's a limit to how much experimenting most will do. The more proven non-flooded Lead-based batteries are very safe and convenient and I use them on both my certificated Aircoupe and the RV-9A that will hopefully be flying next year.
Ralph Finch
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:
Quote:
At 22:17 2014-10-06, you wrote:
Quote:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com (fransew(at)gmail.com)>

There is an article by Dean Sigler in the November 2014 issue of KitPlanes Magazine discussing lithium batteries.  There is a picture of lithium batteries being charged inside of a fireplace.  Should aircraft lithium battery boxes be made of firebrick?   Smile

   Had a great vacation trip punctuated by broken
   airplanes and overnight stays in travel at both
   ends . . . what are the odds?

   Got a look at the article cited. This is pretty
   much an academic assemblage of published facts
   about the various lithium products being studied
   and tried in MOTIVE POWER applications where
   energy density and charge/discharge protocols are
   much more demanding. The article is probably
   accurate but minimally relevant to what we're
   doing . . . or proposing to do with lithium battery
   products.

   Getting a lithium battery to burn is like any
   other catastrophic energy release in that it
   takes a combination of stacked conditions. In
   the case of an ENGINE CRANKING / STANDBY POWER
   battery, the first condition we'll strive to
   minimize is the choice of chemistries.

   My preliminary findings working with the 26650
   liFe cells purchased off eBay suggest that their
   ratings, and coincidentally their in-service
   risks for abuse, are strongly influenced by the
   boundaries on charge/recharge limits. Many articles
   I've read suggest that optimum battery life is
   achieved if the cells are cycled between about
   80 and 20 percent of their chemical energy limits.
   The hybrid vehicles program their battery management
   systems to keep routine cycling of the cell packs
   within these or similar limits thus accepting
   a designed-in de-rating of battery capacity.

   This de-rating along with choice of a chemistry
   with the most robust resistance to conflagration
   suggest that fire-brick battery boxes are probably
   overkill. Lowered risks for LiFe fire not-withstanding,
   the lithium products finding their way onto TC
   aircraft ARE being housed in enclosures that
   ASSUME a potential for the worst . . . said
   enclosures are designed to contain a battery
   fire and vent products of combustion overboard.

   Know too that these offerings have a significant
   proportion of procurement expense tied up in the
   battery management system electronics!

  
[img]cid:.0[/img]

http://tinyurl.com/l6xbev7

   As of this date, I'me aware of no similar
   prophylactics against catastrophic failure being
   offered to the OBAM aviation community.

   My cursory studies of the lithium question have produced
   some enlightenment and mild surprises . . . but the
   data gathering methodology was too coarse . . . it seems
   that differences as small as 0.1 volts per cell in charging
   voltage can have a large effect on energy stored. I've
   go more cells ordered and I'm assembling better data
   gathering tools.

   One thing I can offer at this stage of the study is
   to strongly object to any marketing of a lithium product
   with words that speak to "lead-acid equivalency" . . .
   these are an entirely different breed of cat and to
   suggest that an end user can expect performance and
   maintenance issues to be a matter of drop-in equivalency
   is at best disingenuous and at worst a tad fraudulent.

   To the snow-mobiler or biker who's interests are largely
   limited to engine cranking and service life, the loose
   application of words like 'equivalency' is not terribly
   egregious. Airplanes are be VERY different in operational
   expectations, system integration and failure modes management.

   In the mean time, know that the article cited in the
   subject line of this tread has little significance to
   the issues we're wrestling with here on the List.

   Watch this space . . .
    

  Bob . . .


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List



8d9208f.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  86.3 KB
 Viewed:  3473 Time(s)

8d9208f.jpg


Back to top
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2014 7:05 am    Post subject: Lithium Battery Article in Kitplanes Reply with quote

At 09:48 2014-10-09, you wrote:
Quote:
I'm a bit puzzled as to why we, the E/AB community, would seriously
consider Lithium batteries for the main battery. To save weight or
space? The savings are insignificant and the unknowns and risks are
not insignificant. Lithium chemistry makes sense for highly portable
electronics (laptops, tablets, phones) but not so much for us.

Sure, we DO build and fly *experimental* aircraft, but there's a
limit to how much experimenting most will do. The more proven
non-flooded Lead-based batteries are very safe and convenient and I
use them on both my certificated Aircoupe and the RV-9A that will
hopefully be flying next year.


A lucid deliberation my friend . . . based on my
own experience and personal design goals for seeking the
'elegant solution', I have no foundation for a contrary
argument.

But until we know as much as can be discovered
about these critters, arguments proposing any
design goal will be on shaky foundation.
Bob . . .


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
kenryan



Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 426

PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2014 7:41 am    Post subject: Lithium Battery Article in Kitplanes Reply with quote

I am comfortable using Lithium batteries based on the many, many thousands that are currently in use in snowmachines, motorcycles, etc., and the many that are currently being used in EAB aircraft.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com (ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
Quote:
I'm a bit puzzled as to why we, the E/AB community, would seriously consider Lithium batteries for the main battery. To save weight or space? The savings are insignificant and the unknowns and risks are not insignificant. Lithium chemistry makes sense for highly portable electronics (laptops, tablets, phones) but not so much for us.
Sure, we DO build and fly *experimental* aircraft, but there's a limit to how much experimenting most will do. The more proven non-flooded Lead-based batteries are very safe and convenient and I use them on both my certificated Aircoupe and the RV-9A that will hopefully be flying next year.
Ralph Finch
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:
Quote:
At 22:17 2014-10-06, you wrote:
Quote:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com (fransew(at)gmail.com)>

There is an article by Dean Sigler in the November 2014 issue of KitPlanes Magazine discussing lithium batteries.  There is a picture of lithium batteries being charged inside of a fireplace.  Should aircraft lithium battery boxes be made of firebrick?   Smile

   Had a great vacation trip punctuated by broken
   airplanes and overnight stays in travel at both
   ends . . . what are the odds?

   Got a look at the article cited. This is pretty
   much an academic assemblage of published facts
   about the various lithium products being studied
   and tried in MOTIVE POWER applications where
   energy density and charge/discharge protocols are
   much more demanding. The article is probably
   accurate but minimally relevant to what we're
   doing . . . or proposing to do with lithium battery
   products.

   Getting a lithium battery to burn is like any
   other catastrophic energy release in that it
   takes a combination of stacked conditions. In
   the case of an ENGINE CRANKING / STANDBY POWER
   battery, the first condition we'll strive to
   minimize is the choice of chemistries.

   My preliminary findings working with the 26650
   liFe cells purchased off eBay suggest that their
   ratings, and coincidentally their in-service
   risks for abuse, are strongly influenced by the
   boundaries on charge/recharge limits. Many articles
   I've read suggest that optimum battery life is
   achieved if the cells are cycled between about
   80 and 20 percent of their chemical energy limits.
   The hybrid vehicles program their battery management
   systems to keep routine cycling of the cell packs
   within these or similar limits thus accepting
   a designed-in de-rating of battery capacity.

   This de-rating along with choice of a chemistry
   with the most robust resistance to conflagration
   suggest that fire-brick battery boxes are probably
   overkill. Lowered risks for LiFe fire not-withstanding,
   the lithium products finding their way onto TC
   aircraft ARE being housed in enclosures that
   ASSUME a potential for the worst . . . said
   enclosures are designed to contain a battery
   fire and vent products of combustion overboard.

   Know too that these offerings have a significant
   proportion of procurement expense tied up in the
   battery management system electronics!

  
[img]cid:.0[/img]

http://tinyurl.com/l6xbev7

   As of this date, I'me aware of no similar
   prophylactics against catastrophic failure being
   offered to the OBAM aviation community.

   My cursory studies of the lithium question have produced
   some enlightenment and mild surprises . . . but the
   data gathering methodology was too coarse . . . it seems
   that differences as small as 0.1 volts per cell in charging
   voltage can have a large effect on energy stored. I've
   go more cells ordered and I'm assembling better data
   gathering tools.

   One thing I can offer at this stage of the study is
   to strongly object to any marketing of a lithium product
   with words that speak to "lead-acid equivalency" . . .
   these are an entirely different breed of cat and to
   suggest that an end user can expect performance and
   maintenance issues to be a matter of drop-in equivalency
   is at best disingenuous and at worst a tad fraudulent.

   To the snow-mobiler or biker who's interests are largely
   limited to engine cranking and service life, the loose
   application of words like 'equivalency' is not terribly
   egregious. Airplanes are be VERY different in operational
   expectations, system integration and failure modes management.

   In the mean time, know that the article cited in the
   subject line of this tread has little significance to
   the issues we're wrestling with here on the List.

   Watch this space . . .
    

  Bob . . .





- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List



8d9208f.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  86.3 KB
 Viewed:  3472 Time(s)

8d9208f.jpg


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group