BMW Porsche fast charger delivers 100km range in 3 mins

[watercooled]

Explosion != Detonation

A steam explosion is still an explosion, and an explosion does not need to involve combustion. I originally included some references to detonation but removed it to avoid confusion.

I said explosion in my original post and distinguished it from burning, all of those points stand. At no point did I or the post I was replying to say detonation.

Functioning correctly, batteries vent, not explode and certainly not detonate.

You're mixing terms when it comes to explosives but I'm not sure it's relevant to this topic, or this forum to be honest. Just one hint though, sensitivity is a separate characteristic altogether. PeriodicVideos on YouTube have some good videos on the subject.

Venting batteries are not exploding in the same way a struck match is not exploding. Let's not overcomplicate it.

[Saracen999]

Explosion != Detonation

A steam explosion is still an explosion, and an explosion does not need to involve combustion. I originally included some references to detonation but removed it to avoid confusion.

I said explosion in my original post and distinguished it from burning, all of those points stand. At no point did I or the post I was replying to say detonation.

Functioning correctly, batteries vent, not explode and certainly not detonate.

You're mixing terms when it comes to explosives but I'm not sure it's relevant to this topic, or this forum to be honest. Just one hint though, sensitivity is a separate characteristic altogether. PeriodicVideos on YouTube have some good videos on the subject.

Venting batteries are not exploding in the same way a struck match is not exploding. Let's not overcomplicate it.

Venting batteries prevents pressure explosions by venting pressure.buildup. That is not combustion, or what I'm talking about. Lithium batteries "burn" because of either electrical short, or physical intrusion causing electrical short, resulting in chemical combustion. i.e. burn.

Strip a lithium battery down to core cells, no hard case at all to cause a pressure build-up, and then puncture the insulating layer between the chemical layers and the chemical reaction causes heat, then jeat build-up, then a burn, which which I mean something from several inches to several feet of flame shooting out of it.

This is not a slow burn like, oh, setting fire to brandy on a christmas pud, but more like a roman candle firework, and once started, is next to impossible to extinguish, until the potential energy is released.

Functioning correctly, batteries don't explode. Agreed. But when not functioning correctly, lithium batteries burn pretty fast, and very agreesively. I don't need to watch videos for this, gaving seen it happen in person.

And as I said, the difference between fast burn, or fast combustion, and "explosion" of the type of chemical burn luthium batteries do, is rate of reaction.

I did not say lithium batteries explode. I said the difference between "burn" and "explode" is rate of the chemical reaction. And it is. And is nothing to do with venting. I'm not mixing terms, but you seem to think I'm saying something I'm not.

To be clear, forget lithium cells for a moment. When you have a store of potential energy, and it is released in an uncontrolled fashion, the difference between burn and explode is rate of reaction, rate of release of that energy. It's the same process, one slower, one faster. That, and that alone, was my point, and nothing to do with pressure cooker "explosions".

[DanceswithUnix]

I have an ICE car with a "Lithium" 12V battery. From some of the comments here I would assume I am as good as dead

What I don't get though; do people really think that EV design engineers are unaware that they are storing large quantities of energy and do their very best to avoid, detect, contain and limit problems? I have yet to see anything like the EV equivalent of the Trabant were the petrol tank is gravity fed from above the hot engine!

[watercooled]

snip

Think what you want, you have made multiple statements which are factually incorrect. You are confusing explosion with detonation. An explosion absolutely does not need to be a chemical reaction. But I'm bored and it's way off topic. My original statement was correct so the digression is pointless.

explosion
/ɪkˈspləʊʒ(ə)n,ɛkˈspləʊʒ(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
a violent shattering or blowing apart of something, as is caused by a bomb.

I have an ICE car with a "Lithium" 12V battery. From some of the comments here I would assume I am as good as dead

What I don't get though; do people really think that EV design engineers are unaware that they are storing large quantities of energy and do their very best to avoid, detect, contain and limit problems? I have yet to see anything like the EV equivalent of the Trabant were the petrol tank is gravity fed from above the hot engine!

I also don't get the rampant hysteria around lithium batteries. Some of it is comical, and like I say people seem to ignore the fact it's being compared against storing and burning litres of petrol.

[Saracen999]

Think what you want, you have made multiple statements which are factually incorrect. You are confusing explosion with detonation. An explosion absolutely does not need to be a chemical reaction. But I'm bored and it's way off topic. My original statement was correct so the digression is pointless.


...

No, I didn't, but you seem to be missing the fact that I was talking about materials where the energy is stored chemically, not in either pressure cookers where, actually, it isn't inherently stored at all, until you apply external heat) or something like pressured canisters where there is indeed stored PE.

Nor did I say your original statement was wrong. I think you're reading into it something I didn't say.

All I said originally, correctly, was that when a chemical store of potential energy combusts, the difference between whether it's called burning, or combusting, or deflagrating or exploding is the speed with which that reaction occurs. That's nothing to do with, for example, pressure cookers.

Can we agree that lithium cells can burn, aggressively? That they emit light, heat, gases and a pressuee wave?

Suppose you have a given quantity of energy, equivalent to that of a lithium cell, stored in some medium, and it releases that energy by burning. If it releases it over, say, 30 seconds, you have combustion. If it releases it all in, say, a ten-thousandth of a second, you have an explosion.

It's one process, call it combustion, but a vast spectrum of speeds of reaction, with explosion at the far end. Note, that is NOT saying other things, like a pressured canister don't explode, but in the context of chemically stored PE, it isn't what I'm talking about.

Do lithium cells explode? No. They burn, and pretty fast and aggressively, but they don't explode. and even that, only if there's a major fault, or external trauma.

Is there an element of danger? Sure. But so is there in sitting 6 feet from a 30 gallon tank of a volatile liquid like petrol though that too is pretty safe unless there's a major flaw in the tank, or external trauma.

My point was that in any spectrum like this, you have a considerable range of values. Technically, "detonation" is simply a reaction above the point on that spectrum where the pressure wave in the medium exceeds the speed of sound, though that's not the common usage of it, which is more like "cause to go bang", as in "he detonated the bomb". That is not my meaning.


The relevance to this thread?

Only that a tiny little lithium cell the size of a cigarette packet can, when it fails for whatever reason, be it internal flaw or external trauma, produce a rapid and aggressive flame, as in some seconds of an unextinguishable flame several feet long.

It is NOT an explosion. The reaction, while much faster than, say, a burning sheet of paper, is still much closer to the speed of reaction necessary to be an explosion than that sheet of paper, or a burning barbecue coal, is.

Lithium cells, when they fail, do so pretty spectacularly.

So, venting? Of course, many of the risks can be mitigated, and no doubt will be. Venting, either to release gases or even to prevent heat build up? Great.

But .... if it were possible to engineer out all risks, we wouldn't have train or plane crashes, 100+ years after we invented trains or planes. Or petrol fires in combustion-engined cars.

About the only way to be sure to avoid such risks is to never get in a car, train or plane again. Life is one long, never-ending (until death, at least) sequence of small risks.

[watercooled]

Forgive me for not knowing what on Earth you're arguing with at this point. I've no idea what you are trying to say as you've contradicted yourself, gone off on a massive tangent, and come around saying literally what I said in the first place! https://forums.hexus.net/hexus-news/...ml#post4051967

If you read what I actually said, and what I was replying to, I was challenging the use of the word 'explosion' when referring to failure of a lithium battery pack and "taking a few blocks in the street" which struck me as hysteria or misunderstanding. If you weren't 'disagreeing' with it, what was the point in your "Ummm .... forgive me for being picky," reply all about? Because it's IMO fairly reasonable to interpret that as a disagreement.

Besides that I'm really not sure what you're agreeing or disagreeing with, what point you're trying to make, or what question you're trying to ask? I've not replied to each statement in your posts for risk of it taking the thread miles off-topic and I assumed most of it was more of a ramble than a call for responses.

Lets just scratch everything and go back to the beginning. I said, more or less, that batteries are designed to fail in a controlled matter so they don't build up pressure and subsequently explode. You've just said:

Do lithium cells explode? No. They burn, and pretty fast and aggressively, but they don't explode.

Are we sorted then?

[Saracen999]

....

Are we sorted then?

Almost. Most of it we never disagreed on.

Assuming you agree with my above comments about burn, and speed on reaction, then my point, and I thought it was clear, was :-

- the way lithium batteries fail (catatrophically) is a conversion of potential to kinetic energy, mainly in the form of flame.

- that process has a wude-range of variants, with sliw-burn coal and one end and very high explosive at the other.

- it's a range, a spread, a spectrum, of rates of reaction which I generically if inaccurately referred to as rate of burn.

Here's the point I was trying to make. That rate of reaction is pretty fast compared to most things we would generally, in plain english, call "burning". It is not fast enough to be called (again, loosely, using conversational English rather than a technical term, an explosion.

There is a point on that spectrum where colloquially, "burn" turns to "explode.

An event that is jyst one side of that point and one just the other side of it can be not far apart in terms of the speed of the reaction.

Explosions, for instance, are not all equal. Some, like gunpowder, are pretty slow for an explosion, while others like high power military explosive result in a very fast pressure wave indeed.

Similarly, some things (like lithium cells that let go) burn pretty quickly and others, like barbeque coal, very sedately.

So the point - which I described as the difference being speed of burning, is that something very fast on the burning end can be quite close to something very slow for the 'explosion' end.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, about lithium cells not exploding (they don't, though they can burn fast and aggressively) and certainly not about, what was it? ... bringing down blocks of streets.

No, they won't. The pressure wave, well subsonic, doesn't have that sort of energy in it.

But .... if a cigarette-pack-sized cell can produce 10 or 15 seconds of a sustained 3-feet jet of flame perfectly capable of causing serious injury or a proper, for instance, house fire, then the flame a cell or cells capable of powering a car, if failing in the same manner, produced would be quite an impressive flame.

What to you (and me) is not an explosion could conceivably be called one by a passing member of Joe Public that nearly got incinerated, or even badly burned, by it.

"Explosion", I think we've now pretty thoroughly and conclusively established, is a pretty vague and often very inaccurately used term. Which is what I was trying, in a light-hearted manner, to point out.

[watercooled]

Well I'm happy to agree to disagree on anything we *don't* agree on!

My reason for bringing the whole thing up in the first place, as I said, was more to do with the perpetuated 'myths', I guess you could call them, around lithium cells and many other things. It's easy for people to take something as gospel and repeat it, without actually fact-checking, heck even the media do it. I'm speaking about more than batteries here but it's a shame when rumour, conjecture and plain pseudo-science end up with an equal standing in some peoples' minds to fact, and the more the nonsense is repeated, the more it becomes ingrained. But in some cases the claims can be quite harmful and it's worth challenging them, especially where something is new or poorly understood, and still easy to sway opinion with a bit of hyperbole.

[Saracen999]

Facts? Actual facts? On the internet?

Whatever next? It'll spoil the whole thing if we start introducing facts.

What do you think this is? Fox News? Daily Mail?

[badass]

Outside of the usual hysterical discussions about the dangers of Lithium ion cells in cars, do we have any actual examples of where cars have flared up in a manner that is more dangerous than say a ICE car catching fire and flaring up? The only one I can think of is from several years ago when a Tesla where the fire was "extinguished" caught fire again days later.

However I'm sure that during that time a lot more ICE cars caught fire and actually killed people.

[Ttaskmaster]

They still look like hideously pretentious, spanky, soul-less, Apple-Store reject cack, that no self-respecting driver would want to be seen dead in, though.... and there's still no way to have one in terraced suburbia-land.

[badass]

They still look like hideously pretentious, spanky, soul-less, Apple-Store reject cack, that no self-respecting driver would want to be seen dead in, though.... and there's still no way to have one in terraced suburbia-land.

What does that comment have to do with the headline or article or any of the comments on this thread?

[Ttaskmaster]

What does that comment have to do with the headline or article or any of the comments on this thread?

What, aside from the car being fast charging, but there still being nowhere to plug it in at home?
None whatsoever. Have a nice day.

[watercooled]

Personally I don't tend to refill the fuel tank of my petrol car at home either.

I get what you're saying, and while it might be an issue for some use-cases, having charging points e.g. at work, the shops, etc, you can likely negate the need to charge at home for most people at least.

Personally, I don't think the electric car thing is going to be the overnight change some people seem to expect, rather something that will gradually fade in *when it works* i.e. when it makes sense practically and economically. And that's regardless of that 2040 ICE ban, something I see as more of a PR gesture (and maybe some encouragement for manufacturers, or reassurance that there will be a market for those previously sitting on the fence about taking the plunge) - I mean let's face it, the same body who brought in the law could just as easily revoke or delay it if the market still wasn't ready. The gov't wouldn't want sales of cars to stop overnight if for some reason the deadline hadn't been met! Both sides know that, but you wouldn't want to be one of the few manufacturers who still hadn't bothered to make an effort ~20 years down the line.

Edit: For me, one of the remaining concerns (aside from cost) is about range for the odd long-distance trip, even if the 100-200 mile range is more than enough for everyday trips. Sure, as it stands now you could rent and ICE vehicle or carefully plan the trip to take extended coffee breaks at service stations with charging points, but that's not necessarily a practical solution for a long-distance drive in the countryside where there really aren't any charging points yet, and the hilly terrain means you'll burn through charge more quickly too.

[Saracen999]

At risk of establishing a dangerous precedent, I entirely agree with watercooled.

The point about charging at work, etc, wouldn't suit me, but then, I'm not in "most" people's circumstances.

A couple of the non-negotiable issues for me are :-

- home charging, and
- the range to do a several hundred mile trip, wirh no more stops than my current ICE vehicle.

By no more stops, I mean 10 mins to refill the tank on a really ,ong run, plus perhaps (if and only if I need it) a 20-min coffee/loo break.

As for charge-at-office .... no office. Well, home office, but my commute is down stairs, along corridor. My office is in my home.

That might be my one chink of disagreement. There are LOTS of people whose working lives don't involve a typical commute-by-car to an office, where a car could be charged. I'm in one category (srlf-employed, work quite a lot from home, but also periodically soending time, sometimes a lot of it, on client's sites

Or rather, I was. I'm now more retired than not. So, even more important is charhing at home.

So for me, a 100km range in 3 minutes is certainly a step in the right direction.

I also kinda agree with ttaskmaster on the (lack of) visual appeal BUT .... frankly, these days don't really give a hoot. If everything else, the performance, range, running costs, assurances of battery longevity, etc, all stacked up, I wouldn't let the visyals stop me. Tjough there are some (typically expensive) attractive leccy-cars.

To be honest, these days, I'm more likely to buy a Rangerover than a Ferrari even if tge Ferrari is drop-dead gorgeous and the Rangerover reminiscent of a 1950's-era block of Soviet flats. Why? Comfort, and I can get in and out with doing my back in.

I'd have no qualms but a butt-ugly, soulless whatever, IF it suited my transport needs and, sadly, my days of driving for enjoyment are probably gone for good. Now, it's about getting from A to B.

That said, if I find an affordable, practical leccy-car that otherwise meets my critetia, gets me from A to B and looks (and sounds) like an Aston Martin, sign me up.

[badass]

What, aside from the car being fast charging, but there still being nowhere to plug it in at home?
None whatsoever. Have a nice day.

Since this article isn't about a car that means your comment has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread or any of the posts. As I suspected from the first post.

Still, I am genuinely curious as to what you were posting about. I assume a car made by BMW or Porsche. Which one? I can think of some cars that could be described that way.