On 11/01/2024 10:46, soup wrote:
> On 09/01/2024 22:29, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 09/01/2024 22:09, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>>> In article <l05h96FqrkjU1@mid.individual.net>, John Williamson
>>
>>> Didn't Boeing also have a problem of fires with lithium ion batteries,
>>> that were in the electronics bay of their 787 Dreamliners?
>>>
>> They did.
>>
>> Luckily, the Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries that are being installed
>> on more and more narrowboats are a lot safer than those and the car
>> types.
>>
> First of all I know two things about narrow boats, nowt and Bugger-all,
> so feel free to completely ignore my inane ramblings.
>
> But it seems to me they are a classic case for huge and heavy lead acids
> as they need the weight (instead of ballast)and there is lots (FSVO)
> space. You do not need, for the most part, small and light high energy
> density storage devices in s boat.
> Lead acids use a lot maturer technologies, and are ,for the most
> part, safe, well a lot safer than LiFes that's for sure.

The killer for us is speed of charging and cycle efficiency. They can be
charged much more quickly when using the engine or a generator,which
saves fuel, and they can be discharged safely to a lower level than lead
acid (20% as against50%)

LiFePO4 batteries also have a 90% cycle efficiency as against the 70% of
lead, so we lose less energy that way.

I am on FB group about (Mostly narrowboat) boat electrics,and while we
see many reports of lead acid batteries failing, in the few years I've
been there, I haven't seen a single case of a serious problem with
LiFePO4 batteries. Install 'em, set 'em up, and they "Just Work" (c).

The only real downsides are the cost and that they can't be charged
safely when they are below freezing point, but that can be overcome by
using an insulated box and a heated mat or building in a heater to the
battery itself. And if you'd ever had to clear up after a lead acid
battery has split its case, spitting hot, concentrated sulphuric acid
all over your hull, you'd be less keen on those.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 11/01/2024 10:06, Peter wrote:
> > John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in
> > news:l08kj4Fdqc4U1@mid.individual.net:
> >
> >> As a percentage, electric and hybrid car fires are much more common
> >> than IC vehicle fires. About 1 in every 1,000 electric and hybrid
> >> vehicles registered in London burned in 2021. About 1 in every 3,500
> >> fossil fuelled cars did the same. Don't forget, we have far more than
> >> a Century of practice at designing petrol cars so they don't self
> >> ignite.
> >>
> >
> > Interesting. I asked Google copilot. It said:
> > "No, fire is not more likely in electric vehicles than petrol vehicles. In
> > fact, the data shows that petrol and diesel vehicles have a much higher fire
> > risk than electric vehicles. According to one source, petrol and diesel cars
> > catch fire 19 times more often than electric cars Another source estimates
> > that the fire risk is between 20 and 80 times greater for petrol and diesel
> > vehicles"
> >
> > I didn't persue the sources.
> >
> >
> I wasn't certain, so I checked using official figures from the London
> Fire Brigade and council.
>
> There were about six hundred and fifty fires involving fossil fuelled
> vehicles in London, and just over sixty on electric vehicles. In London,
> there are over two and a half million fossil fuelled vehicles registered
> and about seventy thousand electric ones. (The number of electric ones
> is increasing as rapidly as the delivery companies and cabbies can get
> hold of them.) Windoze calculator did the number crunching.
>
> Statistics are a ubggre, and you can prove whatever you want to by
> misusing them. "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"
>

Stop Press!

Electric bus bursts into flames during rush hour in Wimbledon!

<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/11/wimbledon-electric-bus-fire-rush-hour-london/>

"An electric double-decker bus caught fire in southwest London during
rush hour on Thursday morning.

Police said emergency services were called shortly after 7am.

No injuries have been reported but people have been told to avoid the
area.

Flames engulfed the back of the bus with thick grey smoke billowing out.
The upper deck back windows were completely destroyed." (cont.)

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator

My pet rock Gordon just is.

Peter said:
> John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in news:l086e8FbcddU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> On 10/01/2024 17:24, Peter wrote:
>>> Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries are now appearing in cars. Longer life,
>>> and can be charged repeatedly to 100%.
>>>
>>>
>> Interesting. They now accept safety ahead of absolute maximum energy
>> density, then?
>
> I wouldna know about that. But I'd guess that the lithium batteries in EVs
> are much less of a fire/bnag hazard than several dekaliters of highly
> flammable liquid.

I unforget a piece in Arj Scientist, early/mid '80s, about the ways cars
in films turn into a fireball as soon as they spot an opportunity to
show off. The conclusion was that they don't do it nearly so much in
Real Life.

What causes lithium batteries to catch fire, anyway ?

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

John Williamson said:
> On 11/01/2024 10:06, Peter wrote:
>> John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in
>> news:l08kj4Fdqc4U1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> As a percentage, electric and hybrid car fires are much more common
>>> than IC vehicle fires. About 1 in every 1,000 electric and hybrid
>>> vehicles registered in London burned in 2021. About 1 in every 3,500
>>> fossil fuelled cars did the same. Don't forget, we have far more than
>>> a Century of practice at designing petrol cars so they don't self
>>> ignite.
>>>
>>
>> Interesting. I asked Google copilot. It said:
>> "No, fire is not more likely in electric vehicles than petrol vehicles. In
>> fact, the data shows that petrol and diesel vehicles have a much higher fire
>> risk than electric vehicles. According to one source, petrol and diesel cars
>> catch fire 19 times more often than electric cars Another source estimates
>> that the fire risk is between 20 and 80 times greater for petrol and diesel
>> vehicles"
>>
>> I didn't persue the sources.
>>
>>
> I wasn't certain, so I checked using official figures from the London
> Fire Brigade and council.
>
> There were about six hundred and fifty fires involving fossil fuelled
> vehicles in London, and just over sixty on electric vehicles. In London,
> there are over two and a half million fossil fuelled vehicles registered
> and about seventy thousand electric ones. (The number of electric ones
> is increasing as rapidly as the delivery companies and cabbies can get
> hold of them.) Windoze calculator did the number crunching.
>
> Statistics are a ubggre, and you can prove whatever you want to by
> misusing them. "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"

But it should still be possible to use them properly ?

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On 11/01/2024 13:24, Sn!pe wrote:
> Stop Press!
>
> Electric bus bursts into flames during rush hour in Wimbledon!
>
> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/11/wimbledon-electric-bus-fire-rush-hour-london/>
>
> "An electric double-decker bus caught fire in southwest London during
> rush hour on Thursday morning.
>
> Police said emergency services were called shortly after 7am.
>
> No injuries have been reported but people have been told to avoid the
> area.
>
> Flames engulfed the back of the bus with thick grey smoke billowing out.
> The upper deck back windows were completely destroyed." (cont.)
>
>
> -- ^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator My pet rock Gordon
> just is.

Back on topic (sorry!), I have had a response from Anchor. They don't
allow mobility scooters in the building due to fire risk.

There are no out buildings.

Tone

On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:15:12 +0000, Hymermut <tone@email.com> wrote:

>On 11/01/2024 13:24, Sn!pe wrote:
>> Stop Press!
>>
>> Electric bus bursts into flames during rush hour in Wimbledon!
>>
>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/11/wimbledon-electric-bus-fire-rush-hour-london/>
>>
>> "An electric double-decker bus caught fire in southwest London during
>> rush hour on Thursday morning.
>>
>> Police said emergency services were called shortly after 7am.
>>
>> No injuries have been reported but people have been told to avoid the
>> area.
>>
>> Flames engulfed the back of the bus with thick grey smoke billowing out.
>> The upper deck back windows were completely destroyed." (cont.)
>>
>>
>> -- ^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator My pet rock Gordon
>> just is.
>
>
>Back on topic (sorry!), I have had a response from Anchor. They don't
>allow mobility scooters in the building due to fire risk.
>
>There are no out buildings.
>
>Tone
>

Call it a motorized wheelchair ?
John T.

Richard Robinson <richard@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
> Peter said:
>> John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in news:l086e8FbcddU1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> On 10/01/2024 17:24, Peter wrote:
>>>> Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries are now appearing in cars. Longer life,
>>>> and can be charged repeatedly to 100%.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Interesting. They now accept safety ahead of absolute maximum energy
>>> density, then?
>>
>> I wouldna know about that. But I'd guess that the lithium batteries in EVs
>> are much less of a fire/bnag hazard than several dekaliters of highly
>> flammable liquid.
>
> I unforget a piece in Arj Scientist, early/mid '80s, about the ways cars
> in films turn into a fireball as soon as they spot an opportunity to
> show off. The conclusion was that they don't do it nearly so much in
> Real Life.
>
> What causes lithium batteries to catch fire, anyway ?
>

Massive amounts of stored chemical energy being released as heat too
quickly. Usually when an internal short happens for whatever reason.
Battery design is steadily improving though to make them almost impossible
to get into a “thermal runaway” situation, even after gross mechanical
disruption.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 11/01/2024 15:46, Richard Robinson wrote:
> John Williamson said:

>> Statistics are a ubggre, and you can prove whatever you want to by
>> misusing them. "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"
>
> But it should still be possible to use them properly ?
>
>
What a strange idea. <Grin>

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:43:54 -0000 (UTC)
Richard Robinson <richard@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:

> What causes lithium batteries to catch fire, anyway ?

Usually it's damage or a defect (possibly a partial or complete
short) that causes one or more cells to heat up, once past some critical
temperature the lithium burns and sets off all the other cells in the
battery.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Host: Beautiful Theory meet Inconvenient Fact
Obit: Beautiful Theory died today of factual inconsistency

John Williamson said:
> On 11/01/2024 15:46, Richard Robinson wrote:
>> John Williamson said:
>
>>> Statistics are a ubggre, and you can prove whatever you want to by
>>> misusing them. "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"
>>
>> But it should still be possible to use them properly ?
>>
>>
> What a strange idea. <Grin>

It depends what you're tring to achieve, of course.

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On 11 Jan 2024 16:27:42 GMT
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:

> Massive amounts of stored chemical energy being released as heat too
> quickly. Usually when an internal short happens for whatever reason.
> Battery design is steadily improving though to make them almost impossible
> to get into a “thermal runaway” situation, even after gross mechanical
> disruption.

Apparently LiFePO4 batteries are very resistant to this - even
though the combination of lithium and phosphorus sounds alarming.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Host: Beautiful Theory meet Inconvenient Fact
Obit: Beautiful Theory died today of factual inconsistency

On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:46:00 -0000 (UTC)
Richard Robinson <richard@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:

> But it should still be possible to use them properly ?

For the purposes of persuasion, deception or advertising ?

Q: What is 2+2
A Mathematician: 4
A Physicist: 3.98 +/- 0.4
A Statistician: What do you want people to believe it to be?

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Host: Beautiful Theory meet Inconvenient Fact
Obit: Beautiful Theory died today of factual inconsistency

Tim+ said:
> Richard Robinson <richard@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
>> Peter said:
>>> John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in news:l086e8FbcddU1
>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>> On 10/01/2024 17:24, Peter wrote:
>>>>> Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries are now appearing in cars. Longer life,
>>>>> and can be charged repeatedly to 100%.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Interesting. They now accept safety ahead of absolute maximum energy
>>>> density, then?
>>>
>>> I wouldna know about that. But I'd guess that the lithium batteries in EVs
>>> are much less of a fire/bnag hazard than several dekaliters of highly
>>> flammable liquid.
>>
>> I unforget a piece in Arj Scientist, early/mid '80s, about the ways cars
>> in films turn into a fireball as soon as they spot an opportunity to
>> show off. The conclusion was that they don't do it nearly so much in
>> Real Life.
>>
>> What causes lithium batteries to catch fire, anyway ?
>>
>
> Massive amounts of stored chemical energy being released as heat too
> quickly. Usually when an internal short happens for whatever reason.
> Battery design is steadily improving though to make them almost impossible
> to get into a “thermal runaway” situation, even after gross mechanical
> disruption.

Shorts. Can't change 'em.

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
>
> though the combination of lithium and phosphorus sounds alarming.

Well yes, but so does sodium + chlorine.

Highly reactive things, reacting highly with each other ...

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> Apparently LiFePO4 batteries are very resistant to this - even
> though the combination of lithium and phosphorus sounds alarming.

Yes, I think they're good for static uses where energy density is less
important, I thought sodium batteries for EVs were the new hotness?

Sodium and chlorine don't sound like a good combination neither, but
it's never molished my chips to catch fire.

Richard Robinson wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
>
>> though the combination of lithium and phosphorus sounds alarming.
>
> Well yes, but so does sodium + chlorine.

salt rays.

Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:46:00 -0000 (UTC)
> Richard Robinson <richard@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> But it should still be possible to use them properly ?
>
> For the purposes of persuasion, deception or advertising ?

These are not what I recognise as 'proper'. 'Proper' is using numbers
to try and understand stuff.

> Q: What is 2+2
> A Mathematician: 4

True - by definition, I think (but IANAM)

> A Physicist: 3.98 +/- 0.4

"It depends what you mean by 2". Could be a case for it in some circs;
and all the other appliances of science where 'rounding' is appropriate
(the extent of which should be noted, of course).

> A Statistician: What do you want people to believe it to be?
IngSoc: 5

That's not statistics, that's lies, damn lies, manipulation, dishonesty
and politics, and anyone who does it should not be trusted as a
statistician.

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On 11/01/2024 16:55, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2024 16:27:42 GMT
> Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
>
>> Massive amounts of stored chemical energy being released as heat too
>> quickly. Usually when an internal short happens for whatever reason.
>> Battery design is steadily improving though to make them almost impossible
>> to get into a “thermal runaway” situation, even after gross mechanical
>> disruption.
>
> Apparently LiFePO4 batteries are very resistant to this - even
> though the combination of lithium and phosphorus sounds alarming.
>
The phosphorus and lithium are already completely oxidised, so can't
ignite. In effect, they are already ash.

The chemical processes are not exactly straightforward, but as far as I
can tell, at no stage are there any bonds available for further oxidation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:15:24 -0000 (UTC)
Richard Robinson <richard@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:

> > A Statistician: What do you want people to believe it to be?
> IngSoc: 5
>
> That's not statistics, that's lies, damn lies, manipulation, dishonesty
> and politics, and anyone who does it should not be trusted as a
> statistician.

Unless you're a cbyvgvpvna who prefers the numbers that will get
them re-elected over the honest numbers.

FWIW the original version was "Economist".

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Host: Beautiful Theory meet Inconvenient Fact
Obit: Beautiful Theory died today of factual inconsistency

Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:15:24 -0000 (UTC)
> Richard Robinson <richard@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
>
>> > A Statistician: What do you want people to believe it to be?
>> IngSoc: 5
>>
>> That's not statistics, that's lies, damn lies, manipulation, dishonesty
>> and politics, and anyone who does it should not be trusted as a
>> statistician.
>
> Unless you're a cbyvgvpvna who prefers the numbers that will get
> them re-elected over the honest numbers.

What do you mean, 'unless' ? Statistics is about how to work with the
numbers. If they're not doing that, they're not a statistician, and if
they get paid for being one Something Bad should happen to them.

> FWIW the original version was "Economist".
>

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:02:47 -0000 (UTC)
Richard Robinson <richard@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:

> Well yes, but so does sodium + chlorine.

If they're separate elements that's a very scary mix.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Host: Beautiful Theory meet Inconvenient Fact
Obit: Beautiful Theory died today of factual inconsistency

On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:04:16 +0000
Tease'n'Seize <tease-and-seize@invalid> wrote:

> Yes, I think they're good for static uses where energy density is less
> important, I thought sodium batteries for EVs were the new hotness?

They have lower energy density, voltage, cycle count and discharge
current than any lithium battery - on the good side they tolerate cold much
better and are not prone to going bnag. Apparently some manufacturers
are releasing cars soon with LiFePO4 and Sodium batteries. OTOH they're a
hot research area because Sodium is *much* cheaper than Lithium and easier
to extract.

The area where they are the new hotness is grid scale batteries
where the energy density matters much less than the pbfg.

> Sodium and chlorine don't sound like a good combination neither, but
> it's never molished my chips to catch fire.

Try filtering chlorine gas through powdered sodium to make salt.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Host: Beautiful Theory meet Inconvenient Fact
Obit: Beautiful Theory died today of factual inconsistency

In message <UPWdnYAjG7wSgj34nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
Tease'n'Seize <tease-and-seize@invalid.?.invalid> writes
>Sodium and chlorine don't sound like a good combination neither, but
>it's never molished my chips to catch fire.
>

That could stop them going cold.

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

On 11/01/2024 16:15, Hymermut wrote:
> Back on topic (sorry!), I have had a response from Anchor. They don't
> allow mobility scooters in the building due to fire risk.
>
That would explain it. Someone's been reading too many headlines.

> There are no out buildings.
>
Unfortunate.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:02:47 -0000 (UTC)
> Richard Robinson <richard@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Well yes, but so does sodium + chlorine.
>
> If they're separate elements that's a very scary mix.

I wouldn't have said that otherwise.l

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html