This is how A123 care about quality control

I just wanted to throw out my experiences with canadian customs and my batteries...

My original vpower pack shipped by sea a couple years ago with no duty/import charges and no tampering by anyone.

By air, I've had every battery (shipping box) opened by customs and have been charged duty on them. They have actually been super good with the batteries and I wouldn't have even noticed the boxes had been opened by customs except that they left a little extra sticker.

I'm not sure if this means much to you, but they've been pretty sneaky opening and resealing these for me...
 
r3volved said:
I just wanted to throw out my experiences with canadian customs and my batteries...

My original vpower pack shipped by sea a couple years ago with no duty/import charges and no tampering by anyone.

By air, I've had every battery (shipping box) opened by customs and have been charged duty on them. They have actually been super good with the batteries and I wouldn't have even noticed the boxes had been opened by customs except that they left a little extra sticker.

I'm not sure if this means much to you, but they've been pretty sneaky opening and resealing these for me...
Click to expand...

Do you happen to have a photo of the sticker they put on the opened packages? This is going to be a real bugger to chase down if it's our issue. I'm going to need all the evidence I can muster. Thanks for chiming in. This shipment went by air, BTW.
 
This is my most recent (HK -to- Ontario via FedEx air)
AnhXjy1.jpg

It's the white/light blue sticker across the top tape...looks like it was FedEx who opened it on behalf of customs.
My ping battery last year came by DHL and it had a similar sticker (can't find pick of it, sorry...I think it was a more brown/orange/white sticker and was ON the box, but was NOT across the tape seam as pictured above)

Note: in both cases (fedEx and DHL) contents were not damaged and the recent one from FedEx, they didn't seem to touch the contents, just opened the box (or else had a Tetris master repack everything)...I didn't even realize it had been opened until I was throwing the box out.
 
whatever said:
I feel quite strongly that microcar should be dealing directly with the head people at a123 about this, not through an intermediary ( wb9k) that seems to be quite offensive towards microcars comments and concerns.
Click to expand...

That is absurd. You expect the CEO who likely costs his company thousands of dollars an hour to spend his time, probably totalling several days, investigating a (relatively) nickel-and-dime sale? A person who likely lacks the knowledge to even properly address the issue directly?

I know these cells are expensive and the OP has reason to be annoyed that they have arrived damaged. However, it is unusual for some at A123 to get involved and try to sort it, and that should be appreciated. The only response you would get from a lot of companies would be "please contact your retailer".

What is still not clear:

1) Is the cell with the low tab isolator actually defective? If not, there are zero manufacturing defects in this batch of cells.
2) The parcel crossed an international border, it has still not been established if the parcel was opened and the cells handled and damaged. If the cells were not handled by customs or anyone at the OP's end then the problem lies with A123, Stortronic or their U.S. courier.

To the poster who insisted that sequentially numbered cells are acceptable, what would be the point of this in a modern industrial manufacturing process? The idea is that each item is essentially identical no matter when it was produced or by which machine. If A123 were running an order for, say, 10,000 cells on one machine and after producing 9,990 cells that machine had to be stopped due to a fault or for routine maintenance, would you expect them to destroy those 9,990 cells because the order would otherwise have to contain 10 non-sequential cells from another, identical machine?

The realities of an economic, efficient manufacturing process is that you accept a certain amount of variation in your product as acceptable. Therefore, if small wrinkles, or 6 months variation in production date have been rigorously proven to have no significant impact on product performance then that is what you get.
 
As the hot melt adhesive strip is mounted to the tab as an assembly before the tab is welded to the foils and then sealed into the pouch enclosure, it's puzzling how an automated line could get a tab welded in so crooked. There are normally a half dozen optical tab position sensors in the tab locating fixture before the ultrasonic foil weld joint gets made.

Wrinkles in pouch foils cause uneven pressure gradients and uneven spacing and electrolyte distribution between foil/seporators. This non uniform gap causes non-uniform ion diffusion/didistribution and uneven cell active material aging as a result. The extent of this increased aging rate from wrinkles can range from almost immeasurably low to substantial depending on severity.

When I first saw these photos, I strongly suspected these were counterfeits. I've seen counterfeits that appeared to be made with better attention to quality.
 
...if there were counterfeits at all !?

I'm still puzzled how A123 arranges distribution through the sorts of StorTronics and yet not supply available date on the cells. We know (sort of) about pressure needed for the cells but there is no datasheets, guidance's from A123 how battery pack must be constructed, how elements have impact on cell life, what cooling is necessary at given discharge etc. There was some literature on 26650 cells not on these AMP20.
 
First thank GOD for forums like ES.
Am the first here on this forums to complain about purchases, dealers, companies???
Please, do not distore the facts.
There are 2 pictures on page 1 , one bent, one with missing, no sticking isolators, that's already 2 defective cells.
Down that page there are another 2 pictures of cells with visable ridges.
It is up to the members of ES to judge if such ridges belong to $65 cell. To me there are clearly defects.
wb9k,
please present documents here about those ridges on surface you promised to show.
I am going to take series of pictures with number of cells to document defective cells.,

How did you some figured that my shipment was opened by Customs, do you have any documentations for it?
Yes another member here paid custom duties. I didn't. Aren't customs supposed to include document once packing is opened?
Do you see FedEx clear envelope on the top of box? It was untouched , customs would reapply FedEx envelope?
So customs did not opened my box.
My next post will be on positive note and will explain why would I buy $65 cell.
 
I don't know that customs opened the package. That's why I asked if it seemed possible. Might it have been opened from the bottom? With class 9 hazmat, I'm not sure it's about duties. I have some research to do in that area. My Canadian colleague who immediately suspected customs because of his own experiences was not in today, so I didn't have a chance to follow up with him on that aspect. I'm not sure what the rules are regarding what customs does in Canada, but because this was a shipment to an individual and not a company (like most other shipments of this sort I've dealt with), I don't know what to expect. I could be barking up the wrong tree altogether, but I think it's a promising lead...maybe FedEx opened them before sending back to StorTronics--perhaps to verify that there really was hazmat since some of the labeling was missing. A123 has a well-defined process for inspecting and packaging cells for shipment that appears to have been followed properly, and people I trust are very confident that was not the problem here. We may never know what really happened, but the cells will be replaced, so it won't ultimately matter to Miro. The company may come up with more ways to protect itself against this kind of thing, but that is not the end customer's responsibility, at least not in this case.

I'm very curious to tear down the cell with the bad isolation tape. Miro, if you can send me the serial number of the cell with that problem, I can get started on pulling historical data on the cell to see what that can tell us. Otherwise, I can wait until the cells get here. Have you been able to work out a return shipping arrangement with StorTronics? I'm curious to know how they handle this.

I'm looking for the data on the wrinkle cells. I was looking at it not more than a month or two ago, but couldn't find it when I was looking earlier today. Stay tuned.
 
here are 3 cells from my shipment of 20 cells with dangerously low sitting isolator around terminal.
one picture is repeat of the one from the page1 of this thread.
total 3 cells in total with isolator problems.
Plus 3 with ridges, plus one badly bent.
 

Attachments

  • 003.JPG
    003.JPG
    54 KB · Views: 2,096
  • 005.JPG
    005.JPG
    45.3 KB · Views: 2,096
  • 008.JPG
    008.JPG
    60.8 KB · Views: 2,096
Please send all three of those back for sure. It looks like maybe two of them are on the cathode, and one is on the anode...are you sure all three are on the same side? Id rather they all be on the same side, but it doesn't look like it in the pics. Please list the serial numbers..I can only see one of them, the one in the first pic. I need those numbers to pull historical data.
 
OK
numbers of 3 cells pictures are above:
THD14L0703144
THA14K1903020
THA14J3001064
THEY ARE ALL from 2014.
I don't know if it just me.
A123 instead of working on improving manufacturing process namely fix or replace aging robots
start all that research to proof defects wrinkles are OK?
 
a123 company are not claiming wrinkles are ok, wb9k is claiming wrinkles are ok. a123 company has never posted on this forum, a cell tester ( wb9k) who works at the plant in livonia has posted on this forum ( theres a big difference). I'm sure manager at Livonia plant ( not CEO of a123! lol) would be interested that what appears to be rejected cells ( from different batches) having been sent out .
Regarding wrinkles:
a123 paper 493005-002 shows a simulation comparing cell surface pressure of cells pressed against each others face, compared to cells with aluminum ( or similar) spacers between them

View attachment 1
Any wrinkles on the cell surface would influence the pressure profile across the face.

A bit off topic same paper shows expected life cycle of cells compared to pressure.
life cycle vs pressure.jpg
 
whatever said:
a123 company are not claiming wrinkles are ok, wb9k is claiming wrinkles are ok. a123 company has never posted on this forum
Click to expand...

A123 cannot post on this forum as it is not a physical being. Only it's representatives can do that, which wb9k is. IIRC wb9k works in the quality department and as such is likely to know more than most in the company about the issue of wrinkles. It probably went like this: quality department automatically rejects cells with wrinkles based on theory, the bean-counters challenge this, the engineering department conducts tests to prove whether or not wrinkles make any difference.

This is speculation but I'd be surprised if it's far from the truth. No doubt there's a big fat file of test reports on wrinkles sat in the quality department. These would just be comparative tests to unwrinkled cells. It’s hard to imagine A123 would be too incompetant to properly conduct and analyse these tests (especially since you all trust their test data on unwrinkled cells), so you can be confident that if a representative from the quality department at A123 say the wrinkles have no significant effect on the cells, you’d need good reason to declare – not wild speculation or what you think “looks right”. Intuition and theoretical reasoning are OK as a starting point but hard data trumps all.

David Kirkaldy pioneered materials testing in the mid-19th century. Inscribed above the front door to his laboratory were the words “Facts not Opinions”.

“One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions” – unknown.
 
When customs opens a box, they use a special roll of tape ( bright yellow with " CUSTOMS ... " written on it in my area of the world at least. )

And those creases look exceptionally minor to me.. even if they arrived in 100% pristine condition at your door, by the time you remove them from the packaging, handle them, test them, assemble them.. there will be fare more creases imo .... should all flatten out once assembled and compressed :lol:
 
I think we are very lucky to have w9bk posting here. I know of no other example in my life where, as a consumer, we have a company representative pulling build papers to help us out. I was in corporate for 36 years... and it moves more slowly than an entrepreneurship. Typically lots of reviews. But with inside the company help, I'll bet we will end up in a much better place than we would going it alone!
 
there is a big difference between someone who works at a123 with an interest in ebikes and someone who is an authorised spokesman/representative for a company.
 
I appreciate the many posts here that are well-centered in reality, both in terms of timing expectations, and in understanding that actual data is more important that what one thinks they know. I also appreciate that some at least recognize that what I am offering here is a level of support that is virtually unheard of in almost any business, at almost any price. The company doesn't pay me to be here--I'm doing all of this of my own volition, partly to restore the image of my employer, which I feel has been dragged through the mud far more than it deserves, even with all the problems we have had. Even more importantly, I'm here to advance the art of the EV in any way that I can. That said, my bosses know I'm here and I have a pretty good feel for what I can and can't say--and you must understand that I can't just say everything that's in my head or that I'm investigating in real time here on this board. Investigations take time and theories change as information is collected. It doesn't make sense to spew my mental notebook all over the internet, for me, you, or the company.

FWIW, I run the warranty lab in Livonia. I built it from the ground up myself, I was specifically recruited to do so by the QD, who I worked with in a past life, and I ran the lab all by myself for the first three years I was with the company. Today, I have a full-time tech, which is a huge help. I interface with customers sometimes, but my role is primarily technical. Virtually everything that gets returned to Livonia from the field comes through my lab, so I have a very good idea of what's happening out there in the real world. I don't respond well to rock-throwers or people who like to pile on with half-baked conclusions they've drawn because they can't see the forest for the trees. Those who put themselves in this category as a matter of habit go on the ignore list and I don't respond to them at all, for the sake of my own mental health. There are those who will never let go of these habits...."Whatever," as they say. :evil:

I'm investigating the issues surrounding this (still pending) return on many different fronts. I will post information as I can. Thanks for your patience.
 
in my experience with thousands of Ping pouches, there is no apparent connection between ripples on the surface of the mylar, called 'ridges' here, and the actual assessed capacity, life cycle, and performance of the lifepo4. the mylar surface will be flattened when the cell is put into compression and will leave no damage on the adjacent cell. if there is no compression on the pack it doesn't matter in any case since the life cycles of the cell will be reduced in that case anyway.

i think mirocar had a similar thread when he purchased the original lifebatt packs from a guy named harmon and as i recall he got the royal heave ho by harmon's wife. maybe he can clarify that history for this guy taking on responsibility for the problem.
 
No need to take my word for the effects of uneven pressure on cells.

I know many of you have handheld FLIR units, there is even a model you can snap onto your phones now. Set a pouch cell on something flat, apply uneven pressure to some part of the cell (you set something on it, target at least ~3-4psi), then cycle it and watch the temperature distribution.

The heat pattern will show you the area with higher pressure takes the bulk of the current every time the cell charges or discharges. You can clearly see the effects in the FLIR of where the current is coming from in the pouch. Due to this uneven usage of active material, you locally decay active material more rapidly, leading to accelerated wear and premature cell failures.

You can't make a wrinkle in a cell and not end up with areas of decreased pressure and increased pressure once the cell is clamped between other cells or flat surfaces.

The only cell MFG's I've personally seen that permit wrinkles in pouch cells to not go to straight to scrap or get binned C-stock are hobby cell makers.

Making pouch cells isn't playing the game horseshoes. If I had an automated production process that resulted in multiple types of clearly observed mfg defects, I would personally stop the line immediately and get the equipment or tooling or whatever is causing the defects repaired before making another cell, and I wouldn't let any cells with observable defects leave the building.

Just my $0.02
 
liveforphysics said:
No need to take my word for the effects of uneven pressure on cells.

I know many of you have handheld FLIR units, there is even a model you can snap onto your phones now. Set a pouch cell on something flat, apply uneven pressure to some part of the cell (you set something on it, target at least ~3-4psi), then cycle it and watch the temperature distribution.

The heat pattern will show you the area with higher pressure takes the bulk of the current every time the cell charges or discharges. You can clearly see the effects in the FLIR of where the current is coming from in the pouch. Due to this uneven usage of active material, you locally decay active material more rapidly, leading to accelerated wear and premature cell failures.

You can't make a wrinkle in a cell and not end up with areas of decreased pressure and increased pressure once the cell is clamped between other cells or flat surfaces.

The only cell MFG's I've personally seen that permit wrinkles in pouch cells to not go to straight to scrap or get binned C-stock are hobby cell makers.

Making pouch cells isn't playing the game horseshoes. If I had an automated production process that resulted in multiple types of clearly observed mfg defects, I would personally stop the line immediately and get the equipment or tooling or whatever is causing the defects repaired before making another cell, and I wouldn't let any cells with observable defects leave the building.

Just my $0.02
Click to expand...

Luke, I appreciate you keeping the bar high, where it belongs. This is the real world, however, and pockets have limited depth for most of us, and the situation is never really as simple as what you suggest here. There were many of us here, including myself, who were very concerned that the release of these cells was even being discussed. (The sequence of events was pretty much exactly what Punx0r suggested was likely, above.) One of our ace guys here called up some friends at LG and found out they are doing the exact same thing we are doing with these types of minor anomalies--which is selling them to all of their customers as perfectly normal. I can't publish any actual data here just yet, but I can tell you that these fall into the "barely measurable" category you described as possible above. The gist of the data is basically this (using numbers pulled from air at the moment): Say your spec limits are 19 on the low side and 21 on the high side (units are irrelevant for the purpose of this explanation). If a visually perfect cell measures 20, wrinkle cells show around 19.8. Even in cases where the wrinkles are much more severe than what we see here, the cells performance is just barely below that of a "perfect" cell, but they are still WELL within spec. This applies to capacity, DCR, HPPC capability, cycle life, and thermal performance. Extended vibration and environmental testing was also done with pretty much the same results across the board. If this is good enough for the likes of Daimler and Volvo (and it is), I dare say it's good enough for the folks here--maybe even you. :) My concerns have been allayed on this subject, much to my surprise. I do think that compressible, compliant pads between cells is always a good idea, and use of them should help to minimize any effects of these tiny wrinkles or any other sources of pressure variation, which inevitably exist in any real-world pack.
 
I am glad to hear about the electrical quality of these cells. It seems that they may be candidates for rebuilding my 12S pack. Just have to ponder about the price. It seems to be about $1/w/hr. Is my math correct?
otherDoc
 
I would not called it creases for sure, they are more serious .
they stick out of surface, they protrude from the cell surface, no way they can be flattened under pressure completely.
Lifeforphysics is spot on in his evaluations.
Yes such cell with ridges performs as a single,
in the pack under pressure it all different story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top