BMI said:
Yes there is no getting around basic chemistry..... To use your argument sodium metal (like lithium metal) will react violently and burst into flames if put into a container of water. Normal everyday table salt is sodium chloride and contains sodium. So going by your argument since salt has sodium in it then it should react violently if mixed with water.... and of course it doesn't and is very safe (just as our LiFePO4 batteries are equally safe and won't catch on fire since the LiFePO4 is extremely stable and does not pose the same hazard as LiPo batteries do).
Armin,
You're still trying to confuse two separate issues and chuck some advertising into this thread that's misleading and off topic.
No one is going to argue with you over LiFePO4 chemistry being inherently safer than LiCoO2 from the standpoint of the user, that's not at all what some of us have been taking you to task over. We all accept that LiFePO4 is less likely to suffer catastrophic failure from misuse or physical abuse than LiCoO2, but this thread is specifically about the extra charges levied for the carriage of LiFePO4 cells, a situation where they are unlikely to be charged, discharged or subjected to severe mechanical abuse.
This discussion is about HAZMAT, specifically charges levied for the paperwork associated with the carriage of HAZMAT materials. I apologise if it seems that I'm talking down to you, but this needs putting into very simple language for the avoidance of any further doubt,
In this instance, HAZMAT is primarily concerned with the consequences of misfortune occurring to cargo, specifically air cargo. There isn't a HAZMAT category for electrical safety, or the ability of things to withstand mechanical abuse, the categories are there to help avoid incidents, but also to help people, particularly the emergency services, deal with the consequences of an accident or fire and to ensure that the correct safety procedures and systems are used.
Any material that is flammable can potentially fall into a HAZMAT category, but flammable materials don't cause fires on their own. A can of liquid fuel, for example, cannot actually CAUSE a fire, a fire needs a source of ignition and to be fed with oxygen, neither of which are present in the can of fuel, so it's safe. That doesn't stop liquid fuels being put into a HAZMAT category though, as HAZMAT is primarily concerned with the precautions needed to minimise exposure to initiating events and the consequences of a mishap to the cargo.
In the case of ANY battery containing lithium, the lithium can and will become flammable lithium metal under the right conditions. No one is saying that those conditions can occur spontaneously in any particular cell, all we've been saying to you repeatedly is that when those conditions are present the lithium metal does present a potential problem for fire suppressant systems. This is the primary reason that air transport authorities get so vexed over the carriage of large quantities of cells containing lithium, of any flavour.
There isn't any doubt whatsoever that the lithium in your, or any other, LiFePO4 cell can become flammable and present a potential hazard, that's just basic chemistry. Minimising the amount of lithium in the cell, providing robust packaging and ensuring that the overheat safety vents are reliable all help to reduce the risk of a lithium fire, but that risk cannot be eliminated. The main issue is, as I have said before, the fact that aircraft fire suppressant systems cannot put out a lithium fire. Metal fires are bloody difficult to extinguish and normally need special powder fire extinguisher materials, but these are incompatible with use on aircraft.
You do yourself no favours by constantly jumping on any battery thread here that takes your fancy to try and push your particular brand. Much of the time it's seen by many as being pushy and off putting, some of the time it just shows that you've not taken the time to read and understand the topic. If you don't understand the chemistry of your product (and there's no real need to as a salesman) don't try arguing with those who do, as it only makes you look foolish. I don't expect salespeople to have in-depth technical knowledge, but I also don't expect to be fed misleading information by them to cover up their lack of it. Far better to stay quiet, seek advice from someone who does have the required knowledge and then relay it truthfully and honestly.
Jeremy
I've edited this, in the light of the cross post from you above, written at the time I was posting.
The issue isn't to do with cells being mechanically damaged and becoming hazardous at all. It's no good just providing QC stuff you've got from your manufacturer that's not relevant to this particular topic, as it doesn't support your argument one jot and just looks like more advertising hype by you on someone else's thread.
HAZMAT is a US regulation that applies to all US registered aircraft, which is being increasingly adopted by other air carriers around the world. Here in Europe most air cargo is carried by US companies, often in US registered aircraft, so we have to work with it as well. You may be lucky in your part of the world, maybe the HAZMAT rules haven't hit you yet. When they do then you will find that large shipments of your cells, as defined in the MSDS you have provided, will be treated as HAZMAT, probably category 9. Take advantage of the fact that you're getting away without the hassle and charges for now, but please don't assume that your situation is universal. I understand that Hobby King are similarly using a way around the HAZMAT issue by shipping using non-US registered couriers. Whether that situation lasts for long is uncertain.
is rather important. With regard to shipping dangerous stuff, batteries certainly qualify, and powerful batteries are even more dangerous. We, as usual, need to balance the "risk" with the reward. If there is a cut off or slow down in shipping then we the consumer suffer. Sorry for the obvious rant.
