Dan wrote:
emergency land due to the bat runaway
I tried to imagine bat flying around the cockpit 
Airborne_Again wrote:
Earlier this year, authorities at Berlin airport opened my checked baggage, removed and “destroyed” three AA size alkaline batteries
I have had the same experience with the DHL Express hub in Koln refusing headsets with AA batteries and charging a fortune for the experience :(
chflyer wrote:
Strange that they are then still considered as hazmat for shipping.
Even traditional alkaline flashlight batteries are considered hazmat. Earlier this year, authorities at Berlin airport opened my checked baggage, removed and “destroyed” three AA size alkaline batteries. To my great surprise this appeared to be in accordance with the rules.
chflyer wrote:
Anyone here on EuroGA with experience with these EarthX LiFePO4 batteries?
We’ve had a few installed in non-certified aircraft over here for the last few years. Huge weight savings and better cranking power are the claimed benefits. I have not heard of any negative report, but for that terrible experience, related directly to me by the pax, of an American RV-8 having to emergency land due to the bat runaway, a couple of years ago…
Though the BMS has been improved over the years, FOCA (and our association EAS) still mandates that such battery is installed in a vented and fireproof container, if installed inside the occupants cabin/cockpit.
LeSving wrote:
The EarthX batteries (LiFePO4) have been popular for years in the experimental world. They now also make certified variants.
Anyone here on EuroGA with experience with these EarthX LiFePO4 batteries? They’ve come down almost to the same price as RG/AGM batteries.
Ultranomad wrote:
LiFePO4 / Li(Y,Fe)PO4 and Li2TiO3 – somewhat lower specific capacity, no intrinsic fire hazard
Strange that they are then still considered as hazmat for shipping.
An Aviation Consumer article last spring mentioned that the next development on the horizon is sodium-ion with lots of benefits including price due to sodium availability. They suggest that the Chinese have announced such for 2023. Why on earth are the Chinese the only ones able to do this sort of thing? Europe seems to really be falling behind the Chinese and Americans when it comes to commercialized innovation.
alioth wrote:
All the rechargable lithium chemistries are lithium ion, it’s just there are different types of Li-Ion. LiFePO4 is Li-Ion, as is Li-Poly, as is LiNiMnCoO2. They are all types of lithium ion battery – although they have moderately different characteristics (the main point with LiFePO4 and why they are now big in the sailing world is they are pretty good at not bursting into flames).
Yes indeed, they are all technically lithium-ion chemistries, but it makes sense to subdivide them into two groups:
(there are also lithium-sulfur batteries that require high temperatures for stable operation, and lithium-thionyl chloride non-rechargeable batteries)
All the rechargable lithium chemistries are lithium ion, it’s just there are different types of Li-Ion. LiFePO4 is Li-Ion, as is Li-Poly, as is LiNiMnCoO2. They are all types of lithium ion battery – although they have moderately different characteristics (the main point with LiFePO4 and why they are now big in the sailing world is they are pretty good at not bursting into flames).
I can’t remember seeing anything but LiFePO4 for replacing lead starter batteries. For other uses, the situation is different. The EarthX batteries (LiFePO4) have been popular for years in the experimental world. They now also make certified variants.
Don’t lithium – ion batteries last a lot longer than lithium-polymer batteries? They do in cameras.
I don’t think so. LiFePO4 are a type of lithium ion battery, but far from “all” lithium ion batteries. I would think that currently the most popular type used in cars, et al. would be the NMC (LiNiMnCoO2) sub-type. That said, the rate of change in this area is high, so anything we write will be obsolete soon.
