The costs of running this huge site are paid for by ads. Please consider registering and becoming a Supporting Member for an ad-free experience. Thanks, ECF team.

”Cheating” on the Molicel new battery poll...really?

Discussion in 'Batteries and Chargers' started by Mooch, Nov 2, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. untar

    untar Vaping Master

    Feb 7, 2018
    Germany
    This poll was across 2 forums, facebook and instagram. Setting up verification for those platforms isn't worth it just to conduct one poll. Plus you still need Ip check/cookie check/captcha to prevent people from voting 4 times and a platform the vote itself runs on.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Tim Wiseman

    Tim Wiseman Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jul 29, 2017
    Bolton, England
    Doesn't this forum allow you to set a poll when starting a thread and the only way someone can vote more than once is by changing their vote so only one is ever registered?
     
  3. untar

    untar Vaping Master

    Feb 7, 2018
    Germany
    See that post right over yours? :D
     
  4. Mooch

    Mooch Electron Wrangler Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    May 13, 2015
    There are two types of internal protection types for cells (if installed). Not all cells have both and some cells might have neither.

    One is a “PTC” (positive temperature coefficient) device that increases its resistance when the temperature rises too much, reducing the current flow from the cell. This devices only partially resets when the cell cools, resulting in a poorer performing cell from then on.

    The other protection device is a “CID” (current interruption device) that is essentially a one time circuit breaker. It physically breaks the connection inside the cell at a certain temperature and pressure level and completely disables the cell. It does not reset. You can often hear the “click” when it trips.

    Short circuit testing is messy and dangerous. The smoke and soot is toxic and contains a carcinogen (cobalt). Not great for a Manhattan apartment. Testing outdoors is not an option in Manhattan either as it would result in the police being immediately called, even before anything vented or went into runaway, since it would all look like a bomb to many people. :)

    Trying to contain all the smoke is problematic at best and just results in a bad smelling, toxin coated test box that I would have to hide outdoors somewhere.

    I don’t think the testing would be of much use though and could even be a real problem. Even if I tested several of each cell there’s no guarantee that every single one of that cell type would respond the same way. Not going into thermal runaway in my testing couldn’t guarantee that every cell would also not go into runaway.

    In my opinion, it’s much better to work at preventing short circuits in the first place. Certainly not 100% successful, and never will be, but I think it’s the right way to approach our community's problem.

    I also think that if any cell was short-circuit tested, and it didn’t go into thermal runaway, then vapers would feel they didn’t need to worry about the condition of their battery wraps or they would finally try that 0.03 ohm build they’ve always wanted to do. Others would see this and try the same thing with their cells, possibly leading to disaster. Anything posted publicly about this “short circuit proof” battery would just help to undo all the safety education we would still need for all the other cells out there....even if we could prove a cell was actually “short-circuit proof”.

    Just some thoughts...
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Robin Becker

    Robin Becker Senior Member ECF Veteran

    Feb 3, 2018
    Berlin
    We don´t want the FBI knocking on Mooch door :D even telling the truth in this case will be sound like the strangest excuse ever: "I was just testing the safety of batteries for vapers...":w00t:
    I can just imagine the headlines...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. Old Greybeard

    Old Greybeard Super Member ECF Veteran

    Aug 31, 2018
    Cumbria
    Or to quote a familiar phrase from the software development community - "It is rarely worth designing a system that is completely foolproof. Evolution will ensure an even bigger fool will be along shortly".
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Love Love x 1
  7. mimöschen

    mimöschen Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Jul 15, 2016
    That's debateable. Not all players enjoy railroading, but prefere a more open-world-approach and/or competitive playstyle instead.;)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Baditude

    Baditude ECF Guru ECF Veteran

    Apr 8, 2012
    Ridgeway, Ohio
    I thought about this over the weekend and my imagination came up with some ideas.

    Concerning making a safer Li-ion battery. This idea would need to involve both the battery manufacturers and mod manufacturers with mutual cooperation on both parts.

    • Battery manufacturers could produce Li-ion cells which would be sold in tamper proof, removeable battery pack sleds or sleeves which could be inserted into specially made regulated mods which could accept the battery pack sleds.
    • Either the battery sleds or the mods would have BMS (battery management systems) like battery packs used in power tools.
    • Consumers could choose which battery or batteries that would be in the battery pack sleds, depending upon the specifications of the battery they wish to use.
    • This would eliminate the problem of battery shorts from mishandling the batteries (carrying batteries in a pocket) and eliminate the problem of battery shorts from torn insulating wraps or missing insulation rings.
    • Consumers would still be able to choose the battery or batteries for their particular application depending upon battery specifications like we do now.
    • The cells in these removeable sleds could be charged in special battery chargers designed specifically for them. These chargers could be manufactured by the battery manufacturer (like Efest and Nitecore does) or be commissioned to be made by reputable charger manufacturers like Efest, Nitecore, and Xtar.
    • Obviously, this concept would rely on the cooperation of both the battery manufacturers, mod manufacturers, and possible the charger manufacturers. And yes implementing such major changes in the industry would increase the costs to the consumer innitially, but which would benefit the industry overall by creating much safer vaping gear.
    I just don't want to see the day where our only option will be using only internal Li-po batteries exclusively and having to replace our mods every 2 - 3 years when the battery dies, and not being able to choose the specifications of the battery for the way I vape.

    @Mooch, I would love to read your comments on this post.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. untar

    untar Vaping Master

    Feb 7, 2018
    Germany
    Cooperation would be nice but I struggle to see that it would be viable. The big battery manufacturers don't do battery enclosures, that leaves only manufacturers that specifically target the vape market (which most explicitly don't). That or a vape manufacturer decides to sell batteries as well - unlikely. Both would have to make those batteries widely available or it'll be useless. Right now I can just pop into a vape shop and buy a battery if I'm out of town/out and about and in a dilly of a pickle, why would I want a device with a hard to get battery? (average consumer speaking)
    Then the price for such a battery would rise and with it the incentive to fake it. We'd know even less about what's really inside a plastic housing than we do now.

    Don't get me wrong, I too think a real battery pack would be a giant step forward, I'm just not sure the industry is ready, serious and organized enough to take that step. Sad thing is if they don't they may be forced into the internal LiPo route. You got your FDA/CPSC clowns and the EU TPD3 (alternatively some foolish battery law) is coming with certainty.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Baditude

    Baditude ECF Guru ECF Veteran

    Apr 8, 2012
    Ridgeway, Ohio
    The Big Four battery manufacturers don't like their batteries being used for vaping because we use them without being in a battery pack and without battery management systems. Perhaps they would jump on board if the vaping industry implemented a system like I described above. I know I'm being optimistic, but that's where dreams and innovative products come from.
     
  11. untar

    untar Vaping Master

    Feb 7, 2018
    Germany
    I think the most likely way would be if a really big manufacturer started to do 1-2-3 packs and the others get "inspired" to release mods that fit as well once the packs are available everywhere. The only one I can think of that probably has the money and distribution infrastructure to do this... you won't like it... *caugh* smok *caugh*
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  12. Baditude

    Baditude ECF Guru ECF Veteran

    Apr 8, 2012
    Ridgeway, Ohio
    You might be surprised by this, but I would welcome SMOK to do this. If it turns out to be successful, other manufacturers would be more willing to invest in such products. :shock:
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. mimöschen

    mimöschen Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Jul 15, 2016
    Pre-assembled batterypacks with protection-circuits that the Big4 approve?
    Great. I like to carry unwieldy bricks around:thumb:
     
  14. Baditude

    Baditude ECF Guru ECF Veteran

    Apr 8, 2012
    Ridgeway, Ohio
    Not exactly something that I am looking forward to, either. However, with the direction that the FDA appears to be heading, it may be the only viable solution here in the States to be able to use replaceable batteries.

    I'm well aware that folks in other countries probably don't have to worry about that scenario, but being in the States I do.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Robin Becker

    Robin Becker Senior Member ECF Veteran

    Feb 3, 2018
    Berlin
    I asked Enerdan today about placing a protection circuit on batteries and Mr. Rutzki, the General Manager sent me a link, that I share with you: Enerpower VC+ 3000 mAh 18650 30Q | Akkus für E-Zigaretten | inTaste The company InTaste sell their batteries with protection circuit for mech Mods.
    He said, that this is almost the highest CDR you can get on a coin type PCM (it looks like a coin). The main problem, is that the wire, that connects between the PCM and the upper side of the battery becomes so hot above 15A, that it would melt any PVC shrink.
    He told me, that they made experiments with 20A PCM, but it didn´t work...too risky...
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. Baditude

    Baditude ECF Guru ECF Veteran

    Apr 8, 2012
    Ridgeway, Ohio
    PCM, if I'm not mistaken, are/were used on "protected" ICR batteries. They do not protect much against short circuits.

    [​IMG]

    What's needed is a BMS (battery management system) like battery packs have. I would like to believe that they can be designed to be much smaller than this.

    [​IMG]
     
  17. untar

    untar Vaping Master

    Feb 7, 2018
    Germany
    Yes and no. Depending on what features you want (and how much current has to go through it) it can get even bigger. There's also smaller ones, eg smartphone batteries have a builtin BMS, but there's barely any current going through (well compared to our use that is). Flimsy conductors and massive current don't mix well. Yes I know the current doesn't go through the logic components, but there will be at least one component acting as a switch and that one has to be able to take the current.
    I don't know the exact size needed but this here should be about the lower boundary for size (46*20 *3.6mm, 20A temporary max current 13A continuous, 2 batteries)
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Mooch

    Mooch Electron Wrangler Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    May 13, 2015
    Great ideas and a worthy goal but I don’t think we will get the mod manufacturers to get together on a standard for this. The market is small IMO for a larger, more expensive device even if it is potentially safer. There’s no financial incentive yet for any company to create such a system, especially with the PMTA process set up the way it is. I think the FDA will change some of that now that UL8139 exists, and can help with safety for some mods, but who knows when.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. untar

    untar Vaping Master

    Feb 7, 2018
    Germany
    Just a silly idea - but could that be crowdfunded? Develop an open standard and release a device + battery pack, if there's enough support (and a big enough circus on YT) this could get picked up. Beats waiting for smok to do it.
    Way stupider things got funded (like "I'm making potato salad" [​IMG])...
     
    • Creative Creative x 1
  20. Punk In Drublic

    Punk In Drublic Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Aug 28, 2018
    Toronto, ON
    I don’t think waiting for a single company to establish a form factor or standard is the best idea. Smok may have the resources to pull something like this off, but in doing so it will promote competition which in turn will fragment the industry with many proprietary designs. A board, or panel of industry experts needs to be established so they can collectively work on a standard and manage a buy in from the industries top players. If we look at standards within the tech industry this is how they are established.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice