Rig Mod Explodes

[skoony]

I do not believe these accidents are all attributable to ignorance or laziness.
In the taste of Minnesota if you are of legal age and pass the background check
you can legally purchase any legal firearm you want. No proficiency or,safety
courses are required. One need not even have handled or shot a weapon.
If all one knows about using firearms is from what one see's in the movies
or TV it is easy to see where some potential problems might arise.
I think a lot of these people are going on what they observed their
friends doing and a few basics taught to them by said friends. Battery
safety might even have been mentioned but, over time they get lulled
into a false sense of security. It may be hard to believe but these accidents
are extremely rare. I do not know of anyone that has had an indecent with
a battery for any type of device.
It was working good until it wasn't.

Regards
Mike

 

[Robert Cromwell]

The problems arising from the unsafe use of electricity is all about potential differences.

 

[DC2]

The problems arising from the unsafe use of electricity is all about potential differences.

Well put a penny in my pocket and call me Lincoln...
You just blew my mind.

You aliens are a strange breed.

 

[Robert Cromwell]

With no potential difference a short does not matter.

 

[DC2]

With no potential difference a short does not matter.

Kind of like a rock at your feet versus a rock on an overhang above your head.

 

[Robert Cromwell]

Kind of like a rock at your feet versus a rock on an overhang above your head.

Yep the overhead rock has the potential to hurt you. But you can also trip over the rock at your feet thereby causing the overhead rock to fall on you putting you between a rock and a hard place.

 

[bwh79]

No need to hit the switch if the wrapper is torn and the cell is installed upside down.
The circuit is closed upon installation.

@Bad Ninja, You keep saying that but I'm not seeing it. When the switch is open, there is no path from the bottom of the battery to the body of the mod. Under normal (positive-up) circumstances, the circuit goes from the top (positive pole) of the battery, up through the 510 pin, through the atty's positive post, resistance wire, negative post, down the 510 threads, and down the body of the mod to the switch. There is a gap between the switch contact and the bottom (negative pole) of the battery. The bottom of the battery isn't contacting anything. When you activate the switch, it closes that gap and completes the circuit.

When you install a torn battery upside down, the circuit goes from the battery can (negative pole) to the body of the mod, and down to the switch. There is a gap between the switch contact and the bottom (positive pole) of the battery. The bottom of the battery isn't contacting anything. When you activate the switch, it closes that gap and completes the (very very "short" this time, since it doesn't go through the resistance wire in the atomizer) circuit.

That's how I understand it to work, anyway. Is this wrong? How are you getting that the circuit is closed upon installation? What is the positive pole of the battery contacting before the switch is activated?

 

[crxess]

That's how I understand it to work, anyway. Is this wrong? How are you getting that the circuit is closed upon installation? What is the positive pole of the battery contacting before the switch is activated?

If the Mod has an insulator, nothing.
If the Mod is simply machined metal - the switch landing.

Remember, this is a Battery Lift Switch design

 

[beckdg]

If anyone disagrees with this post, there is no way to reason with them.

The legal system will be left to sort out the rest.
Unless the FDA does it for them.

Canned response.

Easily torn holes through it.

But merits of logic in the face of the masses depends highly on how a message is delivered and by whom.

Tapatyped

 

[bwh79]

So in Other Words, we do know too many Facts.

All we have to go on is what was presented by the OP, so we'll just have to take his word as the truth.

Like whether the Battery was a Genuine or a Re-Wrapped ICR.

It was stated it's a "MXJO half-wrap." An educated guess tells me it's this one which can be one of two batteries in this chart from this blog entry by our resident battery tester @Mooch. Depending on if it had 3 or 4 legs on the positive pole, it has a max continuous amp draw of either 20 or 25 amps.

Or Whether there was Damage to the Wrapper?

It's pretty clear that this wasn't just a case of building too low. .17 ohms on a fully-charged battery (4.2v) draws 24.7 amps. That's either just inside, or barely outside of the battery's safe range. Riskier than I'd like to be? Yes. Enough to cause overheating and eventual thermal runaway if sustained for a long period? Sure. But not low enough to cause a violent explosion the instant the button was pressed, which is how the incident was presented to us. That doesn't leave much room for anything else besides a hard short. There are a few ways to hard short a battery in a mechanical device. One of those is to have a short in the atomizer attachment. But remember that they atty was measured at .17 just prior to the incident. Another is a mismatched atty and/or a dented battery pole in combination with a pinless "fauxbrid topcap"-style mech mod. But that's not the case here either, as they said it was a Rig/Roughneck combo. The Roughneck is a true-hybrid atty, that screws directly onto the battery tube with no topcap whatsoever, standard or pinless. We don't know that it was caused by a torn jacket paired with improper installation, but we do know a few things it's not and there aren't very many options left.

Or Whether the Battery was inserted Upside Down?

Again we cannot know this with certainty, but it does fit the story. Have you got another theory you'd like to share?

Or the Way the RDA Connected to the Mod?

See above. The Roughneck is a true-hybrid atomizer that screws directly onto the battery tube.

Or if the OP was actually there when the Accident Happened?
Or How many People the Story went thru before the OP Heard it.
Or How Accurate the Story was that the OP Heard?

To reiterate, we are working within the framework of the story as it was presented to us by the OP. Since that is the extent of the information that is available to us, we might as well treat it as fact.

 

[bwh79]

Remember, this is a Battery Lift Switch design

I'm not familiar -- does that mean the battery rests on the switch contact, and pressing the switch "lifts" the whole battery to close a gap at the top? That seems like a whole 'nother set of problems all on its own...

 

[Mooch]

In my opinion that battery did not go into thermal runaway because of a too-low resistance build.

- That build was drawing less than 22A. This is easily handled by both versions of the yellow/silver 3000mAh MXJO battery continuously. Even if MXJO swapped in a 10A cell for that battery it wouldn't get hot enough to vent much less go into thermal runaway.

- It's incredibly hard to get a battery to go into runaway without short-circuiting it. It must reach 130°C-160°C to just vent and 230°C-270°C to go into runaway. You just can't get to those kinds of temperatures without a short circuit.

- In my testing I have never seen a temperature over 122°C for a battery being discharged continuously at significantly over its rating. Usually the voltage sag becomes so severe at high discharge current levels that the time the battery is running is significantly shortened. This limits the temperature rise.

TBH, I haven't read all the details regarding the physical setup and battery wrap condition.

 

[zoiDman]

All we have to go on is what was presented by the OP, so we'll just have to take his word as the truth.


It was stated it's a "MXJO half-wrap." An educated guess tells me it's this one which can be one of two batteries in this chart from this blog entry by our resident battery tester @Mooch. Depending on if it had 3 or 4 legs on the positive pole, it has a max continuous amp draw of either 20 or 25 amps.


It's pretty clear that this wasn't just a case of building too low. .17 ohms on a fully-charged battery (4.2v) draws 24.7 amps. That's either just inside, or barely outside of the battery's safe range. Riskier than I'd like to be? Yes. Enough to cause overheating and eventual thermal runaway if sustained for a long period? Sure. But not low enough to cause a violent explosion the instant the button was pressed, which is how the incident was presented to us. That doesn't leave much room for anything else besides a hard short. There are a few ways to hard short a battery in a mechanical device. One of those is to have a short in the atomizer attachment. But remember that they atty was measured at .17 just prior to the incident. Another is a mismatched atty and/or a dented battery pole in combination with a pinless "fauxbrid topcap"-style mech mod. But that's not the case here either, as they said it was a Rig/Roughneck combo. The Roughneck is a true-hybrid atty, that screws directly onto the battery tube with no topcap whatsoever, standard or pinless. We don't know that it was caused by a torn jacket paired with improper installation, but we do know a few things it's not and there aren't very many options left.


Again we cannot know this with certainty, but it does fit the story. Have you got another theory you'd like to share?


See above. The Roughneck is a true-hybrid atomizer that screws directly onto the battery tube.


To reiterate, we are working within the framework of the story as it was presented to us by the OP. Since that is the extent of the information that is available to us, we might as well treat it as fact.

So Once Again... What do we Know to be a Fact in 132 Posts?

 

[zoiDman]

BTW - Does the Rig Mod v1 have the same switch as the Rig Mod v2?

I think someone posted that there are/can be Differences in the way an Atty attaches for a v1 and a v2. Which versions was it that went Bang?

Last Question. Are there Rig Clones out there? If so, was this a Genuine or a Clone?

 

[Robert Cromwell]

Not sure about the switch but the V1 is a top center pin type and the V2 is a hybrid style top.

 

[crxess]

I'm not familiar -- does that mean the battery rests on the switch contact, and pressing the switch "lifts" the whole battery to close a gap at the top? That seems like a whole 'nother set of problems all on its own...

That is(or was) correct - Viewing V1 Switch design. Cannot find ANY disassembled V2 switch Pics, however similar mods also use a Top down design.
The Battery is lifted into place making contact with the Atomizer Center pin.

My Estimate is this Mod will work ONLY with a 65mm Flat top battery. Any deviation could cause a No fire or Auto fire dependent on length.

 

[zoiDman]

Not sure about the switch but the V1 is a top center pin type and the V2 is a hybrid style top.

Like This ? ....

So which versions was it that had the Problem that the OP Reported?

 

[bwh79]

So Once Again... What do we Know to be a Fact in 132 Posts?

I feel like we're going in circles. We know the facts that were presented by the OP:

1: We know that a violent battery incident occurred.
2: We know that it was a 20- or 25-amp max continuous drain battery.
3: We know that it was in a mechanical device with a true hybrid atomizer attachment that screws directly onto the battery tube.
4: We know that the atomizer read 0.17 ohms resistance immediately prior to the incident.
5: We know that the incident blew out the switch and left burn marks on the bottom of the device.
6: We know that the incident occurred within moments after the switch was activated.

So there you go. There are at least six facts we were told about what happened. From those six facts we can interpolate a few things:

3a: We know that it wasn't caused by a "fauxbrid" topcap because this setup does not use such a topcap.
4a: We know that it wasn't from building too low because this resistance alone is not low enough to cause a violent battery failure.

So, we know at least six facts, and from those six facts we know that we can eliminate two of the possible causes of such an event. Let's continue:

5a: We know that batteries vent from the positive pole.
5b: We know that if a battery was installed upside-down and vented, then it would vent near the bottom of the device.

6a: We know that if a battery was installed upside-down and had a torn jacket and contacted the inside wall of the device, then a hard short would occur as soon as the switch was activated if not before.

So we know that something happened, and we know a few things that it was not, and we are left with one likely scenario that it could be. Yes this last part requires some extrapolation. But what was it that Holmes said, "once you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable..."?

 

[Robert Cromwell]

Like This ? ....

So which versions was it that had the Problem that the OP Reported?

No one seems to know.
As per usual a lot of theory and supposition.
Reminds me of the presidential race.

 

[bwh79]

So which versions was it that had the Problem that the OP Reported?

One, more, time! It was a Rig mod and Roughneck atomizer. The Roughneck is a true-hybrid atty that screws directly into the battery tube without any topcap, standard or pinless.