Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] LiON safety

Expand Messages
  • Forbes Bagatelle-Black
    Personally, I have never experienced a fuel-tank explosion up close and personal. I have never experienced thermal runaway on a LiON battery either, but
    Message 1 of 20 , Aug 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Personally, I have never experienced a fuel-tank
      explosion up close and personal. I have never
      experienced thermal runaway on a LiON battery either,
      but several of my co-workers have. Such instances are
      scary and very dangerous. It is a very real problem,
      and it needs to be addressed.

      The good news is that it is being addressed. In 1910,
      I'd venture to guess that people experienced many more
      gas-tank explosions (as a percentage of cars on the
      road) than we see today. The Pinto was the exception,
      not the rule, thank goodness. My point being that,
      just as engineers addressed safety concerns regarding
      gas tanks in the early 20th century, engineers are
      currently addressing the very real safety concerns
      regarding LiON batteries. The problems are being
      solved, but it is taking a lot of time and resources
      to solve them.

      Yours,

      Forbes

      --- Dave Cline <davecline@...> wrote:

      > Yeah, I realize the irony of that argument too.
      >
      > However, I've read a few rather concerning articles
      > about certain laptops
      > that just spontaneously combust. Said laptops use,
      > of course, LiON
      > batteries.
      >
      > One of the worries is that these meltdowns may
      > eventually occur on a
      > commercial air flight which would not be a pretty
      > site. No, no disaster
      > would be caused but to be the owner of a device
      > which fills a plane with
      > buring plastic smoke, well, an unenviable position
      > to say the least.
      >
      > Spontaneous combustion might be fun X-Files fodder.
      > But I do hope that
      > Forbes is correct in his idealistic battery safety
      > statement.
      >
      > dc
      >
      >
      > On 8/4/06, Gil Dawson <Gil@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > At 9:53 AM -0700 8/3/06, Forbes Bagatelle-Black
      > wrote:
      > > >I am sure that they will become very, very safe
      > > >within the next few years.
      > >
      > > Perhaps. But will they ever become as safe as,
      > say, carrying twenty
      > > gallons of gasoline around in a thin-walled metal
      > tank inches above
      > > road obstructions?
      > >
      > > --Gil
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been
      > removed]
      >
      >


      - Forbes Bagatelle-Black
      Santa Clarita, CA

      Check out the "New Energy News" at
      http://www.newenergynews.blogspot.com/

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • beard6801@bellsouth.net
      Well...I haven t personally experienced a thermal run away on a lithium pack...but I did blow up a lead acid one day! ...never smoke when you are charging a
      Message 2 of 20 , Aug 4, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Well...I haven't personally experienced a thermal run away on a lithium pack...but I did blow up a lead acid one day! ...never smoke when you are charging a lead acid battery...never start the car with the fender mounted starter solenoid while charging the battery by your head....

        And I've also been present at an automotive fuel tank explosion....never weld your frame rails when you have a fuel line attached....never stand in a mechanics under car pit filled with flammables....when you do it. Also, never do it in a foreign country while serving in the military.....The government doesn't seem real happy when you blow up the stuff they wanted to keep!

        Also..never trust anyone who tells you they did set the parking brake!


        Glad I survived to be older and wiser!


        Words to live by.....
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Forbes Bagatelle-Black
        To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 5:20 PM
        Subject: Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] LiON safety


        Personally, I have never experienced a fuel-tank
        explosion up close and personal. I have never
        experienced thermal runaway on a LiON battery either,
        but several of my co-workers have. Such instances are
        scary and very dangerous. It is a very real problem,
        and it needs to be addressed.

        The good news is that it is being addressed. In 1910,
        I'd venture to guess that people experienced many more
        gas-tank explosions (as a percentage of cars on the
        road) than we see today. The Pinto was the exception,
        not the rule, thank goodness. My point being that,
        just as engineers addressed safety concerns regarding
        gas tanks in the early 20th century, engineers are
        currently addressing the very real safety concerns
        regarding LiON batteries. The problems are being
        solved, but it is taking a lot of time and resources
        to solve them.

        Yours,

        Forbes

        --- Dave Cline <davecline@...> wrote:

        > Yeah, I realize the irony of that argument too.
        >
        > However, I've read a few rather concerning articles
        > about certain laptops
        > that just spontaneously combust. Said laptops use,
        > of course, LiON
        > batteries.
        >
        > One of the worries is that these meltdowns may
        > eventually occur on a
        > commercial air flight which would not be a pretty
        > site. No, no disaster
        > would be caused but to be the owner of a device
        > which fills a plane with
        > buring plastic smoke, well, an unenviable position
        > to say the least.
        >
        > Spontaneous combustion might be fun X-Files fodder.
        > But I do hope that
        > Forbes is correct in his idealistic battery safety
        > statement.
        >
        > dc
        >
        >
        > On 8/4/06, Gil Dawson <Gil@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > At 9:53 AM -0700 8/3/06, Forbes Bagatelle-Black
        > wrote:
        > > >I am sure that they will become very, very safe
        > > >within the next few years.
        > >
        > > Perhaps. But will they ever become as safe as,
        > say, carrying twenty
        > > gallons of gasoline around in a thin-walled metal
        > tank inches above
        > > road obstructions?
        > >
        > > --Gil
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been
        > removed]
        >
        >

        - Forbes Bagatelle-Black
        Santa Clarita, CA

        Check out the "New Energy News" at
        http://www.newenergynews.blogspot.com/

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • beard6801@bellsouth.net
        Further stuff on the difference between chemistries and why I personally am a proponent of phosphates, even though the energy density is lower than some
        Message 3 of 20 , Aug 4, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Further stuff on the difference between chemistries and why I personally am a proponent of phosphates, even though the energy density is lower than some others....

          http://www.battcon.com/PapersFinal2004/NguyenPaper2004.pdf

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • murdoch
          ... You know, it is perhaps worth pointing out that the Pinto problems occurred more than 60 years after 1910. So, 60 years later, they were still working
          Message 4 of 20 , Aug 6, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 14:20:22 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

            >Personally, I have never experienced a fuel-tank
            >explosion up close and personal. I have never
            >experienced thermal runaway on a LiON battery either,
            >but several of my co-workers have. Such instances are
            >scary and very dangerous. It is a very real problem,
            >and it needs to be addressed.
            >
            >The good news is that it is being addressed. In 1910,
            >I'd venture to guess that people experienced many more
            >gas-tank explosions (as a percentage of cars on the
            >road) than we see today. The Pinto was the exception,
            >not the rule, thank goodness.

            You know, it is perhaps worth pointing out that the Pinto problems
            occurred more than 60 years after 1910. So, 60 years later, they were
            still working this stuff out, with respect to gasoline and its fire
            problem.

            Likewise, with laptop batteries, and similar batteries now being used
            and proposed for other uses, we see thermal runaway problems and
            concerns persisting many (many) years after the first few symptoms.

            1. Lithium: There is a distinction which I find useful, and which I
            think others will find useful, in addressing and undertanding the
            Lithium safety question, which is to distinguish those Lithium
            batteries which are said to be chemically incapable of going into the
            thermal runaway that we fear, and those Lithium batteries which are
            not said to be incapable of going into Thermal Ruanway. Valence and
            A123 batteries, and maybe only one or two other rechargeable Lithium
            battery chemical formulae on this earth, are said to be incapable (or
            just about?) of going into thermal runaway. A Valence spokesperson
            spoke to me at length as to their inclination to "test to fail" rather
            than testing up to the point of failure.... they were not afraid to
            find out what would happen in the point of failure... they wanted to
            know.

            The rest of the rechargeable Lithium Battery makers do not seem to
            have achieved a sufficiently safe chemistry.... one that is not
            capable of going into thermal runaway, and generally they seem to
            scurry to build layers of safety controls into their batteries. These
            controls generally cannot stop thermal runaway once it takes place
            (someone may have devised exceptions to this, I don't know). Rather,
            they are designed to try to prevent thermal runaway from happening.

            There are several big-name manufacturers which seem to be trying to
            get into rechargeable Lithium traction batteries. There is the
            Johnson Controls-SAFT joint venture, and there is Toyota which has
            some Lithium battery onboard the Viz mild hybrid, no? There are a few
            other credible Japanese big names that seem to come up with respect to
            claimed Lithium traction batteries. The two projects I named first do
            not seem to be the high-amp batteries we might see in an EV, but
            rather the lower level of what might charitably be called a "traction"
            battery... such as we more typically see in a non-pluggable HEV, but I
            need someone who understands this critical distinction to help me
            understand if I am making it properly.

            What are the differences, if any, in specs, that we should look for,
            when we look at batteries suitable for mild hybrids and batteries
            suitable for plug-in Battery Vehicles and plug-in hybrids.

            2. NiMH: Thermal Runaway does not seem to be an issue, that I've ever
            heard about. Now we see a very big reason why it is wrong to allow
            Chevron, et. al. to take their sweet time introducing more NiMH into
            the global traction-battery mix, and soothe us into turning our
            attention to Lithium and forgetting about NiMH.

            3. BEVs and PHEVs could be made this year, by the hundreds of
            thousands and millions, using both NiMH and Li-Ion batteries, if the
            major auto companies would demonstrate the same urgency that they and
            other manufacturers demonstrated in World War II, when it seemed that
            we all needed to pull together and help save the world. I guess we do
            not have any urgency as to addressing the world's current
            life-and-death issues, including Global Warming, and including the
            alleged War on Terror.

            The War On Terror allegedly exists, and if it does exist, even if it
            is generally off-topic for this group (and it is indeed generally
            off-topic for this group) a claimed "Global War" is the sort of thing
            that has such terrible urgency that on occassion a group's rules would
            seem to be maleable, particularly if a connection can be made to the
            group.

            If the War on Terror allegedly exists, chances for victory could be
            greatly improved by production of millions of BEVs and PHEVs,
            displacing gasoline-using vehicles, and by a global shift toward
            transportation systems that use less gasoline. It has to be said,
            even at the risk of temporarily slightly bending group rules (but at
            least keeping the discussion to how BEVs and PHEVs can contribute to a
            better energy policy) that anyone claiming to want to reduce US and
            Global petroleum consumption cannot be said to be honest, unless they
            advocate an immediate shift (today, this instant) to production of
            millions of BEVs, PHEVs, suitable bicycles, and many other
            non-petroleum-using vehicles and alternative non-petroleum-using
            transportation systems.
          • murdoch
            I couldn t agree more. And why don t any of the world auto makers or battery makers or auto parts makers seem intent to look into buying Valence, as a company,
            Message 5 of 20 , Aug 6, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              I couldn't agree more.

              And why don't any of the world auto makers or battery makers or auto
              parts makers seem intent to look into buying Valence, as a company, or
              its tech? Why not source from them? Various parties around the world
              claim to be looking into Lithium Rechargeable batteries, and the
              matter rises to the level of a visit and blathering posturing
              commentary from the President of the US, such as here:

              http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=2710

              Yet, Valence has struggled along for years with little indication of a
              breakthrough amongst the big-guys, except to be sued by some in Canada
              recently.

              I'm going to see about posting this paper to the group archives. Now,
              if only I can find one which lays out for me and others this claimed
              difference in specs for a mild-hybrid sort-of-traction-battery and a
              traction battery for a BEV or PHEV.


              On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 19:17:49 -0400, you wrote:

              >Further stuff on the difference between chemistries and why I personally am a proponent of phosphates, even though the energy density is lower than some others....
              >
              >http://www.battcon.com/PapersFinal2004/NguyenPaper2004.pdf
              >
              >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • beard6801@bellsouth.net
              The difference in spec is fairly straight forward....The battery for a BEV must be designed for storage to achieve acceptable range...whereas the battery for
              Message 6 of 20 , Aug 6, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                The difference in spec is fairly straight forward....The battery for a BEV must be designed for storage to achieve acceptable range...whereas the battery for HEV's needs a higher power component, storage is less of an issue. This compromise neccesitates a bigger battery in a BEV because you choose it to match the discharge rate required for the application...then you buy enough of them to meet the storange and range requirements.

                This is what is exciting about the Altair nano, Toshiba fast rate, and A123 systems offerings.....you get both power and storage capacity from the same battery, where previously you had to design a battery for either/or....or one that was a compromise to try and satisfy both conditions as well as possible.

                I'll dig through my stuff and see if I can't find some documentation to explain it.

                David
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: murdoch
                To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 6:29 PM
                Subject: Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] LiON safety



                I couldn't agree more.

                And why don't any of the world auto makers or battery makers or auto
                parts makers seem intent to look into buying Valence, as a company, or
                its tech? Why not source from them? Various parties around the world
                claim to be looking into Lithium Rechargeable batteries, and the
                matter rises to the level of a visit and blathering posturing
                commentary from the President of the US, such as here:

                http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=2710

                Yet, Valence has struggled along for years with little indication of a
                breakthrough amongst the big-guys, except to be sued by some in Canada
                recently.

                I'm going to see about posting this paper to the group archives. Now,
                if only I can find one which lays out for me and others this claimed
                difference in specs for a mild-hybrid sort-of-traction-battery and a
                traction battery for a BEV or PHEV.

                On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 19:17:49 -0400, you wrote:

                >Further stuff on the difference between chemistries and why I personally am a proponent of phosphates, even though the energy density is lower than some others....
                >
                >http://www.battcon.com/PapersFinal2004/NguyenPaper2004.pdf
                >
                >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Gil Dawson
                Dear murdoch, I realize that this is off-topic, but I would like to understand what you mean. ... What do you see is the connection between reducing the
                Message 7 of 20 , Aug 6, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear murdoch,

                  I realize that this is off-topic, but I would like to understand what you mean.

                  At 9:52 AM -0700 8/6/06, murdoch wrote:
                  >If the War on Terror allegedly exists, chances for victory could be
                  >greatly improved by production of millions of BEVs and PHEVs,
                  >displacing gasoline-using vehicles, and by a global shift toward
                  >transportation systems that use less gasoline.

                  What do you see is the connection between reducing the world's
                  consumption of gasoline and "victory" in The War on Terror?

                  The notion of "victory" in a war suggests to me the killing or
                  maiming sufficient numbers of people belonging to some group that
                  they become, through some consensus process of their own, unwilling
                  to further resist. Is this what you mean?

                  Do you mean to suggest that The Terrorists will give up if there's
                  plenty of oil for everybody?

                  --Gil
                • Fr. (Charles) Francis Schmidt
                  The war on Terror would be helped if the Middle east did NOT get the extorted price for oil. And, yes, if it were more plentiful/cheaper then less funds
                  Message 8 of 20 , Aug 7, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The "war on Terror" would be helped if the Middle east did NOT get the extorted price for oil. And, yes, if it were more plentiful/cheaper then less funds would go to terror groups.


                    ----- Original Message ----
                    From: Gil Dawson <Gil@...>
                    To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Monday, August 7, 2006 1:10:13 PM
                    Subject: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Victory

                    Dear murdoch,

                    I realize that this is off-topic, but I would like to understand what you mean.

                    At 9:52 AM -0700 8/6/06, murdoch wrote:
                    >If the War on Terror allegedly exists, chances for victory could be
                    >greatly improved by production of millions of BEVs and PHEVs,
                    >displacing gasoline-using vehicles, and by a global shift toward
                    >transportation systems that use less gasoline.

                    What do you see is the connection between reducing the world's
                    consumption of gasoline and "victory" in The War on Terror?

                    The notion of "victory" in a war suggests to me the killing or
                    maiming sufficient numbers of people belonging to some group that
                    they become, through some consensus process of their own, unwilling
                    to further resist. Is this what you mean?

                    Do you mean to suggest that The Terrorists will give up if there's
                    plenty of oil for everybody?

                    --Gil



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Gil Dawson
                    ... That s hardly a victory . --Gil
                    Message 9 of 20 , Aug 7, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 5:25 AM -0700 8/7/06, Fr. \(Charles\) Francis Schmidt wrote:
                      >The "war on Terror" would be helped if the Middle east did NOT get
                      >the extorted price for oil. And, yes, if it were more
                      >plentiful/cheaper then less funds would go to terror groups.

                      That's hardly a "victory".

                      --Gil
                    • Fr. (Charles) Francis Schmidt
                      Now that I think of it, you ARE right. But my victory would be what many unsung groups are doing....communicating and finding common ground. Isee victory
                      Message 10 of 20 , Aug 7, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Now that I think of it, you ARE right. But my "victory" would be what many unsung groups are doing....communicating and finding common ground. Isee "victory" as a win-win situation, not a conquering one.


                        ----- Original Message ----
                        From: Gil Dawson <Gil@...>
                        To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Monday, August 7, 2006 8:37:08 PM
                        Subject: Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Victory

                        At 5:25 AM -0700 8/7/06, Fr. \(Charles\) Francis Schmidt wrote:
                        >The "war on Terror" would be helped if the Middle east did NOT get
                        >the extorted price for oil. And, yes, if it were more
                        >plentiful/cheaper then less funds would go to terror groups.

                        That's hardly a "victory".

                        --Gil



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Gil Dawson
                        Now there s an attitude I can support. Nice diplomacy, Padre. --Gil
                        Message 11 of 20 , Aug 7, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Now there's an attitude I can support. Nice diplomacy, Padre.

                          --Gil

                          At 6:00 AM -0700 8/7/06, Fr. \(Charles\) Francis Schmidt wrote:
                          >Now that I think of it, you ARE right. But my "victory" would be
                          >what many unsung groups are doing....communicating and finding
                          >common ground. Isee "victory" as a win-win situation, not a
                          >conquering one.
                          >
                          >
                          >----- Original Message ----
                          >From: Gil Dawson <Gil@...>
                          >To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
                          >Sent: Monday, August 7, 2006 8:37:08 PM
                          >Subject: Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Victory
                          >
                          >At 5:25 AM -0700 8/7/06, Fr. \(Charles\) Francis Schmidt wrote:
                          >>The "war on Terror" would be helped if the Middle east did NOT get
                          >>the extorted price for oil. And, yes, if it were more
                          >>plentiful/cheaper then less funds would go to terror groups.
                          >
                          >That's hardly a "victory".
                          >
                          >--Gil
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • csceadraham
                          ... http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/future-fuels-and-vehicles/message/7630 ... How much lower? I guess the discharge reaction is something like this -- 2
                          Message 12 of 20 , Aug 7, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In
                            http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/future-fuels-and-vehicles/message/7630
                            <beard6801@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Further stuff on the difference between chemistries
                            > and why I personally am a proponent of phosphates,
                            > even though the energy density is lower than some others....
                            >
                            > http://www.battcon.com/PapersFinal2004/NguyenPaper2004.pdf

                            How much lower?

                            I guess the discharge reaction is something like this --

                            2 Li(graphite) + LiFePO4 ---> graphite + Li2O┬ĚLiFePO3

                            ?

                            --- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
                            Boron: internal combustion, nuclear cachet:
                            http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
                          • murdoch
                            I m not sure why Gil, or anyone on this Earth, would claim to need this explained, and I think the basics are excrutiatingly obvious, so much so that had you
                            Message 13 of 20 , Aug 7, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I'm not sure why Gil, or anyone on this Earth, would claim to need
                              this explained, and I think the basics are excrutiatingly obvious, so
                              much so that had you not answered, I probably would not have bothered,
                              but yes I basically agree.



                              On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 05:25:47 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

                              >The "war on Terror" would be helped if the Middle east did NOT get the extorted price for oil. And, yes, if it were more plentiful/cheaper then less funds would go to terror groups.
                            • Noctaire
                              To me, it seems like a no brainer. If we got rid of the gas chuggers, we would NEED less oil. If we need less oil then the parts of the world that produce
                              Message 14 of 20 , Aug 7, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                To me, it seems like a no brainer. If we got rid of the gas chuggers, we
                                would NEED less oil. If we need less oil then the parts of the world that
                                produce the oil suddenly become less important to the rest of the world.
                                All of a sudden, no one really cares very much about the internal goings-on
                                of Middle Eastern countries and stop meddling in their affairs. That would
                                really take the wind out of the terrorist sails. In other words,
                                drastically reduced demand would drastically reduce the importance of any
                                particular group/nation/whatever in the game.

                                In the end, it's pure conjecture; if we stopped using oil from the Middle
                                East tomorrow, and everyone just pulled out, would that solve all the
                                problems? Not really, especially with all the things that money has bought
                                these oil-rich nations. Sure would be a good start though.

                                James
                              • Gil Dawson
                                murdoch-- I would have let this drop were it not for your profession of not being sure why I brought it up. Ordinarily you choose your terms carefully, but
                                Message 15 of 20 , Aug 8, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  murdoch--

                                  I would have let this drop were it not for your profession of not
                                  being sure why I brought it up.

                                  Ordinarily you choose your terms carefully, but this one was so
                                  profoundly out of place that I had to call your attention to it.

                                  The issue is "victory". You used that word in connection with "war".
                                  I do not believe that you, nor anyone else on this board, really
                                  believes that an inexhaustible and cheap supply of oil for everyone
                                  on earth would contribute to a "victory", in the military sense, of
                                  tthe War on Terror. It might make squabbling immaterial, but it
                                  could not be called a victory.

                                  I am willing to accept the goal of making oil supplies immaterial,
                                  and I'm willing call that a victory, in a sense, in the war of
                                  diminishing resources. But it is not a "victory" in The War on
                                  Terror. That War has no imaginable end that would fit the meaning of
                                  "victory", as far as I can see. If you can, then please enlighten us.

                                  If you wish to use "victory" in some poetic sense, then fine, but
                                  please do not suggest that "victory" can be applied to The War on
                                  Terror unless you plan to explain what you mean by that notion.

                                  Please be more careful in the future.

                                  --Gil


                                  At 7:17 PM -0700 8/7/06, murdoch wrote:
                                  >I'm not sure why Gil, or anyone on this Earth, would claim to need
                                  >this explained, and I think the basics are excrutiatingly obvious, so
                                  >much so that had you not answered, I probably would not have bothered,
                                  >but yes I basically agree.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 05:25:47 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
                                  >
                                  >>The "war on Terror" would be helped if the Middle east did NOT get
                                  >>the extorted price for oil. And, yes, if it were more
                                  >>plentiful/cheaper then less funds would go to terror groups.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                • csceadraham
                                  ... http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/future-fuels-and-vehicles/message/7630 ... *That* much, eh? The O that has to be pulled off --P=O to oxidize lithium,
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Aug 9, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com, "csceadraham"
                                    <csceadraham@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > --- In
                                    >
                                    http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/future-fuels-and-vehicles/message/7630
                                    > <beard6801@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > Further stuff on the difference between chemistries
                                    > > and why I personally am a proponent of phosphates,
                                    > > even though the energy density is lower than some others....
                                    > >
                                    > > http://www.battcon.com/PapersFinal2004/NguyenPaper2004.pdf
                                    >
                                    > How much lower?

                                    *That* much, eh?

                                    \
                                    The O that has to be pulled off --P=O to oxidize lithium,
                                    /
                                    evidently, in being pulled off, takes much of the energy
                                    the lithium oxidation will yield.

                                    Another way to reduce the hazard of runaway oxidation
                                    is not to have the detachable oxygen
                                    and the fuel so closely interspersed.


                                    --- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
                                    Boron: internal combustion, nuclear cachet:
                                    http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.