DIY Electric Car Forums banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
on the rumor from Jukka, I contacted A123 to ask if they were iron or
cobalt cells. I got a partial answer


A123 Systems Product Evaluation wrote:
> Mr. Frederiksen,
>
> A123 utilizes a nano-phosphate technology that does not contain cobalt
> or Manganese.
>
> Best,
> Steve

Either A123 is flat out lying or that bird you heard Jukka was a mocking
bird : )

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Oh yes, manufacturers are absolutely famous for giving out accurate
information about new and/or future products to dumbass Freds that call from
out of the blue.

Why just last month I called Toyota to ask about plug-in hybrids and they
assured me they had no plans for any such thing at the present time.
--
MarvyMarv
aka
Mo'Nilla

"- Damer liker smarte menn. Og smarte menn kjører jo elbil,
understreker han." -Ladies like smart men and smart men drive electric
cars.

www.PlugInAmerica.com




> From: Dan Frederiksen <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:12:05 +0200
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: A123 chemistry
>
> on the rumor from Jukka, I contacted A123 to ask if they were iron or
> cobalt cells. I got a partial answer
>
>
> A123 Systems Product Evaluation wrote:
>> Mr. Frederiksen,
>>
>> A123 utilizes a nano-phosphate technology that does not contain cobalt
>> or Manganese.
>>
>> Best,
>> Steve
>
> Either A123 is flat out lying or that bird you heard Jukka was a mocking
> bird : )
>
> Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Marvin Campbell wrote:
> Oh yes, manufacturers are absolutely famous for giving out accurate
> information about new and/or future products to dumbass Freds that call from
> out of the blue.
>
> Why just last month I called Toyota to ask about plug-in hybrids and they
> assured me they had no plans for any such thing at the present time.
>
you might notice that that is actually true. while they are
demonstrating a fairly pathetic PHEV right now, they have stated that
they have no plans for selling it

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Hmm.. so it does not contain Cobalt, Manganese, Iron,,... Just
"nano-phosphate"... DAH !! .. why I did not think that before... :)

The bird was working for A123 in R&D and quitted to work for another
battery company just a while ago...

But.. to my own conclusions...

ANR26650M1 has about 100 Wh/kg which is very low compared to LiCoO cells
which can go up to 240 Wh/kg. Power that the A123 cell can give out is
uncomparable to Cobalt cells. So this would indicate Iron Phosphate
(their patent implies this since Mr Goodenough has tha base of the
patent with Iron) .. if you're looking for power... that's your cell..

So what was the energy density of the AHR32157M1HD ? Is that then the
Cobalt mixture...

Did someone have already some cycling data on PHET cells ? I'm keen to
compare..

I should have a some data about TS LFP cell cycling next week.

-Jukka


Marvin Campbell kirjoitti:
> Oh yes, manufacturers are absolutely famous for giving out accurate
> information about new and/or future products to dumbass Freds that call from
> out of the blue.
>
> Why just last month I called Toyota to ask about plug-in hybrids and they
> assured me they had no plans for any such thing at the present time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Both A123 and PHET cells can be gotten. if you've bought 1000000Ah worth
of TS I'm a bit surprised you haven't stayed on top of A123 and PHET by
getting a few of those for testing.

Dan

Jukka Järvinen wrote:
> Hmm.. so it does not contain Cobalt, Manganese, Iron,,... Just
> "nano-phosphate"... DAH !! .. why I did not think that before... :)
>
> The bird was working for A123 in R&D and quitted to work for another
> battery company just a while ago...
>
> But.. to my own conclusions...
>
> ANR26650M1 has about 100 Wh/kg which is very low compared to LiCoO
> cells which can go up to 240 Wh/kg. Power that the A123 cell can give
> out is uncomparable to Cobalt cells. So this would indicate Iron
> Phosphate (their patent implies this since Mr Goodenough has tha base
> of the patent with Iron) .. if you're looking for power... that's your
> cell..
>
> So what was the energy density of the AHR32157M1HD ? Is that then the
> Cobalt mixture...
>
> Did someone have already some cycling data on PHET cells ? I'm keen to
> compare..
>
> I should have a some data about TS LFP cell cycling next week.
>
> -Jukka
>
>
> Marvin Campbell kirjoitti:
>> Oh yes, manufacturers are absolutely famous for giving out accurate
>> information about new and/or future products to dumbass Freds that
>> call from
>> out of the blue.
>>
>> Why just last month I called Toyota to ask about plug-in hybrids and
>> they
>> assured me they had no plans for any such thing at the present time.
>
>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
yeah, yeah, DAN... I have lot's of different tested cells but the fact
is the cells are changing all the time. If I tested 100 different cells
3 years ago from manufacturers xx to yy I'd need to start the whole
thing again. No use.

It's more efficient to distribute the testing all over and gather the
info from other professionals.

My interests have been in building systems which can adobt any battery
technology. Past, today and tomorrow... (sounds like I'm selling
something again :)

As a hobbyist I would like have as much power from batteries as possible
to feed my toys in garage. On the other hand I wish to have 500 mile
range on some of my EVs.. someday.

Wy don't you Dan buy some cells and start testing. A normal cycling test
for one cell will take about 6 months or even more. To test 100 cells
every year you need capital and some good equipent. And I think you'll
also need some professionals to assist you on the task. We would not
like to have the tests unvalidated due obvious upcoming mishaps..

-Jukka

p.s.- Fellow listers.. I think our troll has been fed enough and it's
time for the feast soon.. I'll bring my Tesla coil (faster than standard
BBQ) and Cola..


Dan Frederiksen kirjoitti:
> Both A123 and PHET cells can be gotten. if you've bought 1000000Ah worth
> of TS I'm a bit surprised you haven't stayed on top of A123 and PHET by
> getting a few of those for testing.
>
> Dan
>
> Jukka Järvinen wrote:
>> Hmm.. so it does not contain Cobalt, Manganese, Iron,,... Just
>> "nano-phosphate"... DAH !! .. why I did not think that before... :)
>>
>> The bird was working for A123 in R&D and quitted to work for another
>> battery company just a while ago...
>>
>> But.. to my own conclusions...
>>
>> ANR26650M1 has about 100 Wh/kg which is very low compared to LiCoO
>> cells which can go up to 240 Wh/kg. Power that the A123 cell can give
>> out is uncomparable to Cobalt cells. So this would indicate Iron
>> Phosphate (their patent implies this since Mr Goodenough has tha base
>> of the patent with Iron) .. if you're looking for power... that's your
>> cell..
>>
>> So what was the energy density of the AHR32157M1HD ? Is that then the
>> Cobalt mixture...
>>
>> Did someone have already some cycling data on PHET cells ? I'm keen to
>> compare..
>>
>> I should have a some data about TS LFP cell cycling next week.
>>
>> -Jukka
>>
>>
>> Marvin Campbell kirjoitti:
>>> Oh yes, manufacturers are absolutely famous for giving out accurate
>>> information about new and/or future products to dumbass Freds that
>>> call from
>>> out of the blue.
>>>
>>> Why just last month I called Toyota to ask about plug-in hybrids and
>>> they
>>> assured me they had no plans for any such thing at the present time.
>>
>>
>
>

--
Jukka Järvinen
R&D Director
Oy Finnish Electric Vehicle Technologies Ltd
Teollisuuskatu 24 A3
11100 RIIHIMÄKI

jukka.jarvinen(at)fevt.com
cell phone +358-440-735705
wired phone +358-19-735705
fax +358-19-735785
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I had talked with them early, when they would talk to us normal people.
and Since then,via email, to the factory in china that claims to make
the cells for them until they get their own plant going and in both
conversations they have said Lithium-Iron-Phosphate.

But it is easier than this to check. Get out your voltmeter.

Lithium cobalt 3.6Vnominal 4.25Max charge
Lithium Iron Phosphate 3.2-3.4 3.7 max charge (Easy to tell)
Lithium-magenese 3.7-3.8 Nominal 4.2Max charge (ok, hard to tell
compared to cobalt)

http://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-5A.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Now.. the chemistry also depends on the electrolyte. There is no way you
can check anything with a voltmeter. Sorry.

For example TS LFP (LiFePO4 cells) are charged to 4,25V .

Heck they have a common electrolyte cell with 4 individual cells inside.
So electrolyte can take up to 17 V !!

The electrodes of certain cells are mixtures of various substances.

There are millions of ways to mix things and at what point you say the
magical words changes the game again. There are just too much variables.

I'm now wondering why we are getting two different versions out of A123
about the cell tech ? Something does not add up here...

When I get something else than Nano-Phosphate-BS I will believe it. Now
all you lurking A123 guys on the list.. chime in ;)


-Jukka


Jeff Shanab kirjoitti:
> I had talked with them early, when they would talk to us normal people.
> and Since then,via email, to the factory in china that claims to make
> the cells for them until they get their own plant going and in both
> conversations they have said Lithium-Iron-Phosphate.
>
> But it is easier than this to check. Get out your voltmeter.
>
> Lithium cobalt 3.6Vnominal 4.25Max charge
> Lithium Iron Phosphate 3.2-3.4 3.7 max charge (Easy to tell)
> Lithium-magenese 3.7-3.8 Nominal 4.2Max charge (ok, hard to tell
> compared to cobalt)
>
> http://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-5A.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I agree that there are an infinite number of combinations but I thought
the point to a lithium ion cell is the use of an intercalation
principle, the reverseable stuffing of lithium ions into the structure
of the anode and cathode. The electrolyte carries the lithium ions but
is NOT part of the cells half reactions.

The electrolyte can therefore interact with the charge acceptance
forcing a higher voltage to get full charge and more voltage sag on
discharge but it will not change the 'Open Circuit' voltage of a charged
cell.

One of the failure modes of lithium-ion cells is the degrading of the
electrolyte that then plugs up the pores in the electrode, reducing the
number of lithium ions that can fit and thus the capacity. Nano
particles in the precursors used to make the electrodes help create tiny
holes that the lithium ions can fit but the components of the
electrolyte can't plug up. The altered chemistries in the electrode have
allowed a change in electrolyte that is more stable and less flamable.

I have heard from the original MIT papers that because you don't have to
plan for lost capacity with excess lithium, the LiFePo4 can starve the
electrolyte of lithium and produce a cell that runs out of lithium on
full charge. Safer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
The ideal charge profile for the TS LiFePO4 chemistry is constant
current of .3C to 80% SOC, then constant 4.2V to full, according to TS.

I took delivery (Well, it wasn't exactly delivery, the air shipping
agents were a PITA - reverse engineer the acronym) of some 40Ah and 90Ah
LFP cells, and was impressed that the relaxed voltage was 3.31V for each
of 45 cells on arrival, no deviation to the 2nd decimal place. I was
looking to manifest a parallel "float level maintainer" (to buy storage
time until BMS) when I measured each cell again 10 days later. Still
3.31V for each one after 10 days, although TS says self discharge is
about 5% per month (or is that .5% ?).

Although that is a relief, I know I have to come up with a safe parallel
storage charger soon, and better yet, BMS/charge so they can be put on
some 2-wheelers.

Anyone who has already blazed this trail, advice appreciated (thanks
Jukka-I'm sure you have your hands full too). Otherwise, I'll see what
I can come up with and let you know how it works.

-S

-------- Original Message -------
Subject: RE: A123 chemistryrool
From: Jeff Shanab <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, July 27, 2007 8:38 pm
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <[email protected]>

I had talked with them early, when they would talk to us normal people.
and Since then,via email, to the factory in china that claims to make
the cells for them until they get their own plant going and in boththis
conversations they have said Lithium-Iron-Phosphate.

But it is easier than this to check. Get out your voltmeter.

Lithium cobalt 3.6Vnominal 4.25Max charge
Lithium Iron Phosphate 3.2-3.4 3.7 max charge (Easy to tell)
Lithium-magenese 3.7-3.8 Nominal 4.2Max charge (ok, hard to tell
compared to cobalt)

http://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-5A.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
The information available on Thundersky and Everspring's website kept me
wonder why they are giving such wide voltage range for charging.
First I though that TS product is a bit different in cathode/anode chemistry
but MSDS gives straight information about what's inside.
So I asked a company that ordered BMSes for TS project to send me a piece or
two for investigation. Meanwhile I tried to contact Everspring representative
and get some information. I was answered by Keith Lau:

> I am not too sure about your question. Anyway, the norminal voltage of
> TS-LFP series is about 3.2V. 2v to 3.6v is basically a limit of safety
> operation of the battery; in other words, you cannot charge over 3.6 v and
> you cannot allow the battery discharge below 2.0v.
>
> In normal circumstance, you may just want to charge upto 3.45v and
> discharge to 2.6v which will account for over 95% of the battery capacity.
>
> MC> I know LiFP batteries are safe for overcharge but doing it constatnly
> MC> leads to shorten battery life.
>
> you are correct. Overcharging is the major problem leads to the shorten
> battery life or even battery damaged.

And in the meantime lab tests gave me results that charging TS with 3.6 V
limit gives full charge withing 10% longer period of time than under
overvoltage.

That's all I know.

Generally TS business is a bit strange, their websites are full of
inconsistent information that can lead even to cell destruction.

Marcin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
It seems the information is copied from the A123 data :) LMAO !!!

With few years with TS LFP cells and always charging to 4,3 V has very
little effect on the lifetime. Thou... I will post here some data by the
end of this week about the cycle test on LFP-30 cell.

I have several vehicles with LFPs on the roads. The cells do not give
out the name plate capacity unless you take it to the 4,3 V. Charging is
stopped when the current is less than few amps.

The voltage drops quite fast down to 3-3,2 V in driving. But stays there
until about 20% SOC. then it drops nicely to 2,7 V. Stays there for a
while.. and then drops like a rock to 2V.

This is how LFP-350 cells behave.

They give 100% DOD cycles out (from 2V to 4,3V) over 1000. In my case I
can expect at least 700 000 km (430 000 miles) on the Bus batteries
(before less than 60% 0f original capacity). :) I rarely drive more than
100 km a day with the bus "green moster" (
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/1009 ).

TS cells are MUCH different from A123s. Tolerances and purities are WAY
different. A123 guys, try to make your cells with purufied tab water. :)

If you'd know how cheap they are to make you would S#[email protected] your pants !

Thou A123s can out perform the TS in power, cyclic life and capacity. TS
beats with the price.

Thou.. I STILL like more LiCo cells... I need energy dense batteries...

-Jukka




Marcin Ciosek kirjoitti:
> The information available on Thundersky and Everspring's website kept me
> wonder why they are giving such wide voltage range for charging.
> First I though that TS product is a bit different in cathode/anode chemistry
> but MSDS gives straight information about what's inside.
> So I asked a company that ordered BMSes for TS project to send me a piece or
> two for investigation. Meanwhile I tried to contact Everspring representative
> and get some information. I was answered by Keith Lau:
>
>> I am not too sure about your question. Anyway, the norminal voltage of
>> TS-LFP series is about 3.2V. 2v to 3.6v is basically a limit of safety
>> operation of the battery; in other words, you cannot charge over 3.6 v and
>> you cannot allow the battery discharge below 2.0v.
>>
>> In normal circumstance, you may just want to charge upto 3.45v and
>> discharge to 2.6v which will account for over 95% of the battery capacity.
>>
>> MC> I know LiFP batteries are safe for overcharge but doing it constatnly
>> MC> leads to shorten battery life.
>>
>> you are correct. Overcharging is the major problem leads to the shorten
>> battery life or even battery damaged.
>
> And in the meantime lab tests gave me results that charging TS with 3.6 V
> limit gives full charge withing 10% longer period of time than under
> overvoltage.
>
> That's all I know.
>
> Generally TS business is a bit strange, their websites are full of
> inconsistent information that can lead even to cell destruction.
>
> Marcin
>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
That's good. Of course you have to think about calendar life as well.

What do you use that huge bus for???


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jukka Järvinen" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: A123 chemistry



> They give 100% DOD cycles out (from 2V to 4,3V) over 1000. In my case I
> can expect at least 700 000 km (430 000 miles) on the Bus batteries
> (before less than 60% 0f original capacity). :) I rarely drive more than
> 100 km a day with the bus "green moster" (
> http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/1009 ).
>
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top