"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Ken Finney wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Ken Finney wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder wrote AND THEN HIT THE SEND KEY BEFORE HE MEANT
TO:
GM on the cutting edge of anything is a little funny. And I'm sure
Sony didn't think their batteries would do this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeWq6rWzChw



Is this the story you are talking about John? If so what is an
"LG Chem cell?"
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/06...gm-awards-two-
battery-development-contracts-for-chevy/


GM doing this also kind of proves my point that the new battery
technology is coming from somewhere with a lot more money in play
than the ultralight and LSA market.



"LG" is Lucky Goldstar, a Korean conglomerate.

So it is just another version of a Li-Ion battery and not a "new"
technology?

Yes. GM is also working with another company, A123, on their
"nano-phosphate" technology, but it is just a different flavor of Li-
Ion.

So what makes them think that these are going to be any less likely to
explode than the others? I think Toyota is taking the right path holding
off on the battery powered cars. Let GM eat the first thousand or so
lawsuits.

They don't so much explode, as burn. One of the thingsthat many don't
realize is that a "battery", by definition, is made up of cells. One bad
cell tends to take out other cells around it and damage the battery. So, if
your reliability goal is "1 in 1000 battery failures" and you have 1000
cells in each battery, you actually need a cell failure rate of less than "1
in a million". I'm willing to drive a car with Li-Ion batteries, I can run
away from the fire. Ford experimented with Sodium-Sulphur batteries years
ago, pretty difficult to run away from one of those fires. On the other
hand, I've personally had a car with a gasoline engine catch on fire, so
their failure rate isn't zero.