[HN Gopher] CT scans of batteries
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       CT scans of batteries
        
       Author : vitruvius
       Score  : 480 points
       Date   : 2022-10-20 15:11 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.scanofthemonth.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.scanofthemonth.com)
        
       | throwayyy479087 wrote:
       | Those tabs on the final item are what caused the Bolt fires. The
       | manufacturing was incorrect, and they had to replace every cell.
        
         | tppiotrowski wrote:
         | You led me down this rabbit hole [1] Curious choice my GM as I
         | thought the LiPo packs were more prone to distortion/swelling
         | which can cause the membranes break and the battery to short.
         | 
         | [1] https://cleantechnica.com/2018/07/08/tesla-model-3-chevy-
         | bol...
        
       | vitruvius wrote:
       | The LG lithium ion cell that's second on this page is the one
       | inside the Tesla Model Y battery pack.
        
         | anon946 wrote:
         | That's interesting and somewhat surprising. I'm not
         | knowledgeable about battery design by any means, but I would
         | have thought that there would be a better way to make a battery
         | pack for a car than connecting thousands of small batteries
         | together.
        
           | tppiotrowski wrote:
           | It's often not the best design but the one that's cheap,
           | scalable and has momentum behind it that wins out.
        
           | MobiusHorizons wrote:
           | This strategy is one of the remarked upon things when I first
           | heard of Tesla (something like "this California startup is
           | powering their electric car with laptop batteries")
           | ironically laptops have almost all transitioned to lithium
           | polymer (pouch cells) instead of the 18650s they used back
           | then. Not all car manufacturers use teslas standardized cell
           | technique, as it does have some downsides. I guess time will
           | tell, but I doubt Tesla will abandon this technique any time
           | soon.
        
           | Bayart wrote:
           | Using standard form factors and manufacturing techniques made
           | it much easier for Tesla to get batteries off the ground
           | through their partnership with Panasonic. The extra space
           | left by the gaps between cells also has the advantage of
           | being ideal for cooling (battery performance and safety is
           | correlated to temperature).
        
           | michaelt wrote:
           | The Nissan Leaf uses larger cells [1], each roughly the size
           | of a ream of printer paper. So there are real car designers
           | who agree larger batteries are worth considering.
           | 
           | Of course, the Leaf makes a bunch of other decisions that are
           | different to Tesla - lower price point, smaller
           | battery/reduced range, air-cooling batteries instead of
           | water-cooling, a (now abandoned) battery lease scheme, and
           | suchlike.
           | 
           | [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=nissan+leaf+cell&tbm=isch
        
           | pjc50 wrote:
           | Separating the cells allows makes it easier to cool them. It
           | also provides more inert metal between them in case of fire.
           | 
           | A certain amount of stacking is necessary to get up to a
           | decent voltage, as others have pointed out. But even "100
           | brick-sized cells" would be a more dangerous prospect than
           | "thousands of 18650 cells".
        
           | CarVac wrote:
           | Smaller cells are safer due to better containment of thermal
           | runaway, letting them use a better-performing but somewhat
           | riskier cell chemistry.
        
           | ggm wrote:
           | if I remember my basic chemistry, batteries don't deliver
           | voltages at the level of 10/20/100v directly often, its more
           | commonly 1/2v or 0.5v class voltages. You have to have a much
           | more 'aggressive' chemical reaction to deliver higher
           | voltages. And, the same with current: a single surface
           | between two reacting things delivers less current. Its a
           | function of surface area. Same with capacitance: you
           | sometimes need 'more' surface to big up the effect.
           | 
           | Therefore all you _have_ is stacking it up. parallel or
           | serial, thats what there is to get higher voltages, more
           | current draw, longer life per-cell.
           | 
           | Inside a lead acid battery its multiple surfaces, sub-cells.
           | It's normal. inside almost any domestic battery I suspect its
           | sub-cells, sub-cells all the way down.
           | 
           | A giant roll of surface, to increase the area in contact
           | might be one way of getting "more" in terms of current draw
           | or lifetime. I bet that its voltage remains close to the
           | constant in this, hence Tesla "stacking" up the rolled cells,
           | to boost voltage.
        
             | rbanffy wrote:
             | > Inside a lead acid battery its multiple surfaces, sub-
             | cells.
             | 
             | IIRC, "battery" used to be the technical term for "a bunch
             | of connected power cells".
        
               | ggm wrote:
               | Yes. A battery of guns isn't usually just one. It's a set
               | word. The singleton would be cell.
        
         | jaywalk wrote:
         | Thank you. I was just about to come back here and ask where it
         | was.
        
       | s0rce wrote:
       | Sigray has some really cool battery examples
       | https://sigray.com/batteries/
        
       | insane_dreamer wrote:
       | Just discovering this site for the first time. Pretty awesome.
        
       | Zak wrote:
       | > _We used the measuring tools in our Voyager analysis software
       | to decode the model number: it seems to mean that the battery is
       | 21mm in diameter and 70mm tall._
       | 
       | Or they could just read
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_nomenclature, which
       | describes the relevant IEC standard.
        
         | haggy wrote:
         | This is not really surprising considering that it's basically a
         | (very cool) marketing article for their equipment.
        
         | newaccount74 wrote:
         | I'm pretty sure that sentence was supposed to be a joke. First
         | of all, everybody knows this, secondly you really don't need a
         | CT scanner to measure the diameter of a thing.
        
           | sneak wrote:
           | I didn't know this.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | motohagiography wrote:
       | What a great concept for explaining the inner workings of
       | everyday things. From a product perspective, what a dream to have
       | that available to take the mystery out of what you do. I'm
       | thinking of other hidden mechanisms that people use every day
       | that it would be socially helpful to understand, and the
       | sponsorship ops must be amazing. I suppose there's just some
       | people you can't convince, so a 5G transmitter might not be a
       | great example, but maybe a speed enforcement gun, the secure
       | element on an iphone, SIM, or chip and pin card, the brake
       | caliper of a car with regenerative braking, a high end espresso
       | machine, a top tier audio amplifier, etc.
        
       | another_story wrote:
       | Can CT scans be used to create 3D models with internal
       | components?
        
         | sudhirj wrote:
         | Might have to apply a layer of analysis over it. From what I
         | understand the scan is a 3D maps of point densities, so it may
         | or may not obvious what the separate components are.
         | 
         | If a device was made up of components that all had very
         | different densities, maybe one could analyze the points and
         | determine components and do a "explode" animation.
        
       | exabrial wrote:
       | Even in 2022, hijacking the scroll wheel still isn't cool or
       | 1337.
        
         | dnfa wrote:
         | I always thought scroll jacking was taking over the behavior of
         | the scroll? This seems different, as it's using the position on
         | the page to run the animation but not controlling the scrolling
         | behavior.
        
         | haggy wrote:
         | I disagree in this case. Normally I'd fully agree with you but
         | I think this animation style works really well given their use-
         | case.
        
           | jonas-w wrote:
           | Same i normally get so much anger, but in this case it didn't
           | slow down scrolling, also it added functionality instead of
           | "just looking good".
        
           | fdr wrote:
           | I did find it useful to scroll up and down with care to
           | understand their annotations in detail.
        
       | boboche wrote:
       | No 4680 cells, its 2170.
        
         | moffkalast wrote:
         | Still very cool, and it shows the single tab connection that's
         | the bane of old cylindrical cells that the 4680 solves.
         | 
         | I do wish Samsung would already release some of them to the
         | public ffs. Surely they can come up with a price that would
         | beat what Tesla's offering for bulk and sell it on the open
         | market.
        
           | baybal2 wrote:
        
         | ggreer wrote:
         | Only the Model Ys that come out of the Texas factory have 4680
         | cells, and their production volume is still ramping up.[1]
         | 
         | 1. https://twitter.com/Tesla/status/1571037989282906112
        
       | yanowitz wrote:
       | Pairs nicely with this great book about all kinds of electronic
       | components -- https://nostarch.com/open-circuits
        
         | pxmpxm wrote:
         | Received mine last week, fantastic book!
        
       | caycep wrote:
       | How are they getting color? My impression is CT scan is mostly
       | measuring density and x-ray absorption. Are they doing false
       | color based on some sort of data (vs photoshop?)
        
         | ajnin wrote:
         | The article mentions in passing that "The negative electrode is
         | copper; its yellow color in our visualization means it's denser
         | than the other materials in the battery." So presumably the
         | blue to yellow scale corresponds to material density.
        
         | HPsquared wrote:
         | I think in this case it's just the density (absorption) but on
         | some machines it's possible to use different energy levels of
         | x-rays (so-called dual energy CT) to see variations in
         | materials/chemistry, that works in a similar way to colour in
         | the visual spectrum (different materials absorb different
         | energy levels of light differently).
        
         | alephxyz wrote:
         | Looks like a basic CT scan but using the Plasma colormap from
         | matplotlib (or a similar one).
        
       | holoduke wrote:
       | I like the way the website uses the animation. Well done.
        
       | sam1r wrote:
       | >> Create an account and continue browsing on a computer to
       | experience the demo assets.
       | 
       | Super cool, but requires account to check out a scan-which won't
       | work on mobile regardless, fyi.
        
         | pontifier wrote:
         | The viewer is really worth checking out. The full model seems
         | to be there, though some settings look disabled.
         | 
         | I can imagine making changes to a battery production line,
         | scanning a few samples, and using the scans to tweak angles,
         | speeds, stops etc.
         | 
         | I'm sure these scanners are expensive. Very cool though.
        
       | londons_explore wrote:
       | The Tesla 2170 cell has a big hole down the middle of it...
       | 
       | That seems like a missed opportunity for a watercooling pipe, or
       | anything else to use that space effectively.
        
         | oliveshell wrote:
         | I haven't read the paper, so I can't comment on its merit, but
         | it appears you're not the first to have that idea:
         | 
         |  _Performance assessment of a passive core cooling design for
         | cylindrical lithium-ion batteries_
         | https://doi.org/10.1002/er.4061
        
         | baybal2 wrote:
         | Cylindrical cell life is limited by graphite expansion.
         | 
         | You can only have a roll that long before tension from anode
         | expansion will start mechanically damaging it.
         | 
         | Manufacturers intentionally leave some free space to let the
         | roll expand, and shrink
        
         | withinboredom wrote:
         | I somehow suspect water and electricity after a crash don't mix
         | well...
        
           | gambiting wrote:
           | I mean, those batteries are liquid cooled anyway.
        
       | dsalzman wrote:
       | The company behind these scans is https://www.lumafield.com/ - a
       | really cool way to do marketing for your product. Love it!
        
         | vinkelhake wrote:
         | Adam Savage went to that company and had some doohickey
         | scanned.
         | 
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n564Cw0lHLk
        
         | saxonww wrote:
         | I was thinking this is "will it blend?" applied to some
         | company's product. Looks like they sell industrial CT equipment
         | and software.
        
         | richk449 wrote:
         | Anyone know what energy the x-ray source is in their system?
         | Seems really well designed, but if it doesn't have energy
         | energy to penetrate the devices we need to scan, none of that
         | will matter.
        
           | habi wrote:
           | They don't mention anything on their website, but I guess -
           | from looking at their machine - that they use an x-ray source
           | which goes to the range of 150kV, since they also show larger
           | items with more metal volume being scanned.
           | 
           | *source: I work with two of the machines here:
           | https://www.bruker.com/en/products-and-
           | solutions/microscopes... (and one more from Bruker which is
           | so old that they don't show it on their website anymore).
        
       | yieldcrv wrote:
        
       | raydiatian wrote:
       | Glad they finally did more scans, and released the backlog of
       | them. Having so much nostalgia reading through the game boy
       | scans.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | joering2 wrote:
       | How doable (guess not) would it be to make a "gravity battery" ?
       | A tiny but heavy balls are thrown from top and while passing thru
       | thin channels they rotate some sort of mini-dynamo that creates
       | electricity. Once all balls are on the bottom, generated
       | electricity is used to rotate the whole thing and start process
       | anew.
       | 
       | Anyone with a napkin can elaborate why this is not feasable?
        
         | system2 wrote:
         | No need napkins for it. Because of friction and other forces
         | the dynamo does not generate enough energy to lift the balls
         | back up and have extra to be stored for other uses. In short,
         | you use more energy to lift them than produced. If anyone could
         | invent such a device, the world hunger and money wouldn't be
         | problems anymore and we would be traveling to the end of the
         | universe already.
        
           | minitoar wrote:
           | I'm pretty sure by "generated electricity" they mean from
           | some other source.
        
         | folmar wrote:
         | The closest that you have in real life is pumped-storage
         | hydroelectric power station.
        
         | kamilner wrote:
         | The amount of energy from a 1 tonne mass dropping 1 meter is
         | about 10,000J (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%281+tonne+
         | *+9.82m%2Fs%...)
         | 
         | The amount of energy stored in a Tesla is about 100kWh or about
         | 3.6e8J.
         | 
         | You would need 36,660 tonnes suspended by a meter to store an
         | equivalent amount of energy (or 1 tonne suspended 36.7km).
         | https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=100kWh+%2F+%281+tonne+*...
        
           | addaon wrote:
           | Or one Tesla Model S (~4600 lbs) suspended 17.6 km. With a
           | range of ~400 miles, this means the storage-Tesla would have
           | to drop ~0.027 units per unit travelled by the drive-Tesla,
           | giving a "glide ratio" of ~36:1, which passes the sniff test
           | on reasonableness.
        
         | danuker wrote:
         | Switch the balls with water, and the channels with turbines,
         | and you have discovered a hydroelectric reservoir, which is
         | quite feasible, given that quite a few are already built.
         | 
         | > Once all balls are on the bottom, generated electricity is
         | used to rotate the whole thing and start process anew.
         | 
         | If here, you mean part of the electricity generated by the
         | flow, then it can't work because pumping it back up is subject
         | to friction (in fact, generation from when it flows down is
         | also subject to friction) and to mechanical/electrical
         | conversion losses.
         | 
         | On a 100% efficient system with no losses, you would get
         | perpetual motion, but subtracting any energy from the system
         | would make it slow or stop.
        
       | scrumper wrote:
       | Very interesting!
       | 
       | Confused by the text about the alkaline scan (the first one). The
       | +ve side is called the anode isn't it, not the cathode? And
       | electrons originate at the cathode not the anode. Or is the usual
       | terminology inverted because it's a battery or this particular
       | type of battery? I don't know much about batteries; chemistry
       | never a strong suit.
        
         | derkades wrote:
         | As I understand it, the cathode is where electrons "leave", the
         | anode is where they "enter". In case of a battery, electrons
         | leave the minus side. But for a device being powered, electrons
         | enter the minus side.
        
           | HPsquared wrote:
           | I always remember it by thinking about a cathode ray tube -
           | on that, the flying electrons are called "cathode rays", i.e.
           | the cathode shoots out the electrons that came in from the
           | external connection. The power supply pushes electrons into
           | the "cathode" terminal on the device. That is, "positive
           | current" flows out of the cathode (in the opposite direction
           | to the electrons).
        
         | caf wrote:
         | Here's how I was taught to remember it: The cathode is purr-
         | sitive.
        
       | real-dino wrote:
       | I have some LiFePO4 batteries powering my laptop, and onboard
       | electronics on my boat. They are very heavy, but have a super
       | long life. Often forgotten, they are used a lot in automotive
       | applications!
        
         | caf wrote:
         | LFP cells are what the Tesla Model 3 and Y RWD from GF Shanghai
         | use.
         | 
         | They'd be ideal for home batteries you'd think - I wonder when
         | they'll switch the Powerwall.
        
           | elihu wrote:
           | From a technical standpoint that makes a lot of sense. I
           | think the main obstacle there is that Tesla doesn't (as far
           | as I know) actually make LFP batteries. The ones they use in
           | their cars come from CATL. Tesla could just buy batteries
           | from CATL and package them in a Powerwall product, but they
           | might not be interested in doing that since there's a big
           | risk that CATL or some other manufacturer could make an
           | identical product without the Tesla brand and sell it at a
           | much lower price.
           | 
           | There's a theory that Powerwall was just a way for Tesla to
           | not waste their excess battery manufacturing capacity when
           | car production wasn't keeping up. I don't know how true that
           | is, but if so there isn't much of a need for them to figure
           | out how to sell CATL's excess battery supply.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-10-21 23:02 UTC)