398
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 34 points 2 months ago

I mean, it's funny and ironic in that Alanis Morrisette kind of way. But it actually makes sense.

Fire hydrants are heavily engineered hunks of metal. Metal getting rammed into at speed is a great way to generate sparks. And lithium fires are scary as hell. There is areason ANYONE futzing around with lipos should have a bucket of sand handy and why, as the article states, first responders need to handle these specially.

It is a similar principle as to how you don't pour water on a grease fire.

[-] ch00f@lemmy.world 77 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Ok a few things:

Batteries don’t need “a few sparks” to catch fire. They will generate plenty of heat if punctured and self-ignite.

You don’t pour water on a grease fire because grease floats and it will spill out of your pot and catch the rest of your kitchen on fire. Also the water will boil and splatter oil everywhere.

Also pouring water on a battery fire is the preferred way to put it out. Many of the chemicals in the battery will release oxygen when heated, so the best way to put it out is to cool it down as much as possible by dousing it with a shitload of water. It isn’t always possible to apply enough water to the core of the fire which is why they are hard to put out. Sand won’t do anything because the fire is self-oxidizing.

Yes lithium metal reacts with water, but that’s not what makes batteries hard to put out.

[-] boaratio@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

I worked at a lithium ion battery company for 11 years. Water won't do it. When ruptured, a lithium ion battery goes into something called thermal runaway. You need to use CO2 fire extinguishers to cool the batteries to get the fire to stop. Otherwise, it will burn until all the energy is used up. I suppose it's possible to use water that's cold enough to stop the reaction, but I highly doubt it.

[-] ch00f@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Water turning into steam soaks up an enormous amount of heat. I assume that thermal runaway happens somewhere above 100C, right?

CO2 extinguishers work by displacing oxygen, not by cooling.

[-] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 months ago

The rapidly expanding co2 does get very cold though. It’s not any different from freezing things with compressed air cans.

I don’t hover, know which would absorb more heat per pound though. Someone who knows more math than I can do it though.

[-] ch00f@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

If I’m reading Wikipedia correctly, it takes 348 Joules of heat to boil a gram of CO2.

Water is 2257 Joules per gram. As long as you don’t need anything cooled under 100C, water is the way to go for cooling. It’s also a hell of a lot cheaper and easier to deal with than liquid CO2.

load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
398 points (97.6% liked)

Not The Onion

12165 readers
329 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS