Re: ARGH: Accident w/Amondotech 123s and SF M2 + Detonator + G&P Tailcap + Chop KL3 H
NewBie said:
Oh my.
*sigh*
Thats not just a simple vent, thats a cell exploding in an LED light. It is good that the flashlight contained the event, some of the problems with the SureFire 9P have actually ripped open the side of the aluminum body tube.
I'd thought it was just a gas release from your earlier description.
Does the head end still operate, so you could find out what the current draw is?
Yes, from my understanding, this
is an event in a LED light. Is the fact that the head is a modded KL3 and not an incandescent germane to this event? Do we have any way of determining this? I propose that I can stick three cells in a metal tube that is not a flashlight and complete the circuit and initiate an event. I believe you can stick some metal or other conductive object in the head such that it shorts across from the battery tube to the + pole of the forward battery and also induce an event if the cells do not have on board and effective safety devices to stop said event(consider a magnet used to bridge the gap in the battery chain for instance). This particular light has a cell extender that is in the ground path. If there is significant resistance in this path and the converter is constant current it will attempt to reach the designed output current by drawing even more power from the batteries. I don't know what the switch is about or if it can demand more power, again from the cells. :shrug:
We all want to understand where the dangers and risk lie. Short of turning away from the CR123 batteries entirely, are there reasonably safe applications and considerations to make? The US is a society where law suits are brought if there is loss. The legal system supports and encourages this and it diminishes, to some extent, the loss to the individual. It also allows the individual to assume risk without financial responsibility to an extent. Legal recourse has already been mentioned in this thread I believe. Well if someone is knowingly at fault or derrilect in due diligence then perhaps there are grounds for legal recourse (might be tough suing an engineer in China though). When I first joined CPF, there were all kinds of mods and experiments and the bleeding edge was identified as just that; being at the edge where blood could and was drawn on occassion. Those of us engaged in activities with these lights understood and accepted the responsibility of our actions. None of us sought or considdered modder's or user's
insurance.
Well the community has grown and now there are much more sophisticated offerings and combinations of components. A misapplication or combination can result in instant magic smoke and destroyed components.
My point here? Well just look at the subject line and consider a suit being brought against any of the players named in the component build. Did this group get together and design this light and suggest or state that it should be considered safe? Does this group have an
easy out by stating that this combination of components was never evaluated or intended as a flashlight, per se?
I believe the author of this thread assumed a certain and real responsibility in building or compiling this light. Unfortunately, he may not have been aware of the extent of this responsibility or its down side. I doubt any of us are! The fault in components may be an inherently unsafe system or grouping or it could be due to a single
bad battery. It could also be the contribution of a bad battery coupled with a system that will not support the use of a bad battery or a combination of precursors not yet identified. :shrug:
None of us want to design, build or drive a Pinto with a faulty gas tank. Many of us do want to design, build and drive a reasonably safe
car though! The Pinto with its faulty gas tank was identified and rectified. We're not there yet. Do we drive with additional caution and seek answers or do we walk? We have the freedom to make choices and the responsibility to live with the choices we make.
I have the inclination and desire to place the fault of recent and more prevelant events at the door of off shore manufacturers of these CR123 batteries. My inclination and desires are basd on suspicions and not fact. They may be supported by evidence but are not supported by understanding or scientific evaluation available to me. I don't want to pass any buck if it is in fact mine, though.
IF the fault or unacceptable level of risk can be associated to batteries of unacceptable construction or design and
IF these batteries are all manufactured off shore, what can be done about this? Drive the poor importer or supplier of these batteries out of business by not buying from them or more agressive legal tactics? They are just trying to earn an honest living and provide product and services in demand. Can pressure be brought on the battery industry itself to police itself and insure proper product in proper applications?
If I had an attorney and he (she) were to advise me, I suspect the first piece of advise would be to consider no longer building flashlights that were based on CR123 cells until the air clears on recent events. I am also certain that they would advise me to make no comment on a public forum, what so ever, in regards to safety and CR123 batteries. I would be very surprised if the absense of comment or information from battery manufactures as well as some of the
real flashlight manufacturers isn't due to just such legal advise. I have no doubts that the legal industry would like nothing more than to represent any and all concerned parties at any and all levels of issues and concerns. If we end up inviting them to the party, I won't need one representing me, I am out.
Ironically, I think if these events get sensationalized effectively one could envision domestic supply to dry up specifically because of liability issues. What would be left to fill any demand? Possibly those at the root of the problem to start with? Want a conspiricy?
The recent events that have been reported are not overwhelming in number and yet there seem to be enough of them that to consider them isolated or not statistically significant would seem to be a very foolish. While it seems that some CPF members have decided they want no part of CR123 powered lights what so ever,there may be an equal number who are completely ignoring the fact that there seems to be a problem in some as yet to be defined or understood cases. It seems that prudence and possible need would dictate an increased level of caution and alertness for anyone using these lights. I think testing and matching cells prior to use is a great precaution but it doesn't make sense that this be necessary at some point when the problem is better understood and addressed by those in a position to do so. I just can't envision a 2 for 1 sale point of purchase display at Target for an inexpensive 2xCR123 light with accompaning $100 battery tester! :green:
