Surefire explosion

[Justin Case]

Did anyone else notice that the SF123A package looked very very old? Surefire have been using more colourful packaging for a long time. Perhaps the batteries are >10 years old?

I have SF123A cells in the same style box. They are not 10 yrs old. Closer to 7, and within the expiration date.

 

[Justin Case]

I had to close that page as soon as I found what I was looking for. That he had used SF batteries (aka Duracell).

You mean aka Panasonic?

 

[zipplet]

Hmm, so with batteries within the expiration date. That's scary. I think I'll make a habit of checking cells that are stored in lights with my tester (a device like the ZTS) every few months if they haven't been replaced - this happens in a couple of my lights.

 

[Size15's]

Whilst it may not be an especially good idea to keep batteries sitting around until they get to their expiration date - it's more because their performance will have degraded thus reducing the output and runtime.

Unless you have good reason not to, it is worth using up stored batteries every year or so and replacing them with fresh cells.
(this assumes that you have some active use and some emergency use (stored) flashlights of course)
Strongly consider keeping batteries in Spares Carriers rather than flashlights that are intended for long term storage.

When it comes to flashlights:
The most important thing to ensure is that your flashlights are disabled to prevent unintentional activation in storage, transportation and even carry.
If your SureFire does not have a LockOut TailCap - in most cases SureFire does offer one (I'll help make sure you get the right one if you ask).

 

[Mr Happy]

I've noticed people seem to put too much store by expiration dates marked on batteries. Just because a battery has a ten year expiration date marked on it, it does not mean it will be good as new if you store it for years before using it. It simply means that after ten years you can still get some reasonable use out of the battery rather than throwing it away.

Regardless of expiration dates, primary batteries should always be bought and used as soon after manufacture as possible, ideally within a year.

 

[Search]

You mean aka Panasonic?

I thought all 123A cells made in America came from Duracells plant?

 

[Size15's]

I thought all 123A cells made in America came from Duracells plant?

I believe the 'plant' is considered to be the Panasonic plant. I'm not certain but Duracell either have their own plant (they don't do OEM), or they also use the Panasonic plant like everybody else.

 

[Burgess]

Interesting thread.


Just FYI . . . .


Panasonic Battery Corporation of America
makes Cylindrical-Type Photo Lithium Batteries in Columbus Georgia USA.


I understand this is the ONLY plant in the US which does so.



Certainly do hope we get some more "concrete information" on this event,
as our speculation can only take us so far.

 

[LuxLuthor]

I noticed the heroic attempt at bringing some useful, repeated, and rational responses by Al, despite being challenged as a "SF Rep." :ironic:Good effort! :thumbsup:

Even still, it is not often that we see SF 123A cells explode, let alone with such ferocity...blowing out the plastic leg of chair, casing of sliding door, knocking down screen door, and still traveling 90 feet outside. That is one of the most damaging & dangerous exploding lithium battery events (other than runaway multicell fires) I have seen with a 123A cell.

He claims his cells were SF, showed the box, all changed at the same time, and showing another that has an expiration of 2/2013, so those were likely 7 years old.

I just have this one stupid question that is nagging at me.

It comes from looking at his photo #8 which I blew up and posting below. I can't quite resolve the difference in appearance with that one battery with the more prominent ridge and lip. It's probably nothing.

 

[SUREFIRED]

Looks like a different brand of battery to me...:candle:

 

[Search]

Looks like a different brand of battery to me...:candle:

haha it really does. From the things he has said (not to mention the other things said) in that thread I wouldn't doubt he had been using different brands. Really wouldn't doubt he might have mixed used and not so used also.

I say he made a good effort to hide his mistake

 

[LuxLuthor]

Just for the heck of it, I decided to sacrifice one of my SF 123a cells that was nearing end of charge to look at the ridge. This one expires in 2015 so it is 2 years newer than his. Perhaps SF changed the design in those 2 years. Perhaps not. We have to take into account the effects of the explosion, so really, who knows for sure.

 

[Mr Happy]

One thing to clarify in this thread. The batteries did not explode. The light did. If the batteries had not been inside the light they would just have fizzled with some smoke and flames. No bang. No projectiles. Just burn marks.

The thing that makes an explosion in the case of deflagration is confinement. If you set a loose mound of gunpowder and light it, it goes whoosh. If you put that same gunpowder inside a cardboard tube it goes bang.

As someone rightly observed, putting a high energy chemical system inside a sealed aluminum tube is like creating a pipe bomb. Surefire absolutely hold some responsibility for designing and selling such a system.

It is to be hoped that modern lights have some kind of safety vent that will allow hot gases to escape before they build up enough pressure to make the light explode. Such events may be rare but they can happen, whether by user error or otherwise. I would not like to own a product that has that possibility.

 

[LuxLuthor]

I know what you are saying, and that the party line is that batteries "vent with/without flame," but an empty flashlight tube cannot explode.

Technically, a capped metal battery canister enclosure by itself is adequate to accurately satisfy the definition of an 'explosion'. I regard the good old Pitstop demonstration video as also satisfying the criteria, and not because it is contained within the laptop.

When the OP in that thread describes the main explosion as a sound louder than a shotgun going off indoors, followed by the photos of the damage, and (reportedly) all occurring with SF components, as far as I am concerned, that is enough to call this a Surefire Explosion.

 

[watt4]

It is to be hoped that modern lights have some kind of safety vent that will allow hot gases to escape before they build up enough pressure to make the light explode. .

I had batteries vent in a Pelican light three years ago. the gas escaped by popping open the rubber cap covering the clickie button. I was glad it had a way out.

 

[Mr Happy]

I know what you are saying, and that the party line is that batteries "vent with/without flame," but an empty flashlight tube cannot explode.

Technically, a capped metal battery canister enclosure by itself is adequate to accurately satisfy the definition of an 'explosion'. I regard the good old Pitstop demonstration video as also satisfying the criteria, and not because it is contained within the laptop.

When the OP in that thread describes the main explosion as a sound louder than a shotgun going off indoors, followed by the photos of the damage, and (reportedly) all occurring with SF components, as far as I am concerned, that is enough to call this a Surefire Explosion.

An empty flashlight tube cannot explode, but flashlight tubes are not sold to be left empty. They are designed with the express intention of placing high energy chemical capsules inside them and using them in that configuration.

There are degrees of explosion of course, but I assert that bare CR123A cells will not produce a deafening bang, break legs of chairs, punch holes in doors, and fly dozens of feet as a high speed projectile. It takes the combined effect of batteries and flashlight tube to do that.

To the extent that it was a Surefire light and Surefire batteries, then sure, it was a Surefire explosion.

I don't think we are disagreeing here, but it was the combination of flashlight and batteries that was required to create the events described. Not one or the other by itself.

What I'm saying is the light should have had a safety release mechanism to allow the gases to escape safely rather than being confined inside the tube.

 

[LuxLuthor]

An empty flashlight tube cannot explode, but flashlight tubes are not sold to be left empty. They are designed with the express intention of placing high energy chemical capsules inside them and using them in that configuration.

There are degrees of explosion of course, but I assert that bare CR123A cells will not produce a deafening bang, break legs of chairs, punch holes in doors, and fly dozens of feet as a high speed projectile. It takes the combined effect of batteries and flashlight tube to do that.

To the extent that it was a Surefire light and Surefire batteries, then sure, it was a Surefire explosion.

I don't think we are disagreeing here, but it was the combination of flashlight and batteries that was required to create the events described. Not one or the other by itself.

What I'm saying is the light should have had a safety release mechanism to allow the gases to escape safely rather than being confined inside the tube.

No question in this instance it was the light that mostly contained the energy and resulted in the damage. In that we agree totally. I'm more talking about how people want to describe batteries having a venting episode, which makes it sound so minor and innocent. From a safety concern, it bothers me when scenarios like this, and the batteries that cause the problems (in a light) get minimized. Like the gunpowder example, it was the battery contents that triggered the cascade leading to the explosion episode. Even if there had been some kind of vent on the tailcap, there would still have been potentially catastrophic damage.

I'm not sure how loud of a sound a single 123A primary cell would be if reverse charged intentionally sitting outside, only because there is some degree of confinement from the casing. Edit: Here is a new post with video of a lithium battery fire at a Canadian recycling plant, and explosions were heard throughout the valley. That is really what I was getting at.

I'm more focussed on whether these 3 cells are all genuine SF cells.

 

[R@ndom]

I unwrapped a couple of spent batteries. And the cell above looks a lot like the Chinese made Energizer cells rather than my Duracells with the bigger gap.

On a related note the Duracell looks polished while the Energizer still has sticky residue and printing over it and looks stonewashed.

 

[Size15's]

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record in that thread. Where's that dead horse?

Use the LockOut TailCap.
If your flashlight doesn't have one then get one, or replace the flashlight with one that can be disabled.

There are too many unknowns over whether the batteries were mixed, old and new, new and used, different brands etc etc
We can't tell for sure but I bet most normal people don't have any 'standard' way of dealing with batteries and they have 'em kicking about all over the place. Who knowns what condition they're in.

If only there was a way to tell whether a battery was unused or used.
It's not about determining how used it is: Only whether it has been used at all [because the 'rule' is only put new unused batteries in flashlights]

Perhaps an adhesive tab on one of the terminals that the user peels off. It would leave no residue and wouldn't be sticky enough to be stuck back down.
I'm sure 3M could make something like that.

 

[Illum]

Why?

here's the odd thing about my "M3T" [M3 body, M6 head]
Fresh surefire 07-2017 batteries [all 100%] goes in, MN15 runs for 30 minutes....then head cell goes 60-80%, second cell 80%, tail cell 100%. Run it until it dims, and test all the cells. head cell 40%, second cell zip, tail cell 80% via ZTS.

It's just bizarre to me, I'm using 0509A energizers now...and so far its 80-80-100 and through a KL6 head, the MN15s back on the M6:nana: