> I think it's Li-Ion batteries in laptops, not LiPo.

The important difference between the two is physical construction more than chemistry, though the electrolytes differ slightly. Cylindrical Li-ion cells have a rigid metal case and a breakable seal that will release gas and permanently disable the cell in the event of excessive internal pressure. Pouch and prismatic cells do not have a rigid metal case and are at higher risk of mechanical damage. Since they're made of softer materials, they often don't have a valve to release pressure, and bulge instead.

Pouch cells may be a little less safe than cylindrical cells for these reasons, but are present inside literally billions of consumer devices such as phones, laptops and tablets. Catastrophic failures are quite rare, hence Samsung's incendiary phones being a huge news story.

I suspect the high failure rate of drone batteries is due to the extreme loads drones put on batteries. Very few other devices are continuously operated at loads that will drain their batteries in a few minutes. There may also be an issue of sellers making claims about the maximum safe discharge rate of their batteries that are not based in reality.

> I suspect the high failure rate of drone batteries is due to the extreme loads drones put on batteries. Very few other devices are continuously operated at loads that will drain their batteries in a few minutes.

Indeed. The charge / discharge cycle causes physical strain on the carbon anode. Microscopic pieces of it break off with use, and are part of the cause of capacity degradation over time.

I absolutely loathe the degree to which manufacturers will embed LiPo's into just about everything including wearables without disclosing the fact. If you're clever about this sort of stuff and see a certain form factor coupled with larger than expected operating times you can infer the presence of LiPo's with some accuracy but your average consumer doesn't stand a chance and has no idea what the difference between all these different battery chemistries is in the first place and what the implications are.

But what good would a wearable or phone be with a nicad battery? Sure, there are dangers with lithium chemistry batteries, but sadly there are no viable alternatives. And as far as manufacturers not disclosing, what do you want for disclosure? Should we add yet another useless warning label to ignore, like the prop 65 warnings?

These incidents are relatively rare in consumer devices (so exempting RC lipos and cheap knockoff products with no protection).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery or LiFePO4 has much better safety properties. Any device sold to consumers should be required to have temperature monitoring, over voltage and over current protection. If it fails any onboard safety check it should render itself inoperable.

That sounds like a good development. I'm especially concerned about stuff worn against the body (earbuds, sports wearables, watches, cellphones). Laptops and tablets are also potentially dangerous but it's not as if every fuck up will immediately lead to injury.

I review flashlights and headlamps as a hobby. Many modern high-powered ones use removable Li-ion cells, most commonly 18650 size.

Temperature monitoring has become very common. The primary heat source is almost always the LED, not the battery, but it would be sufficient to detect a battery nearing thermal runaway. Low-voltage protection is common, but sometimes only a warning blink rather than a hard cutoff based on the idea that leaving the user in the dark might be worse than damaging a battery.

Some models have onboard charging, most often through MicroUSB. Correctly charging a single Li-ion cell is not difficult, and I haven't seen one get it seriously wrong yet.

LiFePO4 has seen a little use, but is not popular due to its much lower energy density. I suspect this has kept it out of other portable devices as well since users always seem to want longer runtime in ever smaller devices.

It was popular for pro power tools for a while. Those get a lot of abuse, and people are constantly changing battery packs so they max out on charging cycles. DeWalt used LiFePO4 from A123 Systems. But they seem to have given that up.

I honestly wonder why. I developed a portable small-quantity project a few years ago and designed in a 20AH LiFePO4 battery pack; it seemed like the only sane choice. The cost was slightly higher and density was slightly lower, but the difference was less than 10%. Not having to be concerned with battery failure modes was a huge advantage. But those factors must be different at larger scales; the largest scale I can think of where density matters would be for a commercial electric 18-wheeler tractor; what chemistry do those use?

Price. Ordinary lithium-ion batteries have dropped in price due to volume production and competition. LiFePO4, not so much.

Unfortunately we're getting to the point where there's rarely any choice.

30 years ago we didn't walk around with half a dozen bombs on our body. As a society we have decided that the benefits outweigh the risk, but it's still easy to not walk around with battery devices in our pockets/bags, or even charging at home. It's not as hard as opting out from cars and the roads, which kill dozens every week in the UK alone.

LiPos or Li-Ion?

LiPo, Li-Ion (not the LiPo variety, LiPo is also Li-Ion) is also dangerous but much less so from my own personal experience.

The second last sentence was a big red flag to me:

"Steve bought his HP Envy laptop in 2014, and had never had an issue with the charger. He only decided to leave it on charge when he unplugged it and it turned off immediately."

He knew there was a problem with the battery. He just didn't know the possible consequences.

I think it’s reasonable to expect users of self-assembled drone batteries to be aware of and careful about those batteries. These batteries are intended for RC hobbyists, and are likely to be subjected to physical abuse. I’m talking about the battery packs covered in thin plastic wrap with no integrated protection circuitry, like this: http://www.rapidrcmodels.com/turnigy-5000mah-2s-20c-lipo-pac...

But batteries in consumer products, like laptops and ready-to-fly drones, should be protected both physically (with a harder plastic case) and with integrated charging circuitry. That seems to be the case with consumer drone batteries, like the DJI Phantom: https://m.dji.com/product/phantom-3-intelligent-flight-batte...

A 20C discharge rate means that battery claims it can supply 100A @ 7.4V (740W) and be discharged in 3 minutes of operation. I don't have experience with RC batteries, but I'm a little skeptical. That's an awfully fast discharge rate, and a lot of power from a 282g battery.

In the RC hobbyist community it's fairly widely recognized that manufacturers inflate their C ratings. That said, these things can definitely put out a scary amount of power, and discharging batteries in 3-4 minutes of flight isn't unusual for some high performance RC aircraft.

That is absolutely normal in the high performance RC world. You even get 40C and higher rates cells. No point carrying around a heavier battery than necessary for the power required.

This is from a respected manufacturer and they've got 2-cell 7.4V LiPo batteries with a 120C discharge rate. There must surely be a way to verify this claim? https://teamorion.com/en/news-and-racing/team-orion-ultimate...

I have a bunch of 4s Quadcopter batteries that are rated to 95c. If I fly hard I can run it flat (to 3.6v per cell) in 3 minutes

I'd bet on that 95C being fraudulent (at least for more than a couple seconds at a time), but discharge in 3 minutes is 20C, and that's a lot.

Configuration: 4S1P / 14.8V / 4Cells Discharge Rate: 95C Max Burst discharge Rate: 190C