Modeling The Lithium-Ion Battery


Modeling The Lithium-Ion Battery.

“Lithium-ion batteries have become the most common
rechargeable batteries for consumer electronics,
due to their high energy densities, relatively high cell
voltages and low weight to volume ratios. They are
also predicted to become commonplace for industrial,
transportation and power-storage applications, even if
they tend to be more expensive than equivalent battery
technologies with aqueous electrolytes.

Modeling and simulations are necessary tools for accelerated
understanding, design optimization, and design
of automatic control of batteries and battery systems. “

Energy Efficiency (MEPS) Product Profile for Video Recorders and Set Top Boxes


(reposting a circular/public e-mail)

The Equipment Energy Efficiency (E3) Committee has released for public comment the Product Profile for Video Recorders and Set Top Boxes   (the link opens a PDF file)
 
You are invited to submit comments and submissions on the profile and readers are asked to comment on a number of particular aspects in this document, relating to  market data and modelling assumptions, to assist with the formulation of a preferred policy option in future. While we welcome comments on all aspects of the Product Profile, comments on the Product Profile: Video Recorders and Set Top Boxes – Key Questions would be of particular assistance.   The closing day for this initial round of comments is COB Friday 16 August 2013.
 
I also remind you that  the Product Profile for Battery Chargers was posted on the energyrating website in April.   The closing date for comment on this profile is COB 12 July 2013 and this profile also asks for comments on key questions.
 
Both profiles can be found on http://www.energyrating.gov.au/

 

Q&A on the Australian safety standard AS/NZS 60950.1:2011 with Amdt 1:2012


The following answers to the questions sent to me are my from own perspective, given for guidance only. These are not definitively authoritative, however they are given in good faith, so if you need to make business decisions on these matters you’d need to seek your own counsel, as no liability will be accepted for any possible errors or omissions or if something doesn’t cover your situation. If there are any errors in my responses below I’d be delighted for anyone to enlighten me further.

  1. AS/NZS 60950.1:2011 – This is already published in 2011; revised in Nov 2012 to add Amdt 1 issued by IEC TC108.
  2. Please advise if it is mandatory and if there is any effective date established?
    • PWR#: No specific dates have been established for use of Amdt 1 with telecommunications equipment at this time (but see item 6 below). It may be used now for non-telecommunications safety approvals (e.g. EPSs). Earlier editions would be usable only at the electrical regulators’ discretion.
  3. Any AU/NZS national differences?
    • PWR: There are no new mandatory national differences in the amendment, but note that AS/NZS 60825.1 can be used in lieu of IEC 60825-1. This is worth noting because the Australian laser standard also has significant national differences, and compliance with that might not mean compliance with the IEC standard has been achieved (worth keeping in mind for products sold overseas that were tested in Australia).
  4. ACMA is now attempting to adopt the standard in item 1 as its telecom standard.
    • PWR#: That is correct.
  5. ACMA is not introducing any significant national differences except as indicated at the website given below.
    • PWR#: ACMA is not introducing any differences that are not already in AS/NZS 60950:2011 + Amdt 1:2012.
  6. Will this standard be mandatory in AU/NZS for telecom equipment and if yes, what will be the effective date?
    • PWR#: Yes, but the date is a bit more complex… The ACMA “Standard” that’s being amended is essentially a hidden legal instrument that makes Australian Standard AS/NZS 60950.1 +Amdt 1 mandatory, and the ACMA standard essentially contains no technical requirements itself. The intent is that compliance with Australian Standard AS/NZS 60950.1 +Amdt 1 will satisfy the requirements in the ACMA standard (which is also given the same designation for legal reasons, but I’ll call it the “ACMA standard” to try to avoid confusion.) The ACMA standard, when published (probably in August/September) will then make the CURRENT REVISION of the Australian Standard mandatory on publication, and so on into the future. It also allows that products manufactured or imported within twelve months of the new Australian Standard or revision being published can be tested to the prior version of the Australian standard (but not to earlier versions than the one prior). This means, for example, that a product manufactured or imported up to 2013-11-09 (the first anniversary of the publication date of Amdt 1) may comply with AS/NZS 60950.1:2011 with or without Amdt 1:2012, however AFTER 2013-11-09, all new certifications must be done in accordance with AS/NZS 60950.1 + Amdt 1 in place. I hope this clarifies.

http://beta.acma.gov.au/theACMA/Consultations/Consultations/Current/draft-telecommunications-technical-standard-as-nzs-60950-1-2011-amendment-2013.

EESS database upgrade (Australian electrical equipment safety certification process)


(The following was received from the EESS secretariat recently, who wanted it circulated in industry…):

The responsible supplier/equipment registration database is being upgraded following feedback from users. The testing of these changes is in final stages and, if they all work, the release of the updates will occur shortly.  An email will be sent to all registered responsible suppliers just prior to the upgrade going live.

Major changes include:

  1. The 10 digit supplier number (i.e ERAC000123), which is also the responsible supplier username for logging onto the system, has been simplified to be EX (where X is the digits of the existing supplier number – i.e. the ‘RAC’ of ERAC is removed and the 0’s of the supplier number is removed).
  2. So for example a supplier number of ERAC000512 simply becomes E512.This becomes the registration number for all documentation and can be used to mark on a product as the supplier number if required (for example NZ Radio Spectrum Management marking requirement). It also becomes the user name for the responsible supplier to log onto the EESS database, note the responsible supplier password will not change.
    Note: use of the existing 10 digit number on documents and equipment will be recognised as being the valid supplier number issued by ERAC where it has already been marked on equipment or the marking process has already been initiated.
  3. The phone number field in responsible supplier details allows for more than 10 digits, as well as the recognition of + for the country code (to allow for NZ company registrations).
  4. When registering as a responsible supplier there is now an ‘affiliated supplier’ field for a responsible supplier to nominate the related New Zealand company for which the responsible supplier is taking responsibility for the equipment supplied by that company (and vice versa if the responsible supplier is a New Zealand registered company).
    Affiliated Supplier –  A company that is a related entity to the company registered as a responsible supplier. Affiliated suppliers are limited to Australia/New Zealand related entities. If the responsible supplier is located in Australia the affiliated supplier is the related entity in New Zealand, if the responsible supplier is located in New Zealand the affiliated supplier is the related entity located in Australia.  The responsible supplier (registered in either Australia or New Zealand) registers and takes responsibility for all items supplied by the affiliated supplier . A company listed as an affiliated supplier, by a responsible supplier, does not need to register as a separate responsible supplier.
  5. Authorised representatives are now de-selectable or selectable byresponsible suppliers via the ‘edit profile’ section for responsible suppliers.
  6. Authorised representatives will be able to add level 1 equipment as well as register level 2 and 3 equipment.
  7. Authorised representatives added by a responsible supplier will be able to action any equipment registration of the responsible supplier (not limited to just the equipment the Authorised representative had originally actioned).
  8. The ‘details description’ field is no longer mandatory to have data entered.
  9. Equipment registration length has been modified to allow choosing 5 year registration option when certificate has less than 5 years, but more than 2 years, before expiry (note the registration expiry date is still linked to the certificate expiry date so choosing the 5 year registration option may only result in, for example, a 4 year 3 month registration if the certificate expires in 4 years and 3 months). Equipment with certificates that expire in 2 years or less will still only be given the 1 or 2 year option.
  10. Where a certificate profile has multiple brands and models and the responsible supplier is only importing/manufacturing some of those brands/models, the responsible supplier will now be able to choose via a tick box which models/brands they are a responsible supplier of – or they can choose to select all models/brands of that profile.
  11. Level 1 equipment details can now be entered in several different ways
    • existing method,  type / brand (and optional model number)
    • using a csv file to upload detail of multiple equipment (brand and type are still mandatory)
    • inputting a certificate of suitability number to import across the level 1 equipment detail
  12. The certificate number of registered equipment will now be viewable in the public search section.
  13. Level 1 equipment details will now be searchable in same public viewable location as level 2 and 3 equipment.
  14. Receipting errors fixed.
    Uploading of Certificates:
  15. The manual upload for certifiers to add details of their certificates is in final stages of testing.
  16. The xml process for certifiers to automatically upload their certificate details is being tested with several certifiers.
  17. A ‘certificate lock down’ system is being included to limit ability to register certificates to responsible suppliers as chosen by the certificate holder (in general, process will be the certifier will add a password onto the database when uploading certificate details. The certificate holder will give this password to a responsible supplier so the responsible supplier can put in that password to use the certificate details to register equipment).
  18. The ‘deed of access’ for certifiers to sign is being finalised (essentially this is a document required to be signed by certifiers to ensure they accept use of the database ‘as is’ and do not add any virus, malicious software, damage the database in any way, that the data they input will be true an correct to best of their knowledge and they will indemnify regulators in regard to use of their data by anyone).

****************************************************************

New sulfur-based battery is safer, cheaper, more powerful than lithium-ion | ExtremeTech


Scientists at the DoE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) have struck the battery mother lode: They’ve created an all-solid lithium-sulfur battery that is cheaper, less flammable, and has four times the energy density of conventional lithium-ion batteries.

via New sulfur-based battery is safer, cheaper, more powerful than lithium-ion | ExtremeTech.

%d bloggers like this: