为什么三星的锂电池爆炸以及它们如何改变电子产品

胡说，在这个宇宙里，红色是正的，黑色是负的。大型固定式电池在电信中是常见的，并且标准一直/总是/为正极红色，即使正极是指地/地。如上所示的错误信息是非常危险的，特别是对于新手来说。

老兄!太多的药物。(没有看到a /S)

如图中所提到的，阳极和阴极之间的内部分离非常小。如果发生了任何电镀，即使它自身缩短阳极和阴极短路，也可以缩短它们的机械冲击。在大多数情况下，它只是瞬间并且不会产生明显的影响，但如果聚合物电介质在过程中受损并且短暂的剩余物...... * POOF *去魔法烟雾。

镍氢电池确实有记忆效应，只是比镍镉电池的记忆效应要小得多。参见http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/archive/memory_myth_or_fact

这是因为可能不仅仅是电池不同。的确，关于脂质电池的第一件事是如何处理充放电循环。我猜同样的电池可能被用在几十个，如果不是数百个其他零问题的产品上。如果是这样，那么它不可能是电池。更有可能的变量是如何处理充电和放电周期通常是由一个开关变换器电路,可以动态适应变化的等效发电机/电池的负载阻抗/循环+调整充电器电压变化和改变应用程序负载条件下手机本身的努力匹配source和load。如果你破坏了这种平衡，电池开始快速充放电，你就会遇到起火的问题。这显然就是这里正在发生的事情。关于悬浮滑板着火的事你说得很对。如果你看一下这些的实现，实际上根本没有转换器-大多数挂钩电池直接切换充电器直流和h桥驱动器。 This asking for a battery fire with LiPO!! Epic Fail design. Ok but Samsung et al. actually understand this so they DO use converters. But designing a proper converter is not actually easy. The inductor design alone can be 50-100 steps that must be exactly followed and correctly. And sometimes companies and their managers may foolishly assign green interns the job of designing power supplies and power converters (because power is "simple", "unglamorous", "unsexy" and obviously intern work). This is why I think blaming the battery is quite like BS if there are any other users of the same battery model - someone should check that! If so then it's far more likely a design flaw in the charge/discharge circuitry combined with issues relating to power consumption variance exceeding the range of this same circuitry combined with the limits defined by the battery. For example, maybe they specified power of the CPU/GPU based on the data sheet (which is Epic Fail) BUT the one thing that is highly variant and dependent on vagaries of the particular software running at the moment is: CPU/GPU power consumption. Then, hypothetically, imagine that their get a run of CPUs from Samsung Semi which have slightly above spec power consumption and left unsaid is that because of process issues the process variance on parameters like Vt, Iddq, etc. is a bit wider than the original design assumed (e.g. assumed ±5% but this batch are ±20%). Suddenly the power budget has tail that exceeds the converter design assumption or perhaps the design had too small a margin itself. We really don't know but this is often how such problems arise. So if you have a converter design on the edge and you happen to have the wrong mix of OS and SW running that pushes nominal power consumption over the edge into that process tail, then the converter allows discharge of the battery faster than it's supposed to, then that leads directly to overheating and fire risk. This is strictly what we don't know and haven't heard anything cogent from Samsung so far. Given their SOP I'm guessing they'll never volunteer the information if it suggests or creates conflict or failure (it's an Asian thing). It's probably something that either some in "journalist" should be asking them directly or someone will need to get some Note 7s, reverse engineer and failure analyze a few. I used to do failure analysis on far more complex systems (satellites and launch systems) and mundane yet cascaded failures like this are surprisingly common when things fail unexpectedly and catastrophically. The obvious things get covered but it's the interdependencies you can't always see clearly or assumed away as impossible or irrelevant that bite you in the ass. And it's usually the part that someone decided was "so simple we don't need to worry about it" - until you do. You simply can never assume things - always "trust but verify".

任何物品的能量密度越大，它越危险。这就是为什么1950年代从未被抓住的“原子汽车”。或者是2050年的“150 MPG”引擎的原因在于1950年代从未见过一天的灯光......不是因为任何阴谋 - 只是为了让汽油从汽油出来的能量，经常需要发动机会爆炸在意外。