Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 01-28-2013, 07:16 AM   #101
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,534
"and will look at Kanto Aircraft Instrument, a battery-monitor maker."

That and the claim that Boeing will loose at least 5 BILLION in "income" was the story on Bloomberg Monday AM.

With every car maker , aircraft maker , battery maker and all their related suppliers involved , of course it will be resolved.

The biggest question is when , tomorrow or in 6 months , 2 years?

At what point does everyone throw in the LI towel and go back to what works , rather than bear the expense of inventing new tech?

Will it take an extra 100 , 200 aircraft sales to pay for this experiment?

Most pax just want cheap seats , with out being required to swallow their knees , and would not be put off paying an extra .01 penny a mile lifting 60 lbs extra.
__________________
Advertisement

FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 07:51 AM   #102
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
from today's Seattle Times....

---------------------

The National Transportation Safety Board has completed testing of the charger at the Tucson, Ariz., plant where it was made by Securaplane Technologies, the agency said in an emailed news release Sunday.

-----------------
Marin

Isn't this the same place that:
  • had a building burn down in 2007 as a result of a Li battery fire.
  • fired whistle blower Michael Leone (at that time his complaints were found frivolous and not on point) for going public and complaining to the FAA back then on Li battery problems?
Did not the NTSB also say this weekend that maybe the 787 batteries should be encapsulated in a fire proof container? So much for the Li battery weight savings if this comes about
__________________

sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 11:01 AM   #103
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
Did not the NTSB also say this weekend that maybe the 787 batteries should be encapsulated in a fire proof container? So much for the Li battery weight savings if this comes about
They are enclosed in a Ti box now.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 11:06 AM   #104
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF View Post
At what point does everyone throw in the LI towel and go back to what works , rather than bear the expense of inventing new tech?
Lithium battery technology isn't going anywhere. Lithium has the highest reactivity and lowest density weight of any metal. I don't see that technology going anywhere.

I do see thermal battery management getting MUCH stricter though. The same problem could exist on your Chevy Volt, Ford Fusion, Tesla or Nisson Leaf (in your garage...)
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2013, 01:17 PM   #105
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,534
Lithium has the highest reactivity and lowest density weight of any metal.

And it burns really well .

80% of the 33 battery fires since 06 have been LI.

Most not even hooked up , just being shipped.

"aviation weak"
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 01:02 AM   #106
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,376
Today's (Jan 29th) NY Times had an article on 10 failed ANA Li batteries in the few months leading up to the on board fire. Lots of other mumbo jumbo from NTSB as they attempt to cover the bases
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:02 AM   #107
JD
Guru
 
JD's Avatar
 
City: New Bern NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Stella Di Mare
Vessel Model: Mainship 34t
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
Today's (Jan 29th) NY Times had an article on 10 failed ANA Li batteries in the few months leading up to the on board fire. Lots of other mumbo jumbo from NTSB as they attempt to cover the bases
Here it is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/bu...emc=rss&src=ig

Interesting.
__________________
Vinny

M/V Stella Di Mare
New Bern NC
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 09:24 AM   #108
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 734
From today's news, it appears that ANA and JAL (and by inference also Boeing) have known about the battery problem for some time and are reported to have switched out batteries many times on their 787s. I guess we are just fortunate that the problem became visible to an unsuspecting public before a serious event occurred.
Chrisjs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 09:34 AM   #109
Scraping Paint
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Vessel Model: CHB 48 Zodiac YL 4.2
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD View Post
Aren't they just more of those ignorant folks?

You can believe them if it makes you feel better.....
RickB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 09:52 AM   #110
JD
Guru
 
JD's Avatar
 
City: New Bern NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Stella Di Mare
Vessel Model: Mainship 34t
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickB View Post
Aren't they just more of those ignorant folks?

You can believe them if it makes you feel better.....
Your right. Why would I believe the folks that fix and fly them. The builder would never cover up a problem. What's that called? Risk assessment? I went through this once or twice before and you would think I would have learned. Refresh my memory, did Ford ever admit to the Pinto gas tanks or for that matter the Explorer tire problem? I'll just wait and see what happens.

My problem is I live right under 5L here in Raleigh and I'm only concerned if they drop one on my house. But from what I can see they have their problems on the ground or at altitude so I may not have anything to worry about.
__________________
Vinny

M/V Stella Di Mare
New Bern NC
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 12:07 PM   #111
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,376
Jan 30th - a series of articles in Seattle Times- their aerospace writer Dominic Gates seems pretty sharp.

The one that seemed on point talked about the loss (on the ground) of a Cessna Citation due to a Li battery fire and the road (still in progress) Cessna has taken to gain FAA approval. It appears to be a different road than Boeing took after they became aware of Li battery problems two years ago.

According to the articles, some are predicting an 18 month re-design and approval process. We shall see---------
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 06:13 AM   #112
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,534
According to the articles, some are predicting an 18 month re-design and approval process. We shall see---------

Boeing is said to be ramping up to produce 10 a month, 18 months will have half of the desert covered with aircraft waiting for "the fix".

My guess is Boeing will bite the bullet and dump what doesn't work.

Ni Cads anyone?
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 09:59 PM   #113
Guru
 
Insequent's Avatar
 
City: Brisbane
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Insequent
Vessel Model: Ocean Alexander 50 Mk I
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,426
Lots of posts but short of some basic and critical information: What type of chemistry do the 787 batteries have?

After all:
Chemistry, performance, cost, and safety characteristics vary across LIB types. Handheld electronics mostly use LIBs based on lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), which offers high energy density, but have well-known safety concerns, especially when damaged. Lithium iron phosphate (LFP), lithium manganese oxide (LMO) and lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC) offer lower energy density, but longer lives and inherent safety. These chemistries are being widely used for electric tools, medical equipment and other roles. NMC in particular is a leading contender for automotive applications. Lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA) and lithium titanate (LTO) are specialty designs aimed at particular niche roles.

There were lots of laptop PC batteries with thermal runaway issues, the problems with lithium cobalt oxide are well known. Seems that neither Boeing or Yuasa want to comment (a little damning in itself..) But the New York Times article linked in JD's post suggests that the cobalt oxide chemistry were the ones being used. If that is so, how stupid can you get?
__________________
Brian
Insequent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 06:21 AM   #114
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,534
"If that is so, how stupid can you get?"

No progress comes with out risk.

The question is how long does a failure take to be recognized?
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 01:16 PM   #115
TF Site Team
 
Baker's Avatar
 
City: League City, Tx
Country: Texas
Vessel Model: Carver 356
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,633
Ultimately, Boeing knew good and well how potentially dangerous Li batteries could be. And they designed the "battery box' with NUMEROUS layers of safety should the batteries catch fire. I think the lady at the NTSB summed it up nicely:

"You don't need to be an expert to look at the photos of charred batteries and know that some of the safeguards are failing. The "multiple systems" to prevent just this sort of event "did not work as intended," Deborah Hersman, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, said Thursday of the incident in Boston. In blunt language, Hersman said the "expectation in aviation is never to experience a fire on an aircraft."

I really like that last line. Don't misunderstand her and think that contingencies for fires should not be well thought out. She is just saying that you should not design an aircraft with the EXPECTATION THAT IT IS GOING TO CATCH FIRE!!!!!.... I happen to agree!!!!!!!!!
Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 05:30 PM   #116
Scraping Paint
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Vessel Model: CHB 48 Zodiac YL 4.2
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,804
Why should anyone believe anything Ms. Hersman has to say, she doesn't work for Boeing so she must be one of the ignorant masses right?

Even if she did, as we have been reminded, she would only say what she was told by her handlers to say.

Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy doesn't it?
RickB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 06:36 AM   #117
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,534
She is just saying that you should not design an aircraft with the EXPECTATION THAT IT IS GOING TO CATCH FIRE!!!!!.... I happen to agree!!!!!!!!!

Most aircraft ARE built with the concept that they may catch fire.

The engines are built with firewall cut offs that stop fuel, hydraulic etc to that engine, and usually 2 sets of fire bottles.

Proper planning precludes poor performance,
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 09:24 AM   #118
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
You guys are hilarious. The entire industry is invested in lighter, more powerful battery technologies. This extends in the automotive and consumer electronics industries as well. This is about innovation and there is risk.

Aircraft are built around probability of risk, not potential. It's a subtle difference, but design must assume bad things WILL happen, and work to provide appropriate levels of mitigation.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 10:52 AM   #119
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeSailor View Post
design must assume bad things WILL happen, and work to provide appropriate levels of mitigation.
Yes, that makes sense. So now after the Boeing's LiCo batteries, charger and circuit design have been aptly demonstrated that they don't work correctly together the mitigations are anxiously awaited.

The simple fact is Boeing tried to do too much too soon with the 787 design and business model. The business and technical presses are now replete with Boeing's decision making tree on how all this came about. One does not need to be a Boeing insider to have a very good idea as to what occurred and what is now happening. Full disclosure it is called, not to ignore of course that all sorts of internal CYA has and is taking place.

Truth be known, the Boeing insiders do not have all the answers nor the will to make the changes. Had both of these been in Boeing's possession during the past decade, this thread would not be around and the 787s would be flying. The mitigations will come (be forced upon Boeing) not only from Boeing but also from the outside contractors, world wide regulators, users and unions.

There is good news though, Boeing, their competitors, customers and flying public will benefit from the mitigations.

Last but not least, please note the occupation and knowledge of the person who started this thread. He and his thousands of fellow employees definitely need to be aware that the mitigations are real and not Boeing speak.
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 11:18 AM   #120
Scraping Paint
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Vessel Model: CHB 48 Zodiac YL 4.2
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeSailor View Post
You guys are hilarious.
What part is "hilarious," the Boeing evasions and coverups, the repitition of misinformation posted by Boeing's local representatives? The fact that we have the temerity to speak about the issues?

Reread the thread(s) and see which posts have earned ridicule and contribute the most to an ironic hilarity.

You Boeing guys have stepped on your d**ks this time and many of us find that very amusing.
__________________

RickB is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012