| New Reply |
Problems with the Dreamliner battery |
Share Thread |
| Feb10-13, 08:34 PM | #52 |
|
Problems with the Dreamliner batteryThat said, mea culpa - when i was in college early 1960's every small town hardware store carried dynamite. It was easier to buy dynamite than firecrackers. On a dull Sunday afternoon we boys not infrequently went out to the local rock quarry where we learned to move boulders and uproot trees. We thought nothing of driving around with a half dozen sticks of the stuff under our car seat. But dynamite has a fairly high activation energy - you can even hold a match to it and it just fizzles a bit. Unlike those Li-Co batteries, which need only be modestly heated or modestly overcharged to go pyrotechnic on you. I think i said it earlier - i won't sit in a car seat with one of those batteries underneath my butt. Their low activation energy is a weak latch on a tiger cage. And that's what i think. I'm sorry i can't be more scientific about it. old jim |
| Feb10-13, 09:01 PM | #53 |
|
I do not know how word 'batteries' in previous post became a link. I tried to edit it out, something not in my control gave it that vigilink attribute.
Odd - it's only a link when i am not logged in. old jim "never trust a computer with anything important." |
| Feb13-13, 08:43 PM | #54 |
|
|
Talked to a pilot who flies for a carrier that had a bunch of B-787s grounded. He said several flight crews had reported overheating battery packs in flight. We may have been very lucky that we didn't lose one over the Pacific.
I haven't heard that anywhere else, btw. |
| Feb13-13, 11:05 PM | #55 |
|
There's been some trouble. Probably one would have to play golf or go fishing with pilots and airplane mechanics to get the real story .
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....542761.xml&p=1 |
| Feb14-13, 03:10 PM | #56 |
Recognitions:
|
FWIW we once had quite an argument with the FAA which started from "what's going on here - we AREN'T getting any reports of a particular type of failure from your engines. What are you hiding?", The answer was "nothing", but it took a while to convince them that our desgins were sufficiently different from the competition that they really never did fail that way. (Note for pedants: I've no idea whether "a million" is the right number or not). |
| Feb14-13, 06:54 PM | #57 |
|
I didnt mean to suggest a surreptitious coverup or conspiracy.. Sorry.
More along the line firsthand observations are always the best. Information in a corporation flows much like water in a stream, and any cowboy will tell you : "Always drink upstream of the herd". old jim |
| Feb14-13, 07:31 PM | #58 |
Recognitions:
|
I didn't think you were suggesting any conspiracy. But the information doesn't just go to the airilne or the plane maker. There are committees and safety boards run by organizations like the FAA and NTSB that have representatives from all the major players, and they get to see data across the whole industry, not just for their own products.
These can end up like Longfellow's poen - "Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small". For example a committee set up to investigate this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232 back in 1989 is still grinding away at improving inspection methods. One reason it's a slow process is the small amount of data to analyse - it gets about one new "data point" (i.e. somebody detects a potential problem at the manufacturinig stage) per year, and of course some of those turn out to be false positives. But you won't find that level of information in the public domain, unless somebody leaks it. |
| Feb15-13, 10:50 AM | #59 |
Recognitions:
|
Polish airline LOT announces plans to reschedule summer services, keeping its 787s grounded until October. http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...reamliner.html
Airbus rules out Li batteries on the A350. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21477126 |
| Feb15-13, 10:59 AM | #60 |
|
|
Wow, that is really bad news for Boeing if they can't completely nail this problem down to a fixable root cause. I sure hope Boeing has a 'Plan B' that won't take a year of downtime to qualify a new electrical sub-system.
|
| Feb15-13, 12:50 PM | #61 |
|
|
We know the NTSB and FAA are looking not only into the specific battery woes, but also the design, manufacturing, and underlying certification processes are all up for review. In my humble opinion, all this will take roughly 18-24 months to be resolved. Since industry analysts are well aware of these issues, it's remarkable how well the price of Boeing stock is holding up. Respectfully submitted, Steve |
| Feb18-13, 12:02 PM | #62 |
|
|
|
| Feb18-13, 12:43 PM | #63 |
|
![]() So how much is this fiasco going to cost all of the parties involved? And all because of an insignificant, pitiful battery. This strikes me as pathetic beyond words. |
| Feb18-13, 12:59 PM | #64 |
|
|
We will know a little bit more by this evening's late news; but a "no" vote and strike authorization does not mean that a walkout is imminent. IF Boeing management doesn't agree to return to the bargaining table by the end of February then something will happen after the 1st week of March. A strike is a get-out-of-delivery-delay-jail free card, BUT I'm not sure that a strike trumps an FAA grounding order.
http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...ing787xml.html Boeing has short and medium term plans. Real pain will ensue beyond 9 months. Meanwhile, back in Everett, 787s are stacking up at the rate of 4 per month and 1 per month in South Carolina. The original 787 Li-ion battery was certified on the basis that there would only be one "smoke event" per 10 million hours of operation. The 50 787s delivered only have about 50K hours of operation as of January 16, 2013, and have experienced 2 "smoke events". Not root cause yet but little buggers called dendrites are suspect: http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...7probexml.html Respectfully, Steve |
| Feb18-13, 03:21 PM | #65 |
Recognitions:
|
That must be a good plan. It's taken "hundreds" of Boeing engineers working "round the clock" to come up with it, according to their press releases. Even that will take 3 months to certify and retrofit, assuming the FAA are prepared to sign it off. But I can't see the FAA signing anything off until the NTSB have issued a formal investigation report. The only promise date for that is "maybe we can issue a preliminary report by the end of February," but that will only be a record of the facts, not an analysis of the actual problem. I'm inclined to believe LOT airline's time estimates (October at the earliest for a fix). They don't have anything to lose by being honest. |
| Feb18-13, 05:46 PM | #66 |
|
As sensitive as these things are to temperature, IMHO it's very bad judgement to accept the time lag for temperature to transit beween an overheating individual cell and a single sensor that's monitoring the whole battery. Somebody shoulda kaboshed that. Those sensors need to be in intimate contact with their respective cells. Inside them if possible. If that's what really happened, it is a symptom of too much delegation of design responsibility . And inadequate review. But it's hard to believe. So I'll wait on more info about the monitoring & control system architecture. |
| Feb18-13, 10:06 PM | #67 |
|
|
I think the FAA and the NTSB believes Boeing played them for fools with the battery special conditions and will force a compete redesign with a different battery type before the plane will fly again. Just containing the fire is not really a option when you need the battery to fly the plane safely.
http://www.evworld.com/focus.cfm?cid=15 |
| Feb18-13, 10:42 PM | #68 |
|
|
| New Reply |
| Tags |
| 787, batteries, lithium, power |
Similar discussions for: Problems with the Dreamliner battery
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| Is there a difference in voltage between that of a good battery and a weak battery? | General Physics | 3 | ||
| Replacing a lead acid 12 volt battery with a Lithium ion Polymer battery | Electrical Engineering | 15 | ||
| need help with replacing a lead-acid sealed battery with a Lithium Ion battery | Electrical Engineering | 5 | ||
| Problems with a motor cycle battery! | General Engineering | 1 | ||