Problems with the Dreamliner battery

Ptero

Okay, you guys, here's a claim that lithium burns with aluminum. Can someone enlighten me to the chemistry? I have a rerun of Alien playing in my mind where the crew cuts off the leg of a "face-hugger" and the blood that squirts out starts burning holes between decks on its way to the hull.
________________

Battery Burns
by dean adams
Thursday, April 18, 2013
http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2013/...0418mnsa11.htm

The fire in the Tech 3 Yamaha garage last night was caused by a lithium battery in a remote engine starting unit, either left on the charger or in an "on" position over night.
See http://www.motomatters.com/news/2013...in_motogp.html

If you've flown commercial recently--I just got off a Delta flight--then no doubt you have heard the new warning messages that some airlines are making pre-flight, that passengers are not to bring lithium batteries on the plane, have them in chargers or in a device that is turned on (the message varies between airlines).

Lithium batteries are super-light, charge quickly and are very powerful for their size. But they also can be a huge and dangerous fire hazard. Boeing's new 787 "Dreamliner" plane was grounded over fears that its lithium-ion batteries were a major fire hazard.



In motorcycle racing it's well known that BMW lost an entire WSBK factory bike last season when a lithium-ion battery burst into flames. When it all goes pear-shaped, lithium-ion batteries burn very hot and love to use aluminum frames for fuel. At least twice now a race bike fire caused by a lithium-ion battery went from 'Hey, is that thing smoking?' to GET IT OUTSIDE! NOW! PUSH IT OUTSIDE!' in a very short time. The batteries cause a fire so hot that water is only a short-term answer for extinguishing the flames.

The battery in Tech 3's starter was probably larger than what is normally used in a motorcycle application. While three garages were left under water, Tech 3 is very lucky that the situation was not much worse.

Ptero

Am I reading this right?????

Wall Street Journal, April 21. 2013
...Boeing's new stainless-steel containment box prevented heat from damaging surrounding aircraft parts and should prevent pilots from having to make emergency landings.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000..._whats_news_us

Are they saying that now that they have this new battery box, if the lithium battery catches on fire, they will just continue on their merry way through the sky with part of their aircraft on fire and not declare an emergency landing? That's not what it says, is it? Come on, they're not really saying that, are they?

Dotini

Yes, even with a battery "event", they will not have to divert. 3 hour ETOPS certification remains in effect. The long distance money-making qualities of this amazing airplane remain untouched. Once they arrive at the destination, I suppose all they'll need to do is hose out the box and drop in a new battery. The NTSB still wants to know why the fires occur in the first place, and presumably someday they will know, but the 787 program is now on the flightpath to financial recovery, and investors and pensioners can rest easy. No, I don't fly.

Respectfully,
Steve

jim hardy

I don't even ride in Prius'es .

Probably in a year or two somebody will come up with a non-pyrotechnic replacement.
That'll be the penny stock to buy.

AlephZero

From the airlines point of view, the real money making qualities come from 5 hour ETOPS, not 3.

Getting that will depend on demonstrating actual reliability in operation.

This may be a bit of a novelty for an aircraft manufacturer. Historically civil aviation has mostly been pretty low tech, and the main risk factors to a plane are at takeoff and landing, so whether you cruise at 35,000 feet for 3 hours or 13 hours doesn't change the reliability numbers by much. And (obviously) you are not 3 hours away from an airfield when you are taking off or landing, so the higher risk factors involved are irrelevant for ETOPS.

Historically the engine manufacturers have been the ones who have to jump through hoops for ETOPS certification, not the plane manufacturers.

nsaspook

NTSB
April 11, 2013
Public Forum:
Lithium Ion Batteries in Transportation

April 23, 2013
Investigative Hearing:
Boeing 787 Battery

http://www.capitolconnection.net/capcon/ntsb/ntsb.htm

Ivan Seeking

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93Q02A20130427

Yay!

AlephZero

They are hedging their bets - they have orders for 10 more dreamliners and 12 A350s

Still, Ethoipian have a good safety record compared with most African airlines - only 60 accidents/incidents in the last 40 years

Ivan Seeking

It was about five years past the original deadline for the maiden flight when the first one took off from Everett. They must have planned well because I don't think cash flow every became a critical issue. I was a little worried how long this would go on and how much cash they have in reserve. But I didn't hear any serious rumblings... not yet.

Time for the sales people to make up for lost time! Boeing is the number one exporter for the US.

Too bad about that clunky, old, heavy airframe that Airbus still uses.

AlephZero

Engine makers take a different view - more like selling shovels to gold miners.

We don't really care whether airlines buy Trent 700s on A330s, Trent 800s on 777s, Trent 900s on A380s, or Trent 1000s on 787s

(But it can be quite amusing watching Airbus and Boeing sales people slugging it out, when it's heads you win, and tails you also win)

Ivan Seeking

We have yet to see how the new design holds up over the long term. Hopefully there won't be any big surprises. There is no doubt that the 787 is a bold move for Boeing. But we like bold around here!

From what I understand, it isn't just the 20% better mileage [or whatever it works out to be], but also the ability to land on shorter runways that makes it appealing in certain markets, including for use at some regional airports.

I believe it is also the first commercial, passenger aircraft with only two engines, approved for transoceanic flights. I had a video on the making of the RR engines for these that was quite interesting but don't seem to have it handy. Very impressive technology!!!

A lot of firsts in there. Hopefully this will be the last of the wringing out.

I hope you guys are ready to compete with a flying wing. They're getting serious about that too. They've been doing scale model testing.

AlephZero

Not true. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS for a history lesson.

You may be getting confused by Boeing's advertising over two sub-issues:
(1) ETOPS ratings at entry into service for a new aircraft type (i.e. without any "grandfather rights" or service experience to read across from an earlier design)
(2) ETOPS ratings of more than 180 minutes (and it's quite possible the FAA and the rest of the world will end up with different regulations over that issue)

Actually the engine reliability issues aren't quite as simple as "more engines = better". Each engines on a twin has to be able to deliver twice its "normal usage" max power output, to handle the case of engine failure on takeoff. For a 4-engine plane the margin is less. So in normal usage the twin's engines have a bigger design safety margin. And with twice as many engines, you are twice as likely to have one engine fail per hour of flying time!

Ivan Seeking

The reliability issue I get, but I understood this to be more an issue of thrust and the ability of an aircraft this size to operate safely on only one engine, esp including takeoffs.

So are there any two-engine commercial passenger crafts certified for transatlantic or transpacific flights - LA to Tokyo or NY to London, for example?

Richard Sneed

But no one has suggested whether or not isolating the cells would reduce risk. And why a sensor and shut-down system wouldn't solve the problem. I understand that the fires won't go out. Where are the ideas for preventing ignition in the first place? Has anyone found any papers on these two questions?

I found one half of a roach in a Twinky in 1959. No need to guess where the other half was. Crunchy.

AlephZero

Oops! http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/0...94F0C220130516

AlephZero

Sorry, I mussed that question - but yes, for example the B777 and A330.

techtribes

from memory I remember the airbus had big problems with the power system. generators overheating in the engines caused fire. hmm. how do we know it wasn't sabotage.