Problems with the Dreamliner battery

[Ptero]

Consumer Group, Battery Expert Question FAA Dreamliner Decision
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/aviation/consumer-group-battery-expert-question-faa-dreamliner-decision

So part of Boeing's battery fix is to not just to try to eliminate battery fires but also contain any that might break out. This means, in part, thermally insulating every lithium cobalt oxide cell within the battery's stainless steel container.

Zuckerbrod says he's impressed with the batteries' heavy duty stainless steel housing, which would contain any fire and vent fumes directly outside the plane. (On the other hand, adding in a heavy stainless steel box also cuts back on the main appeal of the batteries in the first place: their high energy density.)

However, Zuckerbrod also notes that insulation between battery cells -- electrically and thermally insulating each cell from one another and the box itself -- could pose a problem during regular use.

"As the cells are used they have to cool off," he says. "If you get above about 90 C or so, if the heat's contained and can't leak out, the battery may begin to self-heat and undergo a thermal runaway."

 

[Ptero]

I believe we are witnessing the decline of American excellence in engineering. Or perhaps we are witnessing the decline of excellence in the American integration of engineering disiplines into complex products. Either way. the result will be the same.

 

[Ptero]

Oh, you mean people could die? Maybe we should investigate this "as soon as possible."

Computed Tomography Scans of Boeing 787 APU Batteries
Solicitation Number: PUR130245
Agency: National Transportation Safety Board
Office: National Transportation Safety Board
Location: Acquisition Division

Posted Date:
May 3, 2013
Response Date:
May 06, 2013 12:00 pm Eastern

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...df7d1ec&tab=core&tabmode=list&print_preview=1

...The NTSB is planning to conduct teardown examinations as soon as possible of several aircraft batteries similar to one involved in an aircraft incident. This urgent requirement is in support of accident investigation DCA13IA037 that occurred in Boston, MA. To facilitate those examinations, CT scans of these batteries and their subcomponents are required to non-destructively determine as much information as possible about those components. In addition, batteries and battery cells of the same type which have been subjected to known test conditions will also be scanned. These scans will be conducted both before and after the test conditions are applied. Since these batteries are of the lithium ion type and have substantial shipping restrictions (including a requirement for ground shipping only using specially qualified hazardous materials shippers which would cause a delay of several days to accommodate), these scans need to be conducted at a location close to Washington, D.C. to allow the NTSB to transport the battery to the contractor and thereby avoid shipping and other logistical complications. They must also be completed within the shortest timeframe possible to provide the fastest possible receipt of this information to avoid potential future accidents involving this type of aircraft battery. Since the FAA has recently approved a plan intended to result in the Boeing 787 being approved for a return to service, the information from these tests (and the CT scans required to support these tests) is needed as soon as possible. A scan report that documents items such as the x-ray source power used, x-ray focal spot size, detector used, integration time, number of views, image pixel size, slice thickness, total length scanned, number of slices, etc. is due no later than 10 days after the end of the scanning activity. The NTSB has a requirement for CT scanning services to begin on 5/6/2013. Therefore, this requirement is urgent.

The NTSB has a requirement for CT scans of eight (8) Boeing 787 batteries cells. In addition, the NTSB has a requirement for additional scanning work for up to 40 additional battery cells or their equivalent scanning effort to be used as needed at the discretion of the NTSB. The scanning work for the "up to 40 additional battery cells" will be conducted in two installments. The cells will first be scanned in a "before testing" configuration, and then scanned again after testing has been completed with the cells. Finally, the NTSB requires at least 2 digital radiographs per component (90 degrees apart)...

------------------
This is not a fresh solicitation but rather a continuation of a contract that was insufficiently funded.

 

[Ptero]

Aviation Week comments on the NTSB solicitation:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.a...bdbbPost:34a11981-5320-414b-9285-a2aaf560aa01

Highlighting the continued concern in the aviation industry about lithium-ion battery technology, the NTSB mandated that the contract be issued to a local company, as the cells cannot be shipped via air cargo.

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

I feel my sense of reality slipping away. Everything is becoming a gray area, delegated to more or less of some accountless bureaucrat's distorted judgment of sufficiency. Engineering is now an opinion, not a science. I fear, if I open my eyes, aircraft will fall from the sky in flames, buildings will collapse and bridges on interstate highways will fall into rivers.

 

[Ptero]

Japanese pilots voice concerns:
The association is “concerned about whether there will really be no adverse impact on other systems of the airplane if the battery goes wrong,” said Koichi Takamoto, the technical adviser of the group. Given Boeing’s claims about the minor role played by the batteries, the association called on the plane maker to conduct test flights without the lithium-ion batteries to prove its solutions are effective.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...sclose-more-on-dreamliner-cures/#.UaVgI8538Yw
-----------------
This is a serious deal. Japanese pilots aren't stupid and they obviously don't trust Boeing on this. I still haven't heard the story from the flight crew that made the emergency landing in Japan with a Dreamliner full of (toxic) smoke. Anybody awake out there? Or do you think this story's over? I don't.

 

[Ptero]

Elton Cairns, a professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at the University of California Berkeley, calls for liquid cooling of 787 batteries. "We know for sure that the thermal management system needs to be changed, even if there was an externally caused short circuit." Cairns is a well-known expert in the battery community, having designed fuel cells for the Gemini space program, and having served at General Electric Research Laboratory, General Motors Research Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=260153

Analysis: Rethinking the lithium-ion battery revolution over cost, safety
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/10/us-boeing-battery-lithium-ion-idUSBRE93904420130410

 

[Ptero]

JAL said the pressure sensor of the battery container in the plane showed a difference in air pressure between inside and outside during a safety check before departure, according to the media reports. The airline added that there was no abnormality found in the battery itself, the reports said. JAL was forced to use another aircraft for a flight scheduled from Tokyo to Beijing after it found a fault with an air pressure sensor in the Dreamliner's battery container, Kyodo News and Jiji Press said. The incident comes only a day after JAL and All Nippon Airways (ANA), the single biggest operator of 787s, put their full fleet of Dreamliners back into service following a four-month suspension due to battery problems. ...The difference in air pressure was put down to Boeing Co.'s faulty maintenance as two small holes on the container -- necessary for air ventilation to prevent overheating -- were mistakenly sealed when it repaired the battery system, Kyodo said citing JAL.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/international/jal-finds-fault-on-modified-dreamliner-r/695644.html

How do you say "panic" in Japanese? The battery "fix" was to vent the flaming lithium fumes outside the aircraft. That in itself was perposterous and everybody knows it. Now we learn that Boeing has problems even in effectively implementing their embarrassing kludge. Who at Boeing will fall on their sword for this? And what's next?

 

[Ptero]

Japanese Pilots Worry About Repaired Boeing 787 Jets
By HIROKO TABUCHI and CHRISTOPHER DREW
New York Times

Akihiro Ota, the Japanese transport minister, rebuked Boeing and Japan Airlines on Tuesday for the latest blunder. That the companies “failed to take all possible safety measures is deplorable,” Mr. Ota told reporters.

“Boeing says that any battery fire will now go out on its own, so there’s no safety issue,” Mr. Nagasawa, the Japanese pilots’ union leader, said in an interview. “But that’s on paper. No pilot would ever want to keep flying with a fire on board, whether it’s in a metal box or not.”

Mr. Nagasawa said the pilots were also dismayed that Boeing did not adjust its cockpit displays to provide more substantial alerts if the batteries started to overheat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/b...orry-about-repaired-boeing-787-jets.html?_r=0

 

[the_emi_guy]

Apologize in advance for jumping in here late and not necessarily reading every post in this interesting thread.

I saw the photo of the battery box and the equipment bay in the plane on Wikipedia ("Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems"). Sure seems like there is plenty of space in there. I have also read that the stainless steel containment box significantly increases the size and weight of the battery package.

So here is my question...

Why doesn't Boeing just punt the volatile lithium and put in NiMH or some other safer, but older, chemistry and get on with life?

They can replace the salt and pepper shakers in first class with the little bags if they need to get back a few pounds.

 

[Borg]

Oops. Reality check. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-dreamliner-catches-fire-britains-163353504.html

 

[Ptero]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ndn-video-page,0,3091608.htmlstory?freewheel=90921&sitesection=sechicagotribune&VID=24944521

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jul/12/fire-ethiopian-dreamliner-heathrow-video

If you examine that "singed" area ahead of the tail, you may come to the conclusion, as I have, that the fire must have been burning very intensely inside the plane to do that and the integrity of the carbon composite was fatally compromised. This means the plane is no longer airworthy and will not be able to leave Heathrow. I also suspect it will never leave Heathrow because there may well be no way to repair a plane of this composite design in the UK. This means it will have to be cut up and barged back to Washington state.

One more thing. This fire was much, much more serious than either of the previous battery fires which were responded to almost immediately. This fire, burning right through the roof of the fuselage, would have been a killer at altitude. It would have brought down the plane in flames. No question in my mind. I am also convinced that Boeing is no longer playing with a full deck, for whatever reason (which is a story in itself) and that the NTSB needs to bring the hammer down. No more Mr. Nice Guy. We have been very lucky so far but the luck is running out.

Boeing Flight 182, San Diego

 

[Ptero]

Analysts said every new plane industrywide has had a minor electronic malfunction. But Tom Captain, aerospace analyst with the financial firm Deloitte, said those incidents are occurring less often. "Recent news about aircraft incidents draws attention partly due to the rarity of these types of events in recent times," he said.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-boeing-dreamliner-fire-20130713,0,2944574.story

I heard somewhere that this was the first commercial flight of the Ethiopian Dreamliner or that it was the first Dreamliner delivered to a customer after the NTSB shutdown. I can't believe the spin at the end of this L.A. Times article. One thing that strikes me is that the rear door has zero smoke on it. How can that be? Did the fire start at some hot spot and climb upwards and back inside the double fuselage wall? That should reassure passengers about the battery...
________________________________________
The Heathrow fire appears to have been in “a very complicated area of the structure that ties together the fuselage barrel, the tail cone and vertical fin loads,” Robert Mann, an aviation consultant in Port Washington, New York, said in an e-mail. “It will be a complicated repair -- if it is repairable. I think every current and prospective operator will be looking at the outcome.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...e-at-heathrow-renews-787-safety-concerns.html
_________________________________________
And where are the photos of the plane actually burning? They have to be out there.

 

[jim hardy]

It''s a bit early to speculate.

As much as I mistrust those batteries it does not appear they are involved in this one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/b...t-heathrow-in-london.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Air accident investigators in London said on Saturday that a fire inside a parked Boeing 787 Dreamliner on Friday did not appear to be caused by any problems with the plane’s lithium-ion batteries.

Who knows what started that fire - one might equally well speculate it was set by somebody mad at Ethiopia over their recent crackdown on radical islam. http://news.yahoo.com/ethiopia-jails-10-terrorists-plotting-attacks-125144004.html

 

[Ptero]

We may be seeing something developing that is even worse than the batteries.

 

[Ptero]

Jim, I may have been too hard on Boeing. Although batteries were invented by Alessandro Volta at the end of the 1700s - and one may have reasonable expectations of competence - Freon air conditioning has only been around since 1928, so perhaps a few minor teething problems may yet be encountered, such as total immolation. However, I remain confused by a newspaper report claiming that all systems had been turned off. That kind of narrows down the list of suspects.

Those of you, like me, with too much time on their hands may find this interesting:

FLAMMABILITY PROPERTIES OF AIRCRAFT CARBON-FIBER STRUCTURAL COMPOSITE
James G. Quintiere, Richard N. Walters, and Sean Crowley
Federal Aviation Administration
http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/07-57.pdf

In light of last week's 777 crash at SFO, this July 04, 2010 article from the Chicago Trib has an interesting, and disturbing, comparison between the 777 and 787:
________________________
In 2005, as design of the Dreamliner advanced, a Boeing analysis showed a crash that is survivable in a largely metal 777 would be deadly in a 787: The impact would shatter the bottom of the 787 fuselage and deliver a jolt severe enough to kill all the passengers. A Boeing engineering manager called the outcome a "potential showstopper" for the Dreamliner. Chicago-based Boeing says a key design change and subsequent physical tests prove the final Dreamliner design is now as safe as a metal airplane.

...A computer-generated drawing from the internal report shows that in a simulated crash, the 777's metal lower fuselage crumples. But the rest of the airframe, including the floor of the passenger cabin, is intact.
In the composite-plastic 787, by contrast, the lower fuselage is shattered, with multiple holes. And the passenger floor has broken away from the fuselage and collapsed, leaving passengers with little chance of reaching an exit. In addition, the Boeing study projected that the impact on passengers would be much more severe in a 787. The highest survivable impact in a crash landing is considered to be about 20g, meaning a nearly instantaneous deceleration equal to 20 times the acceleration caused by gravity. The study projected that at a vertical descent rate of about 15 miles per hour, the average peak impact on a passenger's spine would be 15g in the 777. In the 787, though, that impact would be 25g, the study concluded. In March 2005, Phantom Works project manager Vince Weldon sent an e-mail to Boeing's chief technology officer, Jim Jamieson, flagging the simulation as "very dire." An aeronautical engineer, Weldon worked for 46 years in aerospace, half of those at Boeing. At Phantom Works, he assessed the use of advanced composites for future airplanes, though he had no direct role on the 787 program. Weldon's concerns were examined by a panel of Boeing technical experts chosen from outside the 787 program. Its review endorsed the jet's composite-material design. "He raised questions. They were investigated," said Boeing spokeswoman Lori Gunter. "We did not proceed with the design until we were sure it was safe." In 2006, Boeing fired Weldon after an allegation that he used a racist remark about a superior in the course of pushing his concerns internally. Weldon, 72, denies that and says the accusation was a way to discredit and get rid of him.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-07-04/business/ct-biz-0704-boeing--20100703_1_dreamliner-chicago-based-boeing-crash-landing
___________________________

When I read this, I thought there seemed to be some similarities between the firing of Weldon and the politics surrounding the battery fires Boeing's contractors had experienced, as well as the early FAA/NTSB over-reliance on company evaluations. Scary. But like they say, the fat lady hasn't sung, yet.

 

[jim hardy]

I think it's too early to call them "Firebirds"
but it bears watching.

Aluminum too wants to oxidize. Fortunately one must almost powder it to get a fire.

We'll have to wait and see what this fire was about. Just like in a boat - it's not the fibers that burn but the resin.
The report you linked confirms, like in a boat, the carbon fiber doesn't burn well but smolders on its surface. Fortunately to keep down weight in a plane there's less resin used than in boat construction.

From the Times article you linked:

Boeing made structural changes after the 2005 analysis that dramatically improved the jet's crash safety, said Mark Jenks, a vice president on the 787 program.

It redesigned rows of short wedge-shaped support posts beneath the cargo floor so they progressively collapse on impact, absorbing energy and reducing the impact felt in the passenger cabin.

That's a valid mechanical engineering approach to handling shock loads. Our power plant's reactor vessel internals had something similar underneath the reactor core to stop it gently in case of a huge vertical acceleration from an earthquake. Automobiles have energy absorbing "crumple zones".

Their design seems to have worked okay in San Francisco last week. Do you suppose that's why there was such interest in seeing the inside of the airplane shortly after the crash? Remember those photos of seats all crunched forward? I'd wager somebody was verifying design expectations.

Computer simulations have become quite good.

old jim

 

[Ptero]

As I understand it, the floor and the empennage of the 777 are older, heavier composite structures while the fuselage is aluminum. The floor seemed reasonably intact although, of course, the empennage shattered. I am impressed but unconvinced that a 787 would look the same and have the same survivability under those circumstances with its plastic-carbon mix. I remain gun-shy of reassurances from unaccountable Boeing executives based on speculation, and tend to lean toward engineers (such as Weldon) to find the truth. BTW, this was the second hard landing where an in-service 777 was totalled. In that accident, everyone survived and the worst injury was to someone's leg or legs.

 

[Ptero]

Can someone please explain this to me?

FAA: 787 Batteries OK to Fly with 'Burst Discs' for Dozens of Flights
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbb&plckPostId=Blog%3A7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbbPost%3Ab2842d39-5d4d-41d2-9c05-eb34c89a7d20

This is also interesting. The 787 was parked next to the Heathrow Airport Fire Station. In the closest space. There's confidence for you!
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbb&plckPostId=Blog%3a7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbbPost%3aa517b56d-78c7-4107-98d6-64b26316500d
________________
Frank, where are you now?

Come fry with me, let's fry, let's fry away
If you can use some exotic booze
There's a bar in far Bombay
Come on and fry with me, let's fry, let's fry away

Come fry with me, let's float down to Peru
In llama land there's a one-man band
And he'll toot his flute for you
Come on fry with me, let's take off in the blue

Once I get you up there where the air is rarifried
We'll just glide, starry-eyed
Once I get you up there I'll be holding you so near
You may hear all the angels cheer 'cause we're together

Weather-wise it's such a lovely day
Just say the words and we'll beat the birds
Down to Acapulco Bay
It's perfect for a frying honeymoon, they say
Come fry with me, let's fry, let's fry away

Once I get you up there where the air is rarifried
We'll just glide, starry-eyed
Once I get you up there I'll be holding you so very near
You may even hear a whole gang cheer 'cause we're together

Weather-wise it's such a cool cool day
You just say those words and we'll beat the birds
Down to Acapulco Bay
It's so perfect for a frying honeymoon, oh babe
Come fry with me, let's fry, let's fry
Pack up, let's fry away!
And don´t tell your mamma!

 

[Darryl]

FS/FO. Fail Safe / Fail Operational, has always been the mantra in aviation as far as I know. This problem appears to be the total opposite to those principles. This appears to be fail / fail more, or if you like Fail/Fire !

Is there not a chemical solution (excuse the pun) to this problem, a plug that melts at a certain temperature that releases a chemical that neutralizes the reaction ?

 

[Ptero]

"...a chemical that neutralizes the reaction ?"
No. There have been 3 lithium battery fires on the small fleet of 787s since January. The first in Boston, in the cockpit. The second in the air over Japan, in the aft battery compartment. These were lithium cobalt. Crew and firefighters fought to put these out but as soon as they stopped hitting them with the fire extinguishers, the batteries reignited. This is because the combustion process creates all the necessary elements to sustain combustion. We are, however, told by NASA that they are safe to use in vacuum on the space station...
This latest incident at Heathrow involved a lithium manganese battery, which were banned as cargo by the FAA ten years ago and is the same formulation used in the Chevy Volt. I doubt we are getting the real story on that one but the truth eventually will come out.
In two days, the NTSB report on the deadly Dubai crash, where a flaming pallet of lithium batteries brought down a UPS cargo transport, comes out.
Have you seen all the positive press NTSB Chairman Debroah Hersman has been getting? That will come to a screeching halt with the first mass fatality accident due to a lithium battery fire. If there was one thing I would say to her, it would be that I don't care if the airlines have to change out conventional batteries from their beacons more than once in ten years and I don't care if the Dreamliner loses a passenger fare on every flight because it had to substitute safer but heavier batteries in place of the lithium cobalts. Corporate profit cannot be a consideration of the NTSB for any longer. Lithium battery technology is not safe or mature enough for use in aircraft - and may never be. The fact that no one could say WHY the lithium cobalt fires initiated is reason enough.
It should also be noted by Boeing - as it has been well noted by Airbus - that the use of lithium batteries has proven a massive negative ROI (return on investment) in light of the grounding of the fleet for months and now with the possible loss of a Dreamliner body. It's time to give the bean counters a seat in these engineering discussions to move the level of conversation from wishful thinking and Rube Goldberg tricks back to the hard reality of the bottom line.
Of course, once we get past the safety and accounting issues, we are faced with the fact that Boeing is too big to fail. They make military hardware at extraordinary profitability levels that can easily cover little problems such as Dreamliner teething or NTSB hissy-fits. They can't end up like, say, Fisker, who, with $660,000 invested per car, finally went bankrupt, because we taxpayers will ultimately foot the bill.

http://updates.jalopnik.com/post/34669789863/more-than-a-dozen-fisker-karma-hybrids-caught-fire-and
More
http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/article/109475/electric-hybrid-fizzles-burns-before-going-bankrupt

 

[AlephZero]

I think it's too early to call them "Firebirds"
but it bears watching.

Oops, there goes another one (despite the failed attempts to keep it out of the news).

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/07/31/uk-boeing-dreamliner-qatar-idUKBRE96U0GB20130731
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/07/27/attempt-to-hush-up-new-qatar-787-fire-fails/

Looks like that was a replay of the problem that caused a fire on a flight test a/c back in 2010.

 

[nsaspook]

This is a great line from that link:

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2021481675_boeingexecutivesxml.html#.UfLuEn0o6c8.twitter

As chief project engineer on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner program, Mike Sinnett slept with his BlackBerry set to wake him whenever a 787 Dreamliner in service anywhere in the world had any significant problem.
...
Sinnett now steps sideways to a less stressful position as vice president of product development. That means he’s in charge of developing concepts for future airplanes, beyond the current pipeline of new jets.

 

[jim hardy]

...he’s in charge of developing concepts for future airplanes,

I guess that's execuspeak for '...you're free to think about anything you want, but don't go around the machinery...'poor guy.

 

[AlephZero]

Well, the 787 design was a nice concept for a future airplane once upon a time. (And quite sensible compared with some of the stuff that "future concepts" departments dream up!)

The problems only started when somebody decided to build them

 

[jim hardy]

Well, the 787 design was a nice concept for a future airplane once upon a time. (And quite sensible compared with some of the stuff that "future concepts" departments dream up!)

The problems only started when somebody decided to build them

It should be a good plane once they get the electrics squared away.

I think we're seeing a general excess of automation these days - it's the "Tower of Babel" myth, aka "Law of Diminishing Returns" . Newer and Better are not synonyms.

 

[nsaspook]

It should be a good plane once they get the electrics squared away.

The things that Boeing builds in-house are fantastic but the complete outsourcing of the electrical system in the 787 so far looks to be a big mistake for something that complex and new.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/news/electronics-outsourcing-weakened-boeings-control-over-787-systems-694464/

On jets before the 787, Boeing Commercial Electronics or BCE integrated components from many different suppliers so they worked together properly. And if suppliers got in trouble, BCE stepped in and got the job done.

"Now they don't have that capability," said Jerry Packard, another former BCE manager. "That's all lost."

In contrast to Boeing's well-known move to let "global partners" design and manufacture the 787's wings, tail and fuselage, the way it handed design control to 787 systems partners, including management of subcontractors, received little attention at the time.

After this year's costly three-month grounding of the plane from January's battery problems, that approach is getting new scrutiny.

Longtime industry analyst Richard Aboulafia worries it may bring the 787 more grief in future.

"Without complete oversight of the subsystems, they might be finding systems glitches for years," Mr. Aboulafia said.
...
The 787 is the first Boeing jet with all its electronic components sourced from outside suppliers.

 

[jim hardy]

The 787 is the first Boeing jet with all its electronic components sourced from outside suppliers.

Machiavelli gave good modern management advice in "The Prince", ca 1513:

I conclude, therefore, that no principality is secure without having its own forces; on the contrary, it is entirely dependent on good fortune, not having the valour which in adversity would defend it. And it has always been the opinion and judgment of wise men that nothing can be so uncertain or unstable as fame or power not founded on its own strength. And one's own forces are those which are composed either of subjects, citizens, or dependants; all others are mercenaries or auxiliaries. And the way to take ready one's own forces will be easily found if the rules suggested by me shall be reflected upon, and if one will consider how Philip, the father of Alexander the Great, and many republics and princes have armed and organized themselves, to which rules I entirely commit myself.
http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince13.htm

When you export your expertise you export your strength and security.


Rickover echoed it : "Where nobody is responsible, everybody is irresponsible."
Today's 'Blame the Vendor' game is pure irresponsibility.
See also San Onofre Steam Generators thread.

old jim

 

[OmCheeto]

...
http://updates.jalopnik.com/post/34669789863/more-than-a-dozen-fisker-karma-hybrids-caught-fire-and
...

10/30/2012 --^

old update --v

Fisker Reveals Cause of Karma Fires During Hurricane Sandy
Published: 11/06/2012
...
There were no explosions as had been inaccurately reported. The Karma's lithium-ion batteries were ruled out as a cause or contributing factor.
...
Fisker engineers determined that the damage to the Karmas was the result of the cars being submerged under 5-8 feet of seawater for several hours that left corrosive salt in a low-voltage Vehicle Control Unit in one Karma.

The Vehicle Control Unit is a standard component found in many types of vehicles and is powered by a typical 12V car battery. This residual salt damage caused a short circuit, which led to a fire that heavy winds then spread to other Karmas parked nearby.

Bolding mine.

I seem to remember, from my days in the submarine fleet, that you should never let salt water come in contact with the lead acid battery.

And given that the Karma is a gas/electric hybrid, I can only imagine that the gasoline may have been a contributing factor to the spread of the fire to other, non-Karma vehicles.

I have a date with the coast in a couple of weeks. Perhaps I should take my somewhat used marine deep cycle battery, and throw it into the ocean, tethered to my 6 gallon outboard motor fuel tank, and see what happens.

But then again, maybe not.

 

[OmCheeto]

Ah ha!

Just did the experiment.

Do not try this at home. Although I didn't die, you will...

In trying to understand how such a thing could happen, I tried to figure out the resistance of seawater, as the google answers to my question, used bizarre, unheard of terms:

The average conductivity of sea water at 20degC and a salinity of 35g/kg is:
4.788 S/m (Siemens/meter)

Anyways, I mixed together a solution of seawater(1 pint of water and 1 tblsp of salt in a pyrex measuring cup), and tried to measure the resistance with my VOM: 1.2kΩ on the 200kΩ scale, and 85kΩ on the 2MΩ scale. Complete nonsense.

So I hooked up my marine battery in series with a 1Ω resistor with my 1 pint of seawater and came up with a value of ≈11Ω.

I decided that the 11Ω value was irrelevant to the problem, as while I watched, Hydrogen and Oxygen gasses were being emitted at a non-insignificant rate. I didn't dilly-dally in deciding that this experiment could have very bad results, as my 6 gallon gasoline tank was tethered to my battery, and less than a foot away. A spark would have resulted in the HHO mixture igniting, potentially igniting any fumes from the gasoline tank.

I disconnected the experiment, in a thoughtful manner, as, an acquaintance of mine, while trying to retrieve his wallet from the dashboard of his burning car, was unfortunate enough to do that, the moment his car burst into flames.

He never looked the same after that. He looked a little better after the plastic surgeons made him a new nose, but not much.

 

[OmCheeto]

...

Rickover echoed it : "Where nobody is responsible, everybody is irresponsible."

...

I quoted someone, to that effect, the other day.

I cannot find my quote, nor who else echoed that...