Posted on 04/22/2013 5:01:30 PM PDT by null and void
The problem I have with this approach, if I understand the report correctly, is that Boeing has not fixed the underlying problem that caused the short and fire. They have designed a containment and venting system they believe will contain any malfunction and prevent any spread beyond the battery box. This is not altogether comforting.
That’s how I read it.
Worse, they’ve lost every single advantage that going to the lithium cobalt oxide was supposed to give them.
I have pondered both of your replies and can’t decide which one weighs more heavily on my mind.
Still for me, I'm following the "avoid flying in a new commercial airplane until it had been in service a few years."
In much the same way I won't touch a Microsoft product until the second service pack.
Why don’t they just go back to the older batteries? Or was there a problem with them?
This is not altogether comforting either, contained or not.
I know that in other contexts you basically have to let a lithium fire burn itself out, and that is what's happening here by design.
Pride.
Just picture flying above a small bomb which has a containment vessel built surrounding it to limit any explosion. Sleep tight. Also, as null and void stated, Boeing has lost the reason, or at least part of it, for using this type of battery which was less weight and smaller size.
Comes before the crash fall.
Boeing has lost the reason
nuf said
Boeing engineering management seems hell-bent on keeping the Li-Ion battery no matter what. I think that prudence would dictate using a battery technology that had a more extensive track record. But that will cost weight and volume and a small price to pay for not losing an aircraft.
They are now boxed into a corner, the entire electronics support package is optimized to that particular lithium technology.
If they revert to NiCad or even a different lithium chemistry they need to redesign all the support circuitry.
Then they need to spend a couple years torturing the batteries and support circuity to make sure they haven't overlooked a new and improved failure mode!
The it gets really bad, they need to make absolutely sure that no one in any third world cesspit repair facility mates the new batteries to the old electronics or vice-versa. Ever, not even once.
I remember reading a Theseus about creating energy for virtually nothing.
It is a known fact that any liquid or gas passing between two parallel plates creates power.
One could put multiple layers on ships, airplanes, cars, etc and have power left over to power other devices
Why don’t they just go back to the older batteries? Or was there a problem with them?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The way I read this, it was a purely mechanical patch. To change battery chemistry (go back to the old batteries) would require electrical system redesign and reverification. That would be way more time, money, and labor intensive than the pure mechanical band-aid.
It is a known fact that any liquid or gas passing between two parallel plates creates power.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please elaborate!
Probably the machinery that this battery powers is too power-hungry. Safe Nickel/Cadmium/Silver chemistries are far less capable, and there is not enough space to install several of those batteries. (There is barely enough space for one Li-ion battery.) The airplane is heavily electric - it is not cable-operated, as they used to do in 1920s, and it is not hydraulic, as many airplanes are still built today. When you need electric power you cannot pick between operating the left wing vs. the right wing - you need both, otherwise the airplane will flip.
I agree with the opinion that the cause of the fire remains unknown. Most likely it is a singular manufacturing defect. Those batteries are not built as accurately as an integrated circuit; they are just plastic bags with metal foil and assorted chemicals, roughly rolled together. There is no way to assure repeatability; and QA testing is not likely to discover a short that hasn't happened yet.
However if the failure of the battery is no longer a danger then what can I say? Airplanes are not something that I use these days. (I'm still waiting for TSA to be disbanded.)
That's Detroit right?
Thank you for your replies.
I have an old Dodge pickup. It is made of metal. I can open the hood and fix most things. There is compartment space to do that too.
My wife has a “new” car. It is made of plastic. I opened the hood once. Now I just call Bob. And he calls Steve, and Steve calls...and so on...and so on...
They both get about the same gas mileage.
Possibly.
I actually get this in a digital camera sort of way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.