Dreamliner: Boeing 787 Aircraft Battery "Not Faulty"

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dreamliner: Boeing 787 Aircraft Battery "Not Faulty"

Posted by samzenpus on Monday January 28, 2013 @05:31AM from the everything-checks-out dept.

SternisheFan writes "Airline safety inspectors have found no faults with the battery used on Boeing's 787 Dreamliner, Japan's transport ministry has said. The battery was initially considered the likely source of problems on 787s owned by two Japanese airlines. The world's entire fleet of 50 787s has been grounded while inspections are carried out. Attention has now shifted to the electrical system that monitors battery voltage, charging and temperature. Transport ministry official Shigeru Takano said 'we have found no major quality or technical problem' with the lithium-ion batteries. Shares in GS Yuasa, which makes the batteries, jumped 5% on the news. 'We are looking into affiliated parts makers,' he said. 'We are looking into possibilities.'"

184 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Oxygen is usually the culprit in most fires by crazyjj · 2013-01-28 05:31 · Score: 0, Troll

They should look into that. I've found it to be vastly underrated as a cause.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
1. Re:Oxygen is usually the culprit in most fires by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, we should just suck out all of the oxygen in air crafts. That will prevent all fires
2. Re:Oxygen is usually the culprit in most fires by Russ1642 · 2013-01-28 05:38 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Or we could at least let people roll down the windows when there is a fire.
3. Re:Oxygen is usually the culprit in most fires by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, we should just suck out all of the oxygen in air crafts. That will prevent all fires
  No need to suck. Just open a window at altitude, the air should be thin enough to prevent many type of fires. :-)
4. Re:Oxygen is usually the culprit in most fires by FrankSchwab · 2013-01-28 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Funny, but it's unlikely to be much of a contributor to a fire in a Lithium-Ion battery.
  
  --
  And the worms ate into his brain.
5. Re:Oxygen is usually the culprit in most fires by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 06:06 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Actually it would not help. The nasty thing about these battery fires is the battery chemistry SUPPLIES OXYGEN.
6. Re:Oxygen is usually the culprit in most fires by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2013-01-28 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  No need to suck.
  Oblig That's what she said.
  Why stop at oxygen? FAA Considering Passenger Ban | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
7. Re:Oxygen is usually the culprit in most fires by SpzToid · 2013-01-28 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Sure the sudden increase in low air pressure might put out an onboard fire, along with a few of the passengers inside.
  Here's a reference from appropriately-named ALOHA airlines: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,149181,00.html
  
  --
  You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
8. Re:Oxygen is usually the culprit in most fires by Runaway1956 · 2013-01-28 06:39 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  OMG, so THAT'S what Uncle Sam meant when he trained me to fight Class Delta fires!! Well, just push the damned thing overboard, and let the giant squids at the bottom of the sea worry about the fire!
  Which reminds me - I saw a video one time - wonder if I can find it again . . . .
  Can't find that particular video now, but this one gives you the idea:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95O-bQo04Ok
  A fire department arrived at the scene of a cargo fire on board a tractor trailer. They proceeded to hose the fire down, and before they were done, a dozen other trailers had caught on fire. The fire would burn merrily along, the firemen would turn a hose on it, it exploded, they ran, and when the flames started to die down some, they would repeat. I wanted to laugh - but I've stood to close to the fire to many times to laugh, I kept expecting the fools to kill themselves.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
9. Re:Oxygen is usually the culprit in most fires by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  Can't wait to get home and watch that LOL. Magnesium maybe?
10. Re:Oxygen is usually the culprit in most fires by deadweight · 2013-01-28 06:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I once tried to put out a burning SOLAS flare and no amount of throwing crap on it would work. It was kind of embarrassing so I threw it over the side and then the fkn thing is burning UNDERWATER and producing all kinds of smoke and steam PLUS lighting the water up bright red. No.....nothing going on here......oops...
11. Re:Oxygen is usually the culprit in most fires by reub2000 · 2013-01-28 08:02 · Score: 2
  
  They tried that method of fire suppression. Then some idiots mislabeled canisters containing an oxygen generator and then they found their way into the cargo area of a passenger airplane. When the oxygen generators activates mid flight they provided both the ignition source and oxygen defeating the type of fire suppression system that you are suggesting. And thus it is no longer allowed.
12. Re:Oxygen is usually the culprit in most fires by Z00L00K · 2013-01-28 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Consider the fact that batteries are experiencing pressure changes, vibration, temperature changes in addition to being charged/discharged and the fact that lithium interacts aggressively with oxygen and water as well I would say that the choice of that battery type is risky.
  Pressure changes may cause oxygen to penetrate the batteries and make them fail.
  That leads to the fact that the OP may be more right than funny.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
13. Re:Oxygen is usually the culprit in most fires by Z00L00K · 2013-01-28 08:15 · Score: 2
  
  On the contrary - lithium interacts very much with oxygen, and if oxygen did enter the battery cells due to pressure changes then it may still be the culprit.
  And pressure changes are normal on an aircraft - especially at take-off and landing.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
14. Re:Oxygen is usually the culprit in most fires by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 08:19 · Score: 0
  
  Yep. Titled "How not to put out a Magnesium fire"
  Before reading the title, I thought it was an alkali metal.
15. Re:Oxygen is usually the culprit in most fires by jellomizer · 2013-01-28 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Media should learn when to shut up. Or people should think a bit more.
  The process of Diagnosing a 787 isn't easy, a lot of parts, you first check the most likely causes and go further. The media love to jump and post the first guess from the engineers and scientists (a new study (That is in process, and hasn't been proven or peer reviewed) to show x = y, so it is written to make us think x = y), things like this just makes the common folk fear Ethnology and Science because it makes us sound like a bumbling idiots who change our mind and now say the truth has changed once again.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
16. Re:Oxygen is usually the culprit in most fires by cheater512 · 2013-01-28 10:01 · Score: 2
  
  Lithium Ion batteries supply their own oxygen. They don't burn with the air which makes them impossible to put out.
Japanese covering their butts? by peter303 · 2013-01-28 05:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Japanese government agency defending a Japanese company. I wait for a more objective report which I believe is in the pipeline.
1. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by jandrese · 2013-01-28 05:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  All they are really saying is that the chemistry and packaging on the batteries was within spec. Like most lithium battery problems though, the problem is in the control hardware. So really this press release is just telling us something that we already figured out: That the charging circuit for the battery is defective.
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
2. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by ColdWetDog · 2013-01-28 05:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This is a nice quick review of Lithium nastiness....
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
3. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by AmiMoJo · 2013-01-28 05:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  As opposed to the American company that is heavily supported by the American government telling us the fault must lie with the Japanese batteries it bought. I see where you are coming from.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
4. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  Japan; not China.
5. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by beltsbear · 2013-01-28 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Most likely the problem is NOT in the charging circuit. Most probably the batteries are wearing out more quickly then spec and becoming more sensitive to charging within (but near the edge of) spec. There may not be enough battery monitoring going on to look for anomalies that could be detected and stop the use of the batteries as they degrade. In the end they are really going to regret using lithium ion batteries. The extra containment they need when they fail is going to make up for the weight savings over NiMH.
6. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly. I am wondering how many months the planes that have this problem have been in service. Why didn't this overheating problem happened in the earlier months? Testing a new battery will not get you anywhere. Testing an aged one maybe.
7. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by hawguy · 2013-01-28 06:29 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Exactly. I am wondering how many months the planes that have this problem have been in service. Why didn't this overheating problem happened in the earlier months? Testing a new battery will not get you anywhere. Testing an aged one maybe.
  You guys should work for Boeing, I bet they never thought about testing used batteries from a different aircraft, or testing other, non-failed, batteries from the problem aircraft.
  When they said they ruled out the batteries, they probably just rang up the battery manufacturer and said "Hey, we need to test your batteries, send us a couple new ones. But make sure they are ordinary batteries off the production line, don't spend all night cherry picking the best ones".
8. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by Alex+Zepeda · 2013-01-28 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  One of the planes was about a year old, the other a couple weeks. The older plane had seen its Li-Ion batteries replaced in more recent times, and the two suspect batteries were within 30 serial numbers of each other. If they're wearing out *that* quickly I'd be worried.
  
  --
  The revolution will be mocked
9. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by jandrese · 2013-01-28 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Would it be weird that they're within 30 serial numbers of each other when there are only 50 of these aircraft in service? I don't think this particular battery is a COTS product.
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
10. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  I wait for a more objective report which I believe is in the pipeline.
  Sure, US agency investigating US company..
  In the Bad Old Days of the Soviet Union, Aeroflot used to fly any new airliner for 12 to 18 months with no payload except cargo. Only when bugs had been ironed out and the aircraft proved safe were passengers embarked.
  But of course that would restrict the free market.
11. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  What is objective in your eyes? A report from an American government agency defending an American company by trying to pin it on a Japanese company?
12. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by j00r0m4nc3r · 2013-01-28 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  Why do these planes even have chemical batteries? Surely they could fit an alternator and some ultracapacitors in there somewhere...
13. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by FirstOne · 2013-01-28 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'm really surprised those 787's haven't been falling out of the skies by now.. As usual, (this goes for most electronic products built in the last 25 years or so.) someone along the line ignored some critical thermal management details..
  Recharging Eight(8) 60+amp/hr LiCoO2 cathode based batteries packed neatly in rectangle configuration configuration at nearly 0.8C. (75 minutes.) is a receipt for inevitable failure. Yeah.. the battery is spec'd for 0.8C. charge rate.. But, not packed side by side other batteries doing the same thing. (I.E. Heat transfer coefficient has been severely degraded)..
  Once internal temp hits 140F, the probability of self destruction by thermal run-away begins, at 260F it's guaranteed. Given enough time, C/D cycles, and numbers(sample size), you're bound to start having events.
  This probably increases over time(age of battery. C/D cycles) as internal resistance builds, and more thermal energy is generated while recharging..
  Boeing can reduce the scope of this problem by reducing the charge rate.. 0.2C to 0.4C won't have much impact on overall aircraft performance but it will reduce internal battery heating by 4x(0.4C) to 16x(0.2C).
14. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by viperidaenz · 2013-01-28 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  How many batteries are there in each aircraft? just one?
15. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by viperidaenz · 2013-01-28 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  How do you start the engine to turn the alternator?
16. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 10:58 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds like a job for a kenetic or flywheel battery.
17. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by aobie_isu · 2013-01-28 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  Considering the first flight of the 787 occurred in December of 2009, almost 2 full years before it's first commercial delivery in September of 2011, I'm wondering what could have possibly happened between those dates?
18. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by jandrese · 2013-01-28 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  All of the comments I've read about this battery refer to it as "the APU battery". While I'm sure the aircraft has scores of other batteries, none of them will be like this one. It is a specialized piece of equipment.
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
19. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by Alex+Zepeda · 2013-01-28 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Of this type? Two. The APU and the main battery. They are identical and thus interchangeable such that if the main battery is not charged or otherwise not functioning before a flight, you can swap the APU battery in its place. There are, IIRC, other batteries scattered throughout the plane. Unsure if they're Li-Ion or not.
  
  --
  The revolution will be mocked
20. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 11:57 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think you fully understand the level of cooperation between the Japanese government and their large industrial players. For as much slimy money floats between industry and Washington D.C., the comparison is not even close. And it's not that the corporations own the Japanese government, they just see themselves all on the same team and the cooperation flows both ways. See a recent nuclear disaster for reference.
21. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by gweihir · 2013-01-28 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  Unlikely. The main battery faults of the past in this type of battery are metal shavings (Sony, e.g.) and problems with the insulation. Both are easy to identify once you know what you are looking for. The battery controller is a different matter: Highly complex software, possibly outsourced to some 2nd world country where they did not really understand what they are doing. I predict this is another instance of sub-standard software engineering practices that are so common in the industry today.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
22. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by Alex+Zepeda · 2013-01-28 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  Batteries will fail, usually in some sort of spectacular manner. Their specific chemistry doesn't matter. In fact this is so well known, and the possibility of a fire was so well anticipated that Boeing did indeed design a containment cage for these batteries. Take a look at the pictures from the Boston incident. The heat damage was pretty well contained (the containment vessel was damaged quite significantly, but the rest of the nearby electronics remained intact). What *wasn't* contained, and what likely got the 787 grounded in the first place was the electrolyte solution. It's my understanding that unlike other types of batteries (lead acid, NiCd, NiMH) the big problem with the electrolyte solution in Li-Ion batteries isn't that it's corrosive. The problem is that the Li-Ion electrolyte solution is flammable.
  That said, it's also my understanding that the batteries in both the Japanese 787s were fairly new (one was in a new plane, one had recently been replaced).
  
  --
  The revolution will be mocked
23. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 12:43 · Score: 0
  
  pull cord
24. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by viperidaenz · 2013-01-28 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  There's two APU's isn't there? Do they each have a single battery or do they have several? Are none of them tested to destruction?
25. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by anubi · 2013-01-28 15:25 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The charge management circuit is what has me concerned. I have messed with plenty of failed power tool batteries, dissecting each, and finding common points of what caused the whole assembly to fail, and every time it has been the concept of cells in series.
  
  The cells do not have identical leakage, so some cells tend to overcharge to compensate for the other cell in the stack which leaked its charge away.
  
  This phenomena shows up after the cells have been in service for months to years.
  
  The older chemistries I have worked with have been relatively tolerant of overcharge, converting the excess energy either to heat or hydrogen gas, which was silently vented. Lithium ion cells are not nearly as tolerant to overcharge as NiCd, LiMH, or Lead-Acid cells. Overfilling a lithium ion cell seems like overfilling a propane tank. Once it tops off, there is nowhere for the excess energy to go and POP goes the weasel.
  
  If you are charging based on stack voltage, you will overcharge the hell out of a good cell as you try to bring the terminal voltage of a weak cell up. You will detonate your good cell in the process.
  
  I am currently playing around with a lithium battery pack monitor with which I have individual chargers for each cell. There is no way I would consider charging all cells in series as is commonly done in the earlier packs. With the DC isolation I can easily get from high frequency inverters, it is quite easy for me to get matched voltages from multiple windings. I use supplemental converters to additionally charge individual cells that leak a bit more than others in the pack. I also have switched cell monitors which rapidly switch each cell onto a measurement buss along with three tightly controlled reference voltage sources. This results in a signal stream which indicates terminal voltage of every cell in the pack, cell by cell. This feeds a digitizer which constantly tracks each cell voltage and is instructed to terminate battery function if any cell shows over or under charge. If a cell simply needs a little help, the individual cell inverters kick in to boost the weaker cell and such activity logged.
  
  A supplemental benefit of the serial analog data stream is that I can use any oscilloscope to see all the cells at once... I can sync to cell 0 which is the reference voltage. ( three references because this is so critical that if I have a reference drift I will have two others that hopefully are providing reliable data. Bad data = explosion; false trip=expensive downtime ).
  
  Lithium batteries have a lot to offer, but they are also quite a bit more volatile than other chemistries I have worked with. Even YouTube has quite an assortment of videos of overcharged lithium cells igniting. Like a propane tank, they are quite useful if not mistreated, but can really take you to the cleaners if you do.
  
  --
  "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
26. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  This issue has been address to some degree in some battery packs I've seen.
  A lot of lithium battery packs for hobbies I've seen (Cars, aircraft, etc) have two jacks. One will be a large two prong lead for powering your device.
  The other is a smaller jack with lots of pins, (Two for each cell? Or one for each and a common ground. Don't remember.) This lets your charge controller charge each cell individually, since lithium cells are so touchy about charge voltage. This ensures your whole pack won't die if one cell becomes more discharged than the other. (Or worse, go up in flames) - Of course these hobby battery packs are bare cells with no charge controllers. (I imagine with aircraft you want to save every gram you can)
  Of course, I could see how this would be an issue for power tools. If each pack does not have a cell-specific charge controller (probably to save cost) then the pack might die prematurely from charging.
27. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by anubi · 2013-01-29 19:07 · Score: 1
  
  The hobby cells bring out a connection point between cells for both cell voltage monitoring and charge balancing. You will find charge balancers as well at most hobby shops dealing with lithium cells. Every lithium pack I have run across so far has either had an in-pack balancer or a connection for an external balancer.
  
  My interest in battery packs was piqued about a dozen years ago when I had numerous Makita Ni-Cd battery packs fail after sometimes no more than three usages. I disassembled the packs to find the cells damaged by overcharge, each pack having one or more cells that had grown a filament ( whisker ) inside which prevented one cell of the series stack from taking a charge. The charger, trying to establish stack voltage, charged and charged and charged to no avail. The cells vented and vented and vented until there was no electrolyte left.
  
  It was the way I was using the cells. As a homeowner, I charged the pack for a use, used maybe 5 percent of the energy in the pack, then left the tool alone for a month or so. The cells had uneven self-discharge rates and some would not have any charge at all. When I picked up the tool, sometimes I would try to use it again, but the leakiest cell already could not hold its own and the stronger cells rammed current through the weakest one in reverse, ruining it and causing it to grow a whisker inside, shorting it out. The destruction of the remaining cells happened when I tried to charge the pack.
  
  So, to combat this, I redesigned my charger to trickle 30 milliamperes through the pack at all times, and left the pack in the charger. Never had the problem again.
  
  Later, I got a good-sized box of spent lithium laptop battery packs from a recycle kiosk at a local store. The owner was kind enough to let me have at them before sending them on. I disassembled every one of them to discover what killed them. Most were simply cycled to death, but several had some quite interesting failure modes involving the charge management board built into the packs.
  
  One benefit I got was a nearly unlimited number of perfectly good 18650-size lithium ion batteries for use in flashlights and for powering all sorts of other little gadgets I make in the lab. There are all sorts of electronic things made in China that use the 18650 cell.
  
  http://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?SearchText=18650+flashlight&catId=0&manual=y
  
  I intend to use some quite large lithium cells for off-grid power backup, but being they are expensive and dangerous, I took it on myself to design a system for charging and monitoring the cells to make sure, and I mean damn sure, that nothing goes wrong. I ended up making a DC-DC converter that draws power from the whole stack, yet uses the power to charge each cell individually. No- this is not a scheme to get power for free, rather it is my way of equally redistributing all power available in the entire battery pack equally among all the cells of the pack. If some cells are weaker, the stronger cells are "taxed" more to provide supplemental charging current to the weaker cells. "Electronic communism" if you please. All cell voltages are forced equal by the charger. The microprocessor running the battery management board keeps track of each cells ability to supply or need of charge, as well as stats such as cell impedances, temperatures, and rates of parameter changes. The data is made available as a web-page on a 192.168.xxx.xxx addy, same kind of page as a setup page in a router. Simple HTML with graphics driven by sizing a colored pixel.
  
  I saw another write-up where Boeing has been having problems of this same ilk. What they are going through is precisely what I am trying to avoid.
  
  http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020241385_787deadbatteriesxml.html
  
  Funny thing is I used to work for a company bought up by Boeing. I got laid off in the buy-up.
  
  --
  "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
28. Re:Japanese covering their butts? by Alex+Zepeda · 2013-01-29 20:46 · Score: 1
  
  Japan's ANA says Dreamliner batteries replaced 10 times.
  
  --
  The revolution will be mocked
Which way will it go? by Shoten · 2013-01-28 05:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

The 787 is a revolutionary aircraft on many levels, from features to construction technology to production methods. I would expect there to be unforseen issues resulting from interaction between different systems. What I'm curious about is whether Boeing will get them all sorted out quickly enough...in which case they will be superbly positioned to compete, having mastered the many challenges around making the 787 what it is. If they don't, then they will be in terrible trouble. I feel like I'm watching aeronautical history playing out before my eyes.
I hope they get it all fixed in time, personally. The 787 is a hell of a plane. Check it out here: http://www.newairplane.com/787/

--

For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
1. Re:Which way will it go? by Joce640k · 2013-01-28 05:42 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Do you work for Boeing or something...?
  
  --
  No sig today...
2. Re:Which way will it go? by hawguy · 2013-01-28 05:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The 787 is a revolutionary aircraft on many levels, from features to construction technology to production methods. I would expect there to be unforseen issues resulting from interaction between different systems. What I'm curious about is whether Boeing will get them all sorted out quickly enough...in which case they will be superbly positioned to compete, having mastered the many challenges around making the 787 what it is. If they don't, then they will be in terrible trouble. I feel like I'm watching aeronautical history playing out before my eyes.
  I hope they get it all fixed in time, personally. The 787 is a hell of a plane. Check it out here: http://www.newairplane.com/787/
  I'm not surprised by unforseen issues from the new technology and design (like the fuel leaks that have been reported), I'm quite surprised to see battery problems since they must have already run the batteries and charging system through many thousands of simulated takeoff/landing cycles both in bench tests and while installed in a test airframe.
3. Re:Which way will it go? by sycodon · 2013-01-28 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  " Attention has now shifted..."
  You would think that given the importance of finding the problem here, they would have teams working in parallel looking at all the possible causes. They probably do, but the reporters just don't understand.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
4. Re:Which way will it go? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  Revolutionary....could you list these revolutionary aspects otherwise you sound like someone from the Boeing marketing dept.
  Once you've done that please list the revolutionary innovations and inventions in the iPhone....
5. Re:Which way will it go? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the update Mr. McNerney
6. Re:Which way will it go? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  Right. Well, it's not a bloody XBox, these things should have been tested BEFORE being sold all over the world.
  There was a joke, about what happened if Microsoft designed a car. Is this the same one about a plane?
7. Re:Which way will it go? by ColdWetDog · 2013-01-28 05:59 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I'm not surprised by unforseen issues from the new technology and design (like the fuel leaks that have been reported), I'm quite surprised to see battery problems since they must have already run the batteries and charging system through many thousands of simulated takeoff/landing cycles both in bench tests and while installed in a test airframe.
  This. They knew the batteries were problematic. The Boeing engineers and subcontractors aren't idiots. Even if the snarky NYT opinion piece which suggests that Japanese firms were preferentially picked for financial rather than technical reasons is true - those said Japanese firms aren't exactly slouches (GL-Yeasu (sp?) makes Lithium ion batteries for spacecraft.
  Sounds like a production issue. But these things are complicated. Look at the F22. That's why it's called the bleeding edge.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
8. Re:Which way will it go? by steelfood · 2013-01-28 05:59 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I was more excited about the A380 myself, but I realize that there's a very small market for such large planes.
  The 787 is using a lot of unproven tech. "Revolutionary" is good when it's built on sound fundamentals. I'm not sure the 787 was built this way. Rather, I suspect it was built on barely-good-enough and laboratory-tested, which are not encouraging signs.
  There's a reason why a lot of civilian technology comes out of military research. Using it in the military will test the technology in the real world to hell and back again (literally, even). And the military can compensate for greater risk of partial or full failure, both by the operators' prior training and greater built in redundancy as a result of a higher price tag that only the military would pay.
  I don't think the technology used in the 787 came out of this system.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
9. Re:Which way will it go? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  Is this the same one about a plane?
  No, that one has already been done.
  
  Windows Airline: The airport terminal is nice and colorful, with friendly stewards and stewardesses, easy access to the plane, an uneventful takeoff...then the plane blows up without any warning whatsoever.
10. Re:Which way will it go? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  So you are saying that a company is about to be judged by its ability to troubleshoot and solve technical problems with one of its products.
  Ladies and Gentlemen, this is indeed "News for Nerds!".
11. Re:Which way will it go? by MACC · 2013-01-28 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  What I'm curious about is whether Boeing will get them all sorted out quickly enough...in which case they will be superbly positioned to compete, having mastered the many challenges around making the 787 what it is.
  You will find that Murphy has a big bucket of bugs to keep dishing out from for the Dreamliner and Boeing.
  IMHO This is a product jinxed by management hubris.
  
  I hope they get it all fixed in time, personally. The 787 is a hell of a plane. Check it out here: http://www.newairplane.com/787/
  PR drivel, the only vector of exellence for Boeing these days.
12. Re:Which way will it go? by MACC · 2013-01-28 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  yes!.
  capability of fixing problems.
  Though I would rate the ability to nix design problems before they endanger customers significantly higher.
  Every oaf can do colorfull leaflets and produce problems while offshoring all responsibility.
13. Re:Which way will it go? by timeOday · 2013-01-28 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Prior to this battery issue, the most noted aspect of the 787 was the composite construction, which was certainly pioneered in military aircraft.
  Maybe lithium-ion batteries have been, too; I don't know. But IMHO considering how many millions of lithium-ion batteries are in service around the world, and in how many different applications, this can't be such a fundamental flaw. I think more likely a bug.
14. Re:Which way will it go? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  Considering, if I remember correctly, a couple of cargo aircraft have crashed due to lithium batteries catching fire when they're not even plugged in to charge, it does seem a rather brave idea to use them in airliners.
15. Re:Which way will it go? by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-01-28 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  And the military can compensate for greater risk of partial or full failure, both by the operators' prior training and greater built in redundancy as a result of a higher price tag that only the military would pay.
  And by a tolerance for (or apathy towards, po-tah-to) loss of life in regards to compensatory damages.
  In recent years, though, families have begun to sue manufacturers of military craft (e.g. Sikorsky) for wrongful death, so maybe this dynamic will change.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
16. Re:Which way will it go? by Kittenman · 2013-01-28 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  I was more excited about the A380 myself, but I realize that there's a very small market for such large planes.
  Forgive me, but is that true? I live in NZ and most planes to/from here are 747s of some colour. Those planes have been the backbone of international fleets for decades (the sixties?). I would say that there's a huge market for long-haul big planes - world population is going up, countries aren't getting any closer. The world's fleet of 747s will eventually need replacing with more 747s, or 380s, or ... something of that size. But now the long-haul runs need to be fuel-efficient and cheap.
  
  And safe. And fun. (thank goodness for seat-back tv...)
  I hope the Dreamliner comes right - but I'm looking forward to a flight in a 380 more than a 787.
  
  --
  "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
17. Re:Which way will it go? by j00r0m4nc3r · 2013-01-28 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  The bug is that they didn't put the batteries into a fireproof container to begin with.
18. Re:Which way will it go? by mpe · 2013-01-28 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  I'm quite surprised to see battery problems since they must have already run the batteries and charging system through many thousands of simulated takeoff/landing cycles both in bench tests and while installed in a test airframe.
  
  Wouldn't be the first time that testing has failed to represent actual use though. Even Boeing's flight testing may no be representative of how an actual airline operates the plane.
19. Re:Which way will it go? by JanneM · 2013-01-28 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  I hope the Dreamliner comes right - but I'm looking forward to a flight in a 380 more than a 787.
  +1. The 787 is technically nice of course, but it's not really exciting the same way that a plane half again as big as the next smaller one.
  
  --
  Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
20. Re:Which way will it go? by drjzzz · 2013-01-28 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  I was more excited about the A380 myself, but I realize that there's a very small market for such large planes.
  Excited? About something slightly bigger than the 4-decade-old 747? The most interesting thing about that plane is the prospects for sales to recoup even a significant fraction of the tens of billions the European companies, err, countries , paid to build it. Forget about bailing out Greece, Portugal, et al., some of those Euros are going straight into subsidies to the companies assembling it. Financially interesting, technically not so much.
  
  --
  to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...
21. Re:Which way will it go? by viperidaenz · 2013-01-28 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  Bleeding edge is for military aircraft, not commercial airliners that carry hundreds of people at a time with as little downtime as possible.
22. Re:Which way will it go? by hawguy · 2013-01-28 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  Bleeding edge is for military aircraft, not commercial airliners that carry hundreds of people at a time with as little downtime as possible.
  Some aircraft needs to make the leap to new technology or airliners would still be using unsealed lead-acid batteries.
23. Re:Which way will it go? by SilenceBE · 2013-01-28 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  As opposed to american companies that getting subsidised by overpriced military contracts...
24. Re:Which way will it go? by viperidaenz · 2013-01-28 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  An A380 can fit 800 people. The newest, extra long 747-8 can't even hold 500.
25. Re:Which way will it go? by nadaou · 2013-01-28 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  I feel like I'm watching aeronautical history playing out before my eyes.
  You are.
  
  --
  ~.~
  I'm a peripheral visionary.
26. Re:Which way will it go? by drjzzz · 2013-01-28 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  "I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post." Memorably delivered by Jack Nicholson as Col. Jessup in "A Few Good Men" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104257/quotes)
  
  --
  to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...
27. Re:Which way will it go? by drjzzz · 2013-01-28 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, that's over 50% bigger! I'm just saying it's (obviously) not as technically interesting as employing an entirely new building material and process. And the 380's size is wonderful, until you are waiting for your bags or for customs with another 300 fellow passengers. Boeing decided that more efficient was better than bigger. And without governments to write-off the initial investment, a bigger plane would never pay off. It still might not be truly profitable, ever, anyway. Governments are also investing to re-build terminals to accommodate (Frankfurt, for one, should've focused on eliminating stairways to planes before spending huge amounts to handle the 380).
  
  --
  to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...
28. Re:Which way will it go? by viperidaenz · 2013-01-28 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  That's what research projects are for. Where did I say "Bleeding edge is for no aircraft whatsoever"?
29. Re:Which way will it go? by viperidaenz · 2013-01-28 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  The engines on an A380 are only slightly bigger than a 747-8. Efficiency isn't "how much fuel does a flight use?" it "How much fuel per seat does a flight use?" If you have fewer, larger planes you don't need as many pilots either.
30. Re:Which way will it go? by mr_exit · 2013-01-28 16:37 · Score: 2
  
  Another NZer here.
  The difference in approach is that Airbus bet the farm on big planes travelling between hubs, then small (A320 sized) planes taking people to their final destination.
  Boeing has bet the farm on smaller long range planes taking people exactly where they want to go.
  It's going to be interesting if one of them has hit the winning formula, or if there's enough competition and different habits to support both approaches.
  
  --
  
  -------
  Drink Coffee - Do Stupid Things Faster And With More Energy!
31. Re:Which way will it go? by beltsbear · 2013-01-28 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  Bad comparison. The A380 usually fits 550 people. One carrier uses a economy only configuration that holds 800. That is not a normal configuration and the 747-8 would hold more then 600 with the same seat spacing.
32. Re:Which way will it go? by jrumney · 2013-01-28 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  Forgive me, but is that true? I live in NZ and most planes to/from here are 747s of some colour.
  I suggest you go down to Auckland airport and look at what planes have been coming and going for the last 10 years or so. Most flights to/from NZ now are using B777's and A330s. They used to use a lot of 747's because it was the only aircraft with enough range to go anywhere beyond Australia or Singapore, but it was never needed for the capacity on those routes.
33. Re:Which way will it go? by jrumney · 2013-01-28 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  Boeing has bet the farm on smaller long range planes taking people exactly where they want to go.
  You mean smaller long range planes like the A340 and A330?
34. Re:Which way will it go? by peragrin · 2013-01-28 23:52 · Score: 1
  
  They did put the batteries in a fireproof container.
  That's why the whole plane didn't go up and only the battery compartment was affected. The electronics a couple feet away was fine.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
35. Re:Which way will it go? by drjzzz · 2013-01-29 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely, the correct metric is fuel per seat. And by that metric, the 787 is more efficient (IIRC 10-20% more efficient than comparable jets).
  
  --
  to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...
36. Re:Which way will it go? by kaatochacha · 2013-01-29 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  Trust me, look forward to the 787. I flew (coach) on a 380, worst flight ever. I felt like I was down in a dungeon-it's oddly depressing. The carpet was ripped in one spot and dirty, and they had ALUMINUM FOIL holding up something on the overhead bin, looked like some missing decoration of some sort. This on a plane out of Tokyo.
  The carpet and foil can be blamed on the airline being crap, but the feeling of being down in the depths of a barge was disturbing.
  Unless you're flying business or first, then you'll probably have a different experience.
37. Re:Which way will it go? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 15:17 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, uh, you may have missed the point of that movie.
38. Re:Which way will it go? by Luckyo · 2013-01-30 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  One has to understand the main difference between civilian airliner and a military fighter.
  Military fighter needs to spend tens of hours on the groud in maintenance for every hour in flight. Civilian airliner needs to spend a whole lot more in the air to be viable. As a result, "bleeding edge" military tech is simply dysfunctional in a civilian airliner due to lack of necessary maintentenance time.
39. Re:Which way will it go? by Luckyo · 2013-01-30 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  There is no such thing due to the fact that you need wiring to get energy out of the box. Fire in airliners propagates along the wiring as that is one thing you simply cannot fully isolate with fireproof blockage. It's the same thing that can't be fully secured in military subs either. There's also the factor of temperature, where even if you had a fully fire proof box, it would heat up due to internal fire and start melting/igniting surrounding materials.
40. Re:Which way will it go? by Luckyo · 2013-01-30 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  A350?
Osama Blue Laden by Tablizer · 2013-01-28 05:36 · Score: 3, Funny

It would stop terrorism also: what a bargain!

--
Table-ized A.I.
more conventional batteries add few hundred lbs by peter303 · 2013-01-28 05:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

Even though every pound saved cuts thousands of pounds of fuel and carbon emissions over the plane's lifetime, this extra is small compared to the total plane mass, passengers and luggage. Not to mention having and expensive plane out of service for possibly months.
1. Re:more conventional batteries add few hundred lbs by sjames · 2013-01-28 05:48 · Score: 2
  
  At this point, since it;'s not the batteries themselves, it's most likely the charging system that's faulty. Li-Ion batteries have a more extreme reaction to overcharging, but it's not like lead-acid batteries wouldn't have problems.
2. Re:more conventional batteries add few hundred lbs by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  All LI-Ion batteries are suppose to have over charge protection. If that battery relies on the charger not to over charge. That is a weak design. All laptop chips have that built in. A battery that large on a plane should certainly have it.
3. Re:more conventional batteries add few hundred lbs by sjames · 2013-01-28 06:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  On single cells, that protection is a small IC affixed to one end of the battery. In a battery pack, there is a protection circuit that covers the entire pack. For a battery bank, it's perfectly reasonable to combine the protection circuit with the charging system. In consumer goods where the battery isn't a user replaceable item, the protection is built in to the charging circuit. In any of those cases, a defect in the protection circuit can lead to a problem.
  In all of the above cases, the protection includes preventing over charge and over discharge (fatal to LiIon batteries).
4. Re:more conventional batteries add few hundred lbs by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 07:19 · Score: 0
  
  In a typical safety system you would have one circuitry controlling the charging and another one supervising the battery state (for over-temperature, too high charging voltage or current, ... ). The problem is typically testing that the second circuitry (i.e. the supervising one) as that test could require unsafe states (e.g. charging with a too high voltage). But if you cannot test the supervision, it could fail unnoticed and later not detect a failure of the control circuitry leading to a burning battery.
  Normally one would not expect such a failure to occur several times in a short time frame, so probably a systematic fault (i.e. a development fault) is involved too.
5. Re:more conventional batteries add few hundred lbs by Chuckstar · 2013-01-28 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  Of course it has over-charge protection. Most likely that protection is exactly what went wrong. It's not like they can just put a mechanical switch in there like a circuit breaker. It's all chips nowadays, you know.
6. Re:more conventional batteries add few hundred lbs by sjames · 2013-01-28 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, in the Boeing case, there must be a design flaw somewhere. Some set of conditions that didn't exist when they tested the things must be able to cause an overcharge without tripping the protection or causing an alert.
  It could even be that the system as designed works fine until vibration breaks something.
7. Re:more conventional batteries add few hundred lbs by DerekLyons · 2013-01-28 09:31 · Score: 2
  
  Even though every pound saved cuts thousands of pounds of fuel and carbon emissions over the plane's lifetime, this extra is small compared to the total plane mass, passengers and luggage.
  *sigh* We've been through this before - yes, the total saved is small per flight. But multiply it out across the decades the plane will be in service and it adds up to a very substantial sum. To folks who have to actually pay the bills, this matters. Hell, to anyone with a basic understanding of accounting (rather than trying to "prove" how "smart" the are(n't)), this matters.
8. Re:more conventional batteries add few hundred lbs by gweihir · 2013-01-28 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Most clueless posting so far. Of course batteries and charger are a unit.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
9. Re:more conventional batteries add few hundred lbs by Chuckstar · 2013-01-28 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  They actually had similar problems with NiCad when they first put them in planes. The failure modes for NiCad are not as bad. NiCad doesn't create a self-sustaining fire the way Li-ion can, but overheated NiCads can (and have) caused nearby objects to melt and/or catch on fire.
  If it is the electronics, then it's possible that even if they'd gone with NiCad, they could still be having problems with the battery subsystem. The only difference in that case would be that you wouldn't have the "why did those idiots use Li-ion" questions being thrown around.
10. Re:more conventional batteries add few hundred lbs by viperidaenz · 2013-01-28 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong. Common consumer batteries have inbuilt protection. Consumers aren't smart.
  If a battery is designed specifically to be used with a specific charger and there is no risk an operator can connect it incorrectly and there is minimal risk of a short circuit then there is no need for a protection circuit in the battery itself. It's a waste of weight, size and decreases the efficiency of the battery along with increasing the cost.
  LiFe and LiPo cells and batteries very rarely have any protection in the cells and packs available. I'm not aware of a single one of these products that do.
  The battery in my cellphone does though because when I take it out, the positive and negative terminals can easily be shorted.
11. Re:more conventional batteries add few hundred lbs by sjames · 2013-01-28 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  LiIon seems to have a 'reputation' due to the spectacular way they can fail, but in my experience, they're quite manageable. In the case of the 787, it looks like Boeing did include an appropriate battery box to handle the potential failures.
  I wish more consumer devices would be made to accept the standard size cylindrical cells.
Ob by Hognoxious · 2013-01-28 05:38 · Score: 0

Somebody was holding it wrong.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
1. Re:Ob by beltsbear · 2013-01-28 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the Steve Jobs quote would be "your flying it wrong."
2. Re:Ob by viperidaenz · 2013-01-28 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  Actually Steve Jobs was literate, so it would be "you're flying it wrong"
A Bit of a Deceptive Statement by Silentknyght · 2013-01-28 05:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

Driving into work this morning, I heard this same quote on NPR:
"Airline safety inspectors have found no faults with the battery used on Boeing's 787 Dreamliner, Japan's transport ministry has said."
Worded as such, I think most people would get the wrong impression. They're defining the battery as if it's sitting in someone's pocket, detached from any relevant system & unable to charge or discharge; I didn't think of it that way, and I'd suspect most others didn't either. Most news outlets could use the clarity (albeit, only eventually) provided by the BBC article. The battery *itself* is not the culprit, but investigators essentially *do* still suspect the battery *system,* including the batteries themselves.
1. Re:A Bit of a Deceptive Statement by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  Important issue here is that batteries are provided by a Japanese company and the battery system is made in USA. Since this issue affects stock prices around the world it's important to rule out manufacturing defects from the parts manufacturers as soon as the information is available.
2. Re:A Bit of a Deceptive Statement by Solandri · 2013-01-28 11:02 · Score: 2
  
  It's just the way these investigations happen and the press/public is reading too much into it. Aircraft accident inspectors are very systematic. They'll examine the easy/most likely suspects first and cross them off the list, before moving on to more difficult suspects. So they'll examine the battery. Then the charging/loading system. Then the plane's electrical system. Then if none of those turn out to have independently caused the fire, they'll go looking for interactions between these systems.
  
  Unfortunately the media is incredibly impatient, and is interpreting a negative result on step #1 as if it means a positive result were obtained in step #2, #3, or #4, even though the investigators haven't even gotten to steps #2, #3, and #4 yet.
3. Re:A Bit of a Deceptive Statement by Chuckstar · 2013-01-28 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree. I think most people think of the battery as only the lump of chemicals that stores the charge. Most people would not think of all the electronics as being part of the battery.
But Charging system was already cleared by JoeyRox · 2013-01-28 05:50 · Score: 1

I read previously that the charging system was already cleared, such as indicated in this article: http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2020230108_dreamlinerbattery28xml.html?prmid=4939
1. Re:But Charging system was already cleared by ColdWetDog · 2013-01-28 06:06 · Score: 2
  
  Not quite. The battery controller in the Boston fire specced out OK. That's useful but there are hundreds of other bits of electronics connected to the battery and the controller (something controls the controller). It probably isn't going to be a simple case of one thing out of spec - those would be picked up in the pre delivery checks. It's likely something that requires an interaction between a couple (or many) devices to create an edge case that no one has figured out.
  Of course, you're going to work the problem from simple to complex - look that battery, then the charging system and work backwards. What I'm surprised we haven't heard is the results of disassembling the other batteries in planes that have not failed. I'm pretty sure that every 787 battery ever made is sitting on workbench in Seattle or Japan.....
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:But Charging system was already cleared by viperidaenz · 2013-01-28 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  If something controls the controller. what controls the controller's controller?
3. Re:But Charging system was already cleared by drjzzz · 2013-01-29 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  nice. Probably not many historians (philosophers, political scientists, logicians) on this thread so the reference is lost (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?).
  
  --
  to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...
4. Re:But Charging system was already cleared by viperidaenz · 2013-01-29 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing you've picked up on a reference I didn't intend to make.
5. Re:But Charging system was already cleared by TrebleMaker · 2013-01-30 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  It's controllers all the way down.
  
  --
  In Soviet Russia a beowulf cluster of these things imagines you welcoming your new, neural-network overlords.
Not entirely surprising by vlm · 2013-01-28 05:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

Not entirely surprising, its usually the charger and/or the discharge protection ckts. Ask the RC electric airplane people who have at least a decade or so experience with lithium batteries in airplanes and burning them up. I was into RC planes back when everyone used NiCad but I've kept up with recent events. The batteries themselves rarely burst into flame, they burst into flame when you connect them to something that does something very naughty well outside the limits of the datasheet.
I think this will probably, in the long run, turn into a "EE ethics and morals class" debate. So discharging 15 amps out of a 10 amp pack results in a 0.001% chance (actually pretty high) of blowing the pack up per the data sheet. However not supplying 15 amps to the engine control system during an alternator malfunction (or whatever) means the engine shuts down and 500 people have a near 100% chance of death. "just follow that datasheet" stuff could kill lots of people, then again "ignore the datasheet" could kill lots of people too. So if you must use lithium batteries (why?), then you can find a local minimum death rate which will not be zero... of course finding that might have to be done via experiment on unwilling crash victims, whole nother ethical issue. Basically, we're trading human life for slightly improved gas mileage, which certainly makes me want to fly on a carrier using airbus products instead of boeing products, which has other ethical issues, etc. Is the ethical/moral failure the managers for doing it despite advice against, the engineers fault for not committing career and economic suicide by refusing to design a lithium aircraft pack, the supplier for making batteries for an unsuitable purpose, the arabs fault for making jet fuel so expensive so we have to kill people with lightweight batteries, ...
The simplest thing is a battery drop tank arrangement or a rather stout thick wall steel case, making the works heavier than using old fashioned lead acid.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
1. Re:Not entirely surprising by cellocgw · 2013-01-28 05:57 · Score: 2
  
  So discharging 15 amps out of a 10 amp pack results in a 0.001% chance (actually pretty high) of blowing the pack up per the data sheet. However not supplying 15 amps to the engine control system during an alternator malfunction (or whatever) means the engine shuts down and 500 people have a near 100% chance of death.
  So what you're really saying is "Take the number of [batteries] in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one. "
  
  --
  https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
2. Re:Not entirely surprising by vakuona · 2013-01-28 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  That’s what the bean counters call a simple actuarial analysis.
3. Re:Not entirely surprising by vlm · 2013-01-28 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  There's also some net present value calcs of taking to profit today vs paying the settlements years later, but yeah.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
4. Re:Not entirely surprising by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 06:27 · Score: 0
  
  Along with when you are going to be safely retired and elsewhere.
5. Re:Not entirely surprising by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.
6. Re:Not entirely surprising by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  "Which airline do you work for?"
7. Re:Not entirely surprising by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  Someone saw fight club...
  A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
8. Re:Not entirely surprising by Kagato · 2013-01-28 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Each engine and the APU in the tail have two generators attached, plus there is the RAT for emergencies. By all accounts the batteries are more or less there for consistency between power phases. The APU is supposed to be running during ETOPS segments, so one has to wonder what the power drain on the packs was to begin with. You would think the likely time for an accident would be on the taxiway while stuck for a long departure wait. I could see some engine stop and starts happening that might create the conditions for excess loads.
9. Re:Not entirely surprising by TFAFalcon · 2013-01-28 08:17 · Score: 2
  
  No, you want to still be employed. That way they have to give you a golden parachute when they fire you.
10. Re:Not entirely surprising by DerekLyons · 2013-01-28 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Basically, we're trading human life for slightly improved gas mileage, which certainly makes me want to fly on a carrier using airbus products instead of boeing products
  If you think Airbus isn't doing the same thing, you're deluding yourself. Minimizing the fixed weight load is the name of the game in aircraft design, and has been for a very long time. (Ford, Mercedes-Benz, General Foods, and pretty much every other company too... You want cheap flights, cheap cars, and cheap breakfast cereal, you're going to pay for it.)
Possibility by freeze128 · 2013-01-28 05:54 · Score: 1

If the battery itself is not defective in its construction, then I would posit that the charging circuitry was just badly designed. If you charge the battery too quickly, It overheats, and smokes.
Electrical Relay's by gabereiser · 2013-01-28 05:56 · Score: 2

So, this comes to me as no surprise. What's really (guesstimation here) happening is probably that the electrical relay that's responsible for charging the batteries off of the engines generators isn't detecting the voltage properly, resulting in overcharging the batteries which results in them catching fire. The APU generator has enough juice to power some minor systems, avionics, air cond., and flight controls. The engine generators (which are usually kicked on after pushback and startup procedures have been completed) charge the batteries, have enough juice to run all the aircraft systems and then some. Hell, you can even run on only 1 generator, the 787 has 2 like the 737... My deduction of all of this is that the relays responsible for charging the batteries during taxi/takeoff/cruise/touchdown (i.e. the engines generators) are not detecting the correct voltage or amperage and are overloading the battery, not switching off and on as needed to charge them. But hey, we can all be armchair gumshoes when it comes to these things...
1. Re:Electrical Relay's by bobbied · 2013-01-28 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Seems likely that you could be on the right track. I wonder if this has less to do with in flight conditions and more to do with APU and Ground power transitions because all the noted events took place close to either takeoff or landing and not in the middle of a long flight. I wonder about ambient temperature changes might be a factor too.
  I can see where the transition to/from in flight and ground operations could be a lot more problematic for batteries and charging circuits due to momentary interruptions and voltage sags during a time of large temperature swings. Such transient events can be extremely difficult to design for and even more difficult to effectively test in a complex system like an airplane. Issues like this can be difficult to debug because the problems can easily be highly dependent on factors that are not readily obvious.
  Boeing will eventually get this worked out. The only question is how long will it take them to fix the issue and how much will it cost in the process
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
2. Re:Electrical Relay's by deadweight · 2013-01-28 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  The 787 is vastly more complicated than that. It does NOT float the batteries across a 28 volt bus like a car or small/medium sized aircraft. (well 14 volts for most cars..........) The generators on the engines and APU are about 230 volts AC IIRC and the batteries charge with a literal battery charger driven by the AC buses.
3. Re:Electrical Relay's by gabereiser · 2013-01-28 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  true, however, direct from the manufacturer specs: "The 787 uses an electrical system that is a hybrid voltage system consisting of the following voltage types: 235 volts alternating current (VAc), 115 VAC, 28 volts direct current (VDC), and ±270 VDC. the 115 VAC and 28 VDC voltage types are traditional, while the 235 VAC and the ±270 VDC voltage types are the consequence of the nobleed electrical architecture that results in a greatly expanded electrical system generating twice as much electricity as previous boeing airplane models." It's this no-bleed APU/GEN system that is causing the battery charger relays to overload, preventing the actuating switches from shutting off the charging relays or possible overloading them with current due to a short (possibly?) or an electrical failure of industrial diodes (possibly?) or that the over-current amperage exceeds operational ranges for the batteries or gets very close to it. I'm still convinced of the APU/GEN charging system as the culprit.
4. Re:Electrical Relay's by deadweight · 2013-01-28 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  From what I could tell from my pilot buddies it goes like this. AC BUS > BATTERY CHARGER > BATTERY. So........the battery charger is the thing to blame here. Smaller airplanes are like cars where an alternator or starter-generator is voltage regulated to 14 or 28 volts and the battery is charged from that with no additional controls. The AC bus can be powered from the engines and/or the APU.
5. Re:Electrical Relay's by gabereiser · 2013-01-29 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  exactly my deduction...
No problem with the battery by symbolset · 2013-01-28 06:11 · Score: 1

It's supposed to smoke and catch fire?

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
1. Re:No problem with the battery by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2013-01-28 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  You didn't ask for a non-smoking flight.
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Sum of the parts? by fahrbot-bot · 2013-01-28 06:15 · Score: 1

we have found no major quality or technical problem' with the lithium-ion batteries
How about several (many?) minor issues that, when taken together, add up to "the problem"? Also, since at least, one of the batteries was fried almost beyond recognition (from a photo I saw), how do you know there was no problem?

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Overheating by ThatsNotPudding · 2013-01-28 06:27 · Score: 1

This supposes the issue might be thermal management: http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=257987&cid=NL_Newsletters+-+DN+Daily&dfpPParams=ind_184,industry_aero,aid_257987&dfpLayout=article
Logs indicate no overcharging by Animats · 2013-01-28 06:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

The battery charging voltages and currents are logged, the logs go to the flight recorder, and they don't indicate overcharging. There are monitoring circuit boards in the battery case, separate from the charger, which report this data. Either the charger failed in some way that caused an overcharge without the voltage sensing detecting this, or the battery itself failed.
The NTSB says they haven't found anything defective yet. The burned battery is enough of a mess that it's hard to extract much info, but they're using spectroscopy to check that the composition of the components was correct.
The grounding is necessary. The JAL aircraft at Logan only had 22 takeoff/landing cycles on it, and this has now happened twice, so the odds of further trouble are high. Over the next few days and weeks, batteries and chargers will probably be pulled from other aircraft and cycled through pressure chambers, shake tables, and hot/cold cycles in attempts to induce the failure.
Meanwhile, I suspect that there are frantic efforts at Boeing to design a replacement that doesn't use lithium-ion batteries.
1. Re:Logs indicate no overcharging by MACC · 2013-01-28 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  Yes the batterie ( bus ) voltage is monitored and stored in the FDR.
  The per cell data is stored either on the pcb in the battery enclosure
  or the charger.
  Going by the notice that the values are unexpectedly
  not available my guess is in the battery and those pcbs are toast.
  Dumb design. The enclosure looks positively american.
  I've never seen something so superficially designed from japanese engineers.
2. Re:Logs indicate no overcharging by PPH · 2013-01-28 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Dumb design. The enclosure looks positively american.
  I've never seen something so superficially designed from japanese engineers.
  Thales is French.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
3. Re:Logs indicate no overcharging by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 11:03 · Score: 0
  
  The enclosure worked correctly. The dumb part was filling it with defective japanese and/or french components. Take your anti-American rhetoric and shove it up your ass, you stupid fucking cunt.
4. Re:Logs indicate no overcharging by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 22:53 · Score: 0
  
  While testing, have a lab tech with a bolometer watch and note the hot spots.
  Then ask the computer charge circuit was anything abnormal.
5. Re:Logs indicate no overcharging by MACC · 2013-01-29 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  A case of hurt Jingoism?
6. Re:Logs indicate no overcharging by MACC · 2013-01-29 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Thales is the system integrator
  GS-Yuasa in their US subdivison makes the cells and the battery enclosure
  supervisory circuits are from Canto Japan
  the charger is from Securaplane USA
  the APU starter is from Securaplane USA
  I have doupts that Thales was the primary decider of components here.
  your turn.
7. Re:Logs indicate no overcharging by PPH · 2013-01-29 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  I have doupts that Thales was the primary decider of components here.
  Well, I know Boeing wasn't. So it's a case of peeling back all the layers of subcontractors. Just like an onion. Tears and all.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
8. Re:Logs indicate no overcharging by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  Obviously, Thales in this case is no true Frenchman!
9. Re:Logs indicate no overcharging by MACC · 2013-01-31 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  .. of peeling back all the layers of subcontractors. Just like an onion. Tears and all.
  Well put. I like that wording. .. And tears there will be.
Not insightful by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 06:42 · Score: 0

Airplanes haven't used lead-acid batteries in decades. They use NiCd batteries.
Flying on an Airbus aircraft is more dangerous that any Boeing. Boeing still believes the pilot should have ultimate control, while Airbus will completely override the pilot. Two Airbus aircraft have crashed and killed people because the computer ignored the pilot.
1. Re:Not insightful by deadweight · 2013-01-28 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh - not sure how to put this - but I have bought lead acid batteries for airplanes and it wasn't THAT long ago. Concorde makes a whole line of AGM lead acids to replace NiCads in various sizes including what Boeing uses.
Brakes and wiring by Ogive17 · 2013-01-28 06:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

I know a guy who works for the company that does the braking system. One of the 787s apparently had some issues with the brakes. He said that all the issues currently happening can be traced back to the wiring.

You can take it for what it's worth but the wide array of problems plaguing this plane right now, the wire harness does make sense. Though bad design or bad manufactoring is yet to be seen.

--
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
It's the battery _and_ the circuitry that matter by Danilushka · 2013-01-28 07:12 · Score: 1

Since all batteries in an airplane application need charging and monitoring circuits and those circuits are likely to fail from time to time, batteries that start fires when circuits fail are indeed part of the fault equation. Pushing off the blame onto just the batteries is most likely a PR strategy of Boeing's. If the circuit is essentially part of the battery without which the battery could not function, then the blame lies with the designers who used it: Boeing, not the battery manufacturer. This PR seems to me a "spin-control" by japan and their battery industry to limit the PR damage to the battery manufacturer because it is clear now that Boeing is going to layoff blame for their poor design on the battery manufacturers. The fact is these batteries should never be used in any place where their failure will have catastrophic consequences. But that was a decision Boeing engineers made, not the battery manufacturers. Let's keep the focus on the firm that designed the airplane and certainly conducted studies regarding the consequences of the failure of monitoring and charging circuitry on batteries and physical airplane integrity. I sense a Ford Pinto gas tank human cost trade-off calculus moment of truth coming. Wait for it.
Nuanced response by Okian+Warrior · 2013-01-28 07:14 · Score: 5, Informative

So what you're really saying is "Take the number of [batteries] in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one. "
The actual answer is more nuanced.
FAA regulations define 5 levels of critical for safety systems: levels A through E.
Level A is for things that can knock a plane out of the sky when they fail; for example the stall speed alarm.
Level C is for things that can cause injury or at most a single death; for example, the cabin pressurization system
Level E is for things that don't affect flight safety; such as, in-flight entertainment or the microwave in the galley
For reference, I wrote the software for cabin pressurization systems. It's level C (hardware == B), which means that failure in pressurization is an emergency situation, but isn't expected to kill everyone on board. The masks drop and the pilot immediately dives to under 10,000 feet to restore breathable air.
If the cabin fills with smoke, it's not life-threatening per se. The pilot can override the pressurization system and "dump" the cabin atmosphere, and it clears pretty quick. (The captain also dives to under 10,000 feet if necessary.)
The battery catching fire isn't a problem SO LONG AS the fire itself won't cripple the aircraft. The battery underpowering the plane when the alternator dies MAY BE a problem which would kill people.
The people who design these things take these levels into consideration, and the general rule is "fail safe". If you can't "fail safe", then "fail in the least dangerous way". In my experience, the engineer must make many choices when designing an aircraft unit. The answer is always "do it *this* way, because if *that* happens it will be less dangerous.
Let's wait and see what the investigation uncovers. Here are some Cliff notes:
1) Li-Ion batteries might behave differently at altitude (cabin pressure is reduced while flying)
2) The battery may be performing to spec, while trying to compensate for a more dangerous problem
3) Smoke in the cabin is not as dangerous as you might think
4) Things that burn are designed to not damage things when burning
5) People who design aircraft are pretty smart, and have a generally high moral standard.
6) People who investigate aircraft incidents are really, really thorough, and have a good track record.
(Note: Glossing over some details to make an easier read.)
1. Re:Nuanced response by tlhIngan · 2013-01-28 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  The battery catching fire isn't a problem SO LONG AS the fire itself won't cripple the aircraft. The battery underpowering the plane when the alternator dies MAY BE a problem which would kill people.
  The former is critical, the latter isn't an issue.
  The fire can be contained, but it's the lithium that's a problem because it accellerates oxidation of aluminum. It's why there are regulations in place on transport of lithium in aircraft because a tiny bit of lithium can easily eat through critical aircraft structure and cause them to fail. (And considering lithium creates fire when exposed to water, you'd think Boeing would've designed a dessicant for the isolation box as well to minimize it - it's not lithium exposed to air, but lithium rips water apart with such ferocity that the hydrogen then burns and you get fire. And Boeing certianly knows about inerting systems).
  As for underpowering systems - there are emergency checklists for that - if an alternator fails what busses go down and what non-eseential loads are shed. Likewise, if everything goes down and you're on battery, what breakers you pull to keep essential avionics only. This often includes removing cabin power (including lighting), and even down to one set of glass for the pilot (copilot has to use backup instruments), one radio, no transponder, no flight management system, maybe even no GPS/NAV radios.
  Even the when-all-else-fails turbine that pops out provides even less power - a radio and flight instruments (maybe not even ehough for the main avionics computers so it's just backup instruments), and only enough hydraulics to keep the plane controllable (aileron/rudder/elevators... flaps are a luxury).
2. Re:Nuanced response by cellocgw · 2013-01-28 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  he said, "The actual answer is more nuanced. [gigantic detailed examples of possible outcomes].."
  Sheesh. Doesn't *anyone* get the cultural reference I was quoting?
  Screw it; I'm off to make some soap from human fat.
  
  --
  https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
3. Re:Nuanced response by drjzzz · 2013-01-28 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  The fire can be contained, but it's the lithium that's a problem because it accellerates oxidation of aluminum. It's why there are regulations in place on transport of lithium in aircraft because a tiny bit of lithium can easily eat through critical aircraft structure and cause them to fail..
  
  There's a lot less aluminum in the largely carbon fiber 787. Doesn't this change the risk analysis?
  
  --
  to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...
4. Re:Nuanced response by viperidaenz · 2013-01-28 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need a rudder...
5. Re:Nuanced response by DMUTPeregrine · 2013-01-28 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  While you can fly a plane without the rudder landing it is going to be nearly impossible. Pitch & roll can combine to make a yaw, but it takes space and time you won't have during landing if you want to stay on the runway.
  
  --
  Not a sentence!
6. Re:Nuanced response by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 22:47 · Score: 0
  
  Observation. The first or last battery in a string usually fails badly - no one seems to know why.
  7) Li-Ion batteries charger circuit might behave differently at altitude (cabin pressure is reduced while flying)
  ie an air bubble or a bad thermopaste, say reacting to pressure, with mean the temperature sensor will LIE, leading to overcharging.
  8) The solution is not a delta charge slope circuit, but to average the temperature sensors, and have a few reference points at different positions.
  9) This means the charging circuit is the cause, and the fix is to never trust one sensor alone - which is exactly what a dedicated charger chip does.
  10) Physics 101. The batteries on the bottom, get a cooling draft possible as much as -50? , while the heat rises upwards.
  The lithium gel may shrink from the walls of the battery, so the temperature sensor once again lies.
  11) Betcha all the testing was done at room temperature, without a draft.
  12) Solution, wrap the battery pack up in space shuttle tiles
  13 Build the sensor INSIDE the battery.
ROHS? by retroworks · 2013-01-28 07:36 · Score: 1

http://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/engineering-design-problems/rohs/ The replacement of leaded solder with tin-silver solder was bad for the environment (while the leaded solder was "toxic", the process to remove tin and silver - the replacements - is far more toxic, so the pollution was diverted from western controlled landfills of the future to coral mining islands of the present). But if it turns out to cause planes to drop from the sky (see concerns over "tin whiskers"), it will prove worse. I don't know that the Boeing problem is related to the ROHS circuit, but (per the link above) defense aeronautics engineers refused to comply with it based on concerns cited.

--
Gently reply
I know a good place to start by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 07:42 · Score: 0

Just start with the parts that say: "Made in China".
Re:Carpet! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 07:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

It did. Not because the carpet was actually at fault, but it's less costly to recall a bazillion floor mats than to tell the customers a truth they don't want to hear: that the crashes were mostly the fault of panicked drivers frantically stomping on the accelerator.
Japan: still the undisputed world champions at face-saving.
Re:It's the battery _and_ the circuitry that matte by PPH · 2013-01-28 07:44 · Score: 1

then the blame lies with the designers who used it: Boeing,
Boeing hasn't designed any subsystems stuff for years. I'm not even certain they have any structural people left.
Boeing produces a specification and puts it out for bid. The spec probably says: 'The battery shall not burst into flames or explode.' The implementation details are left up to subcontractors.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Interesting tidbit by SuperTechnoNerd · 2013-01-28 07:51 · Score: 1

With all this talk of the 787 lately, I wanted to find out more about the aircraft. From Wikipedia's 787 page I found this bit rather interesting I think slashdotters would to:

"The airplane's control, navigation, and communication systems are networked with the passenger cabin's in-flight internet systems.[199] In January 2008, FAA concerns were reported regarding possible intentional or unintentional passenger access to the 787's computer networks. In response, Boeing stated various airplane protective hardware and software solutions are employed, including air gaps in places to physically separate the networks, and firewalls for software separation."

Hi our name is Anonymous, and we would like to book a flight...
It was never the battery by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-01-28 08:05 · Score: 1

It was never the battery that was the problem. Now, maybe the charging system of the battery, that's a different story. But the batteries themselves were not really though to be problematic. Most lithium ion batteries will become damaged if overcharged and overheat, even much later than the original overcharging. That is technically not a problem with the battery anymore than holding a lit match to a piece of paper is a problem with the paper (unless of course the design spec says it's not supposed to happen even if mistreated this way).
1. Re:It was never the battery by countach · 2013-01-28 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. The battery might be fine, but if other things in the system can make it catch fire, its not much consolation that the fault wasn't in the battery. It still might be a bad idea to put Li-ion batteries on aeroplanes.
2. Re:It was never the battery by Chuckstar · 2013-01-28 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  ...even much later than the original overcharging.
  Reminds me of Apollo 13. Wiring in the oxygen tank was damaged by being overheated in testing. What if the batteries were somehow damaged by a flawed testing regime? That kind of damage would be hard to find after a fire and none of the electronics would show any flaws either.
BP revisited by boorack · 2013-01-28 08:12 · Score: 1

Seems we have a BIG problem with some corporate fucks running Boeing company. They knowingly pushed flawed airplane design through FAA, influencing and bribing whoever stands their way. In order to get bonuses whey chose to ignore safety concerns overall. Human lives seem to be less valuable to than their profits and bonuses. Given that their "latest and greatest" aircraft turns out to be a flying coffin, should start avoiding Boeing crap ??
1. Re:BP revisited by drjzzz · 2013-01-28 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  oh definitely, let's all boycott planes made by "corporate fucks" and commit to flying only on planes made by little, friendly, ma-and-pa type ventures.
  
  --
  to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...
good stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 08:45 · Score: 0

wowo this is a good article good stuff slashdot
Tyler Durden by Okian+Warrior · 2013-01-28 09:22 · Score: 1

FWIW, I did get the reference (and I own the movie).
I was addressing the intent of the reference in its original context. There's lots of reason to despair the heartless actuarial calculations of corporations, but only where warranted.
Note that I didn't snark your post (an urge that I find difficult to control). Don't be disheartened - your post wasn't modded "Funny", even though it's a valid attempt. I was just trying to supply some background.
Water doesn't always work by coyote_oww · 2013-01-28 09:43 · Score: 1

My first day on the job in a very brief career as a firefighter, we responded to a vehicle fire. I backed up the engineer on the hose. The engineer pointed out the magnesium shifter in the cab of the truck - it was throwing sparks as if we were applying a grinder to it rather than 100gpm. Because it was small we could disapate enough heat to put out the fire, but it was kinda cool. We got more of an explanation back at the station.
1. Re:Water doesn't always work by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 11:27 · Score: 0
  
  Why would they make something like that out of magnesium?
2. Re:Water doesn't always work by Neo+Quietus · 2013-01-28 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  High strength to weight ratio, I believe.
Working as Designed by Greyfox · 2013-01-28 11:44 · Score: 1

If it were IBM, the problem report would be closed with "bursting into flames is working as designed" for this particular product, and that if that is not a desired feature of the product, please submit a design-change request, the form for which can be found in the attic, in the file cabinet with the sign "beware of leopard" on it. There is an actual leopard down there. And the lights are burned out. They have been, since the last janitor met his demise finding out about the leopard.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Fate is the Hunter by occasional_dabbler · 2013-01-28 12:45 · Score: 1

Anyone who wants to see how far we've come in aircraft safety should read Ernest K Gann's autobiographical account of the early days of commercial flight. Each chapter begins with a long list of dead pilots. The bottom line is that until the NTSB issue a report detailing the causes of these incidents then no-one in the public domain has a f#cking clue what is going on and everything you read in the press is garbage. Aircraft are very complex systems and they are tested beyond reason before they are even allowed to be flown on test flights. The traditional tests cover the obvious limit and ultimate structural loads, fatigue and damage tolerance, system life and endurance. All factored for worst case statistical scatter of all properties. For the /. audience, software follows DO178B the testing of software can take years, I've seen it even on simple add-on systems.
The fact that these batteries are failing shows that something very, very strange is happening and there is no way that any corporation or government could sweep it under the carpet.

--
"Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
Re:Ask Dell by viperidaenz · 2013-01-28 12:55 · Score: 1

Its not like there are many other options for lithium batteries, its China or Japan.
Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 15:53 · Score: 0

The Japanese have found that there is no potential difference between their batteries and non-faulty units.
Once the inspectors took their daily lithium suplement, their mood changed for the positive!
Any inspectors with pooly reflecting reports were immediately discharged.
I wouldn't get all charged up over this one---no negativity!
Check the variables by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 23:35 · Score: 0

The big variable between their negative tests and the live situations where the fires occurred is the passenger.
I have some old super-annuated crap-tops that only run plugged in. When I turn them on, the lights dim.
A couple of hundred passengers with plugged in devices - what's the odds that one of them will have a short-circuit?
I'm willing to bet that the tests for this where either simulated, or used identical, shrink-wrapped modern devices.
Some background reading by pev · 2013-01-29 02:32 · Score: 1

I did a load of background reading on this yesterday so here's some interesting related material. One interesting source is the NASA guidelines for li-ion use in space :
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090023862_2009023573.pdf
Now NASA I think have a pretty good track record of thinking technologies through carefully... (By the by, did you know that GS Yuasa also have a contract to supply their li-ion batteries to NASA for use in the ISS?)
Also, did you know that prior to the 787 the Cessna CJ4 was the first civili aircraft to utilise li-ion batteries (supplied by a123). In 2011 there was a fire onboard one whilst it was connected to a ground power unit. As a result the FAA ordered all 42 in operation to be changed to conventional ni-cd or lead acid.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-11-01/html/2011-27596.htm
This is interesting as it's similar i.e. on the ground. This of course *could* be coincidental.
Next up are lots of interesting pictures from the NTSB investigation. Much as I HATE to link to the Daily Mail (normally a pretty retarded publication) I couldn't find any other pic sources. Bizarre :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268152/Boeing-787-Dreamliners-burnt-battery-spewed-molten-electrolytes-reveal-investigators.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
And some great source material from the NTSB themselves :
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2013/boeing_787/boeing_787.html
And the NTSB update on the investigation (including some samples of their cell CT scans) :
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2013/boeing_787/JAL_B-787_1-24-13.pdf
NTSB Primer on li-ion battery tech :
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2013/boeing_787/Primer_LIB_Technology.pdf
One of the theories being talked about are the fact that the li-ion batteries that Boieng (via Thales) decided on are based on a lithium cobalt oxide cathode which is old tech and regarded as not exactly the safest variant of li-ion technology out there :
http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=257987
and via a translation :
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tu.no%2Findustri%2F2013%2F01%2F17%2Fher-er-dreamliner-problemet
This EEtimes article has some interesting comments :
http://cdn.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4405441/787-Dreamliner-investigation-probes-battery-charging-electronic
And some info from GS Yuasa :
http://www.s399157097.onlinehome.us/SpecSheets/LVP10-65.pdf
All interesting stuff. Personally I think they shouldn't have been allowed to 'trial' li-ion on such a big aircraft especially after the cessna incident. Trying so many new tricks at once isn't wise - as engineers always say, just change one thing at a time...
1. Re:Some background reading by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 23:02 · Score: 0
  
  This is how Securaplane (US co. making the charging circuitry for the 787) has had it building destroyed in 2006 by a 787 battery...
  http://www.cnbc.com/id/100393626/UPDATE_2US_787_probe_puts_spotlight_on_Arizona_battery_firm
Who knows by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 12:08 · Score: 0

I wonder how may of tests and qualification have been performed on the ground vs. at regular flight elevation. Up there we have significant higher levels of radiation, charged or other particles (fast protons and neutrons etc. included). It known that the neutron flux at 40000 to 50000 feet is about 400x what it is at sea level (speak Seattle). Particles can interact with electronics (charger & control) or even with Lithium in the battery -- Lithium nuclei can interact with neutrons and create charged particles (Tritium) and quite some energy ...
Everybody knew there was risks... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 22:19 · Score: 0

Just to add that the company making the circuits handling the battery charge/discharge has had its' plant destroyed by fire when testing the 787 battery with their circuits... (everybody working within the aerospace business knows about it (especialy when dealing with the electrical system of the 787, as I do)).
Risks where known... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 22:59 · Score: 0

My previous post has been removed?
Check by yourselves how securaplane (US co. making the charging circuitry) has had its' building destroyed by a 787 battery in 2006...
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100393626/UPDATE_2US_787_probe_puts_spotlight_on_Arizona_battery_firm