Dreamliner probe widens after excess battery voltage ruled out

Comments (8)
WJL wrote:

7 years ago, in 2006 there was already 1 incident with battery fires. yet Boeing still have the same problems.

What is really going on??? The public needs answers not hype and excuses!!!!

Jan 20, 2013 7:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Doc62 wrote:

Sad for Boeing. The legendary builder is having financial ills. Lets blame Britain’s Meggitt Plc. I’m waiting for the racist/teabag bloggers to blame president Obama.

Jan 20, 2013 8:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AZWarrior wrote:

Thermal runaway is a real danger in lithium ion batteries. There use is only due to the desire to reduce weight and save fuel costs. Perhaps it is time to return to ni-cad batteries and trade a little weight for safety?

Jan 20, 2013 8:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Neurochuck wrote:

From a limited knowledge of electrical engineering, I can think of several issues that have to be “designed away” when moving from an electrically conductive metal alloy skin and frame “Faraday cage” to insulating fibre/epoxy:
- electrostatic charge buildup
- induced voltages and currents from nearby lightning strikes
- greater radiation at high altitudes.
These are different conditions to using Li-ion batteries in cars, laptops, remote communications gear, etc.
It would be interesting to read a college level article about this, any refs ?
“to boldly go where no man has gone before”

Jan 20, 2013 9:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gregbrew56 wrote:

Lithium chemistry battery management systems (BMS) MUST be very precise in their control of current and voltages both in charge and discharge mode. They’re notoriously failure-prone and suffer from thermal runaway if not designed into a system properly. I’m with AZWarrior. Go back to NiMH (NiCd was a precursor chemistry that suffered from a “memory” effect). It’s known and stable. Hundreds of first generation Toyota RAV4-EVs use them, and are still on the road after 100,000 miles or more. Even if we’re talking a hundred pounds more weight for the system, it’s much safer.

Stan Ovshinski knew what he was doing when he invented them. May he RIP.

Jan 21, 2013 1:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
paulmadden707 wrote:

Given that there is no way to put out a lithium battery fire, just contain it, I wonder if the containment system is itself fault tolerant, that is, is it redundant to some degree? If a single-string containment system (pumps, fans, motors, etc.) were to fail, the aircraft would probably be lost.

Jan 21, 2013 9:22am EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

“Securaplane, which first began working on the charger in 2004, suffered millions of dollars of damages in November 2006 after a lithium-ion battery used in testing exploded and sparked a fire that burned an administrative building to the ground.”


Jan 21, 2013 11:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
TomKi wrote:

My advise to Boeing: Forget about lithium battery. The public trust on your use of it in the 787 is lost. Create an emergency engineering team to design an alternative, perhaps NiMH, on the 787. You have to gain FAA certification on this again. Yes this is painful but you deserve it.

Jan 21, 2013 3:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.