Old 02-08-2013, 06:08 AM   #121
Spectator
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: FAPE/PLZ
Posts: 152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
I haven't heard of many cases of battery fires in hybrid and electric cars. In fact, I haven't heard of a single one.
Crash testing the Chevy Volt resulted in two fires - weeks after the test. IIRC the cause was coolant fluid leaking into the damaged battery and causing a short. Nevertheless, during the investigation, even with "severe" physical damage to the battery pack, they did not manage to cause another fire. Post crash protocol was revised to require discharging the battery as a precaution. http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/11...hevrolet-volt/

And...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessandro View Post
Mr Elon Musk explains what he thinks is the problem,
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...unsafe-381627/
Even SpaceX is successfully using Lithium battery tech.

Methinks Boeing needs to (1) choose a new battery supplier (SpaceX, cut the politics) and (2) stop fooling themselves that lithium batteries don't have the potential to cause fires (hopefully they've learned this by now)
Spectator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 06:37 AM   #122
Black Ram
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 242
Default

Yeah, the Chevy Volt did catch fire.
Apparently, not all Li-ion batteries are the same. They can have different chemistry and some say this makes a fundamental difference. There was also the 'differences in design' opinion from SpaceX.
So can we put all these lithium batteries under the same denominator? Maybe somehow Boeing just chose the most unstable chemistry and design. And what about the safety mechanisms and sophisticated battery electronic control which should have prevented all this? I think the NTSB is looking into that too.
Black Ram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 12:44 PM   #123
TeeVee
Senior Member
 
TeeVee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: MIA
Posts: 1,406
Default

well, from what i've read, LiPo batteries have none of the problems that LiIon batteries do. makes ya wonder...
TeeVee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 04:27 PM   #124
UALdave
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 183
Default

So this is Boeing's half-baked solution: http://www.tampabay.com/news/busines...es-say/1275693

Great! Who doesn't want to fly on an airplane where there's a contained fire on board! The FAA will probably reject this, as they should.

IMO, Boeing needs to quit playing around with their future and just install lead-cadmium batteries in all 787s. This is nuts.
UALdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 03:52 AM   #125
SYDCBRWOD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UALdave View Post
So this is Boeing's half-baked solution: http://www.tampabay.com/news/busines...es-say/1275693

Great! Who doesn't want to fly on an airplane where there's a contained fire on board! The FAA will probably reject this, as they should.

IMO, Boeing needs to quit playing around with their future and just install lead-cadmium batteries in all 787s. This is nuts.
Why lead? Why not NiCd?
SYDCBRWOD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 04:11 AM   #126
Gabriel
Senior Member
 
Gabriel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Buenos Aires - Argentina
Posts: 4,125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
Why lead? Why not NiCd?
Why Ni-Cd?
Why not Li-MH, or Li-Po?
Gabriel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 11:13 PM   #127
UALdave
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
Why Ni-Cd?
Why not Li-MH, or Li-Po?
What are Li-MH or Li-Po batteries; what do those letters stand for?? I've mentioned lead-cadmium batteries so much, because, other then lithium-ion, they're the only batteries that I've heard of being used on a commercial aircraft.

So we have a family friend who worked for United for decades, and he said the problem with replacing the lithium-ion batteries with something heavier, is that the airline will be able to carry less passengers. But, better that then a serious safety hazard on-board, IMO.
UALdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 02:11 AM   #128
SYDCBRWOD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UALdave View Post
What are Li-MH or Li-Po batteries; what do those letters stand for?? I've mentioned lead-cadmium batteries so much, because, other then lithium-ion, they're the only batteries that I've heard of being used on a commercial aircraft.

So we have a family friend who worked for United for decades, and he said the problem with replacing the lithium-ion batteries with something heavier, is that the airline will be able to carry less passengers. But, better that then a serious safety hazard on-board, IMO.
Lead Calcium is probably what started your car this morning. Lead has issues including power density weight to power ratios and the Puekert Effect. Not well suited to an environment requiring lots of power in a short space of time whilst also being light and small.

NiCd (Nickel Cadmiums) are a proven option lighter and smaller than Lead chemistries (but with memory issues and high discharge issues). Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMh) is probably a better bet again.

LiPo (Lithium Polymer) may be straying to close to the unstable end of the spectrum.
SYDCBRWOD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 06:11 PM   #129
Highkeas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: at 1,600 metres
Posts: 1,110
Default

On a side note one of the areas that US exporters (including Boeing) have to take into consideration is the toxicity of their products. Certain countries and the EU have restrictions on the use of toxic metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium, and chromium. These restriction result in cost when disposing of products such as batteries.
Li-ion batteries can be readily disposed of.
Highkeas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 12:02 AM   #130
EconomyClass
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,380
Default

Just curious. Is the global lithium supply any sort of limiting factor in what batteries can be built into all sorts of electronics and transportation? Any research on viable non-lithium options? Seems like you see lithium in everything these days. (Apropos of nothing, I wish I'd put 25 percent of my retirement money in platinum a few years back)
EconomyClass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 11:32 AM   #131
tsv
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UALdave View Post
So this is Boeing's half-baked solution: http://www.tampabay.com/news/busines...es-say/1275693

Great! Who doesn't want to fly on an airplane where there's a contained fire on board! The FAA will probably reject this, as they should.

IMO, Boeing needs to quit playing around with their future and just install lead-cadmium batteries in all 787s. This is nuts.
I'm sure they have a plan B which involves lead-cadmium or something other than Li-Ion. But if they can hoodwink the FAA into letting them fly with increased containment system they will. They have obviously identified this as the optimum solution and will campaign for it for all they are worth.

If it doesn't work they will have a Plan B with safer Battery Choice.
tsv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 10:10 PM   #132
Highkeas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: at 1,600 metres
Posts: 1,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EconomyClass View Post
Just curious. Is the global lithium supply any sort of limiting factor ..............
I don't think so. I use Al-Li alloys for aerospace structures and have never heard that there mat be a lithium shortage. However the main cost impact of using Al-Li (over other al alloys) is that special friction stir weld equipment is required.
Highkeas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 10:23 PM   #133
Highkeas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: at 1,600 metres
Posts: 1,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsv View Post
I'm sure they have a plan B which involves lead-cadmium ..............
Twp posters have mentioned lead-cadmium batteries; as far as I know there is no such nbattery type. There are lead-acid and nickel-cadmium batteries.

For info on battery power capabilities see attached plot from Aviation Week.
Highkeas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2013, 01:51 PM   #134
tsv
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highkeas View Post
Twp posters have mentioned lead-cadmium batteries; as far as I know there is no such nbattery type. There are lead-acid and nickel-cadmium batteries.

For info on battery power capabilities see attached plot from Aviation Week.
Sorry for my mistake, you are correct of course. But anyway they will have several plans. If possible they will persevere with the LI-ION option with enhanced containment because there will be less new systems to be tested and approved so less down time. And if they manage to get approval for the Lithium option (again) there will probably be weight benefits.

But if the FAA get shaky about Li-Ion and want Nickel-Cadmium/Lead Acid or whatever they will have a Plan B ready to accommodate theme. Obviously at the end of the day they need the 787 back in the Air no matter what because they can still make a lot of money out of this Aircraft in the longer term. Or lose a lot if it doesn't get it's wings back.
tsv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 01:23 PM   #135
Alessandro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: European Union
Posts: 1,067
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EconomyClass View Post
Just curious. Is the global lithium supply any sort of limiting factor in what batteries can be built into all sorts of electronics and transportation? Any research on viable non-lithium options? Seems like you see lithium in everything these days. (Apropos of nothing, I wish I'd put 25 percent of my retirement money in platinum a few years back)
OT no, large untapped resources in Chile and Bolivia.
Back to the 787 grounding,
both JAL and ANA has now cancelled 787 flights until end of May.
__________________
"The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"
Alessandro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 05:45 PM   #136
UALdave
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 183
Default

So, what type of battery does the 747-8 use? Because they haven't the problems that the 787 has.
UALdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 06:10 PM   #137
Highkeas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: at 1,600 metres
Posts: 1,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UALdave View Post
So, what type of battery does the 747-8 use? Because they haven't the problems that the 787 has.
Earlier commercial airplane models, such as the 777, 747 and MD-11, used nickel cadmium (NiCd) batteries, which are heavier, larger and less powerful.
Source: http://787updates.newairplane.com/78...nced-Airplanes

I think this should say: "...........heavier and larger for equal power."
Highkeas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 06:30 PM   #138
UALdave
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highkeas View Post
Earlier commercial airplane models, such as the 777, 747 and MD-11, used nickel cadmium (NiCd) batteries, which are heavier, larger and less powerful.
Source: http://787updates.newairplane.com/78...nced-Airplanes

I think this should say: "...........heavier and larger for equal power."
OK, thanks! Well, Boeing is allowed now to carry out some test flights with what they think is their battery fix/solution. It will be interesting to see how those go.

When do people on here think that the 787 will resume commercial service? I've read people who say that it will resume this summer, but I don't know.
UALdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 08:25 PM   #139
Gabriel
Senior Member
 
Gabriel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Buenos Aires - Argentina
Posts: 4,125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highkeas View Post
Earlier commercial airplane models, such as the 777, 747 and MD-11, used nickel cadmium (NiCd) batteries, which are heavier, larger and less powerful.
Source: http://787updates.newairplane.com/78...nced-Airplanes

I think this should say: "...........heavier and larger for equal power."
I'm sure you'll find some range beyond the size of a Li-ion battery but before reaching an equal power where the NiCd will be all three heavier, lager and less powerful.
Gabriel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 04:59 PM   #140
Alessandro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: European Union
Posts: 1,067
Red face

Glad they arent sponsored by "non smoking generation", http://www.nyteknik.se/popular_tekni...cle3653904.ece
__________________
"The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"
Alessandro is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:23 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright JetPhotos.Net 2003-2011