Boeing 787 toast

124»

Comments

  • waynefromnscanada
    waynefromnscanada Solar Expert Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭✭
    #92
    Re: Boeing 787 toast

    Ouch! That's rather sobering. :cry:
    · Share on Twitter
  • inetdog
    inetdog Solar Expert Posts: 3,123 ✭✭✭✭
    #93
    Re: Boeing 787 toast
    waynefromnscanada wrote: »
    Ouch! That's rather sobering. :cry:
    Indeed. And therefore calls for supplemental in-flight beverage service.

    Returning to a serious vein, the most complete and technically competent discussion I have found so far is at this forum and thread. Currently at post # 1252.
    SMA SB 3000, old BP panels.
    · Share on Twitter
  • waynefromnscanada
    waynefromnscanada Solar Expert Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭✭
    #94
    Re: Boeing 787 toast

    Now, just when it's looking like Boeing has a handle on their batteries, M'bishi Motors is having problems with theirs.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/10/mitsubishi-hybrid-battery-idUSL3N0CXDAV20130410?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologySector
    · Share on Twitter
  • KnowledgeSponge
    KnowledgeSponge Solar Expert Posts: 173 ✭✭✭
    #95
    Re: Boeing 787 toast

    I hope Boeing doesn't have any additional major issues with the Dreamliner.

    It's very early in the deployment stage to have a string of major issues although this IS when really bad problems will become painfully apparent.

    Before Airbus was a viable contender, Boeing could weather these types of things better. Now, multi-billion dollar decisions can make the difference between
    keeping employees of Boeing at work or layoffs. And on going headaches for Boeings' customers affect those decisions.

    I visited the Boeing plant in Seattle years back. Wouldn't mind working there.
    · Share on Twitter
  • inetdog
    inetdog Solar Expert Posts: 3,123 ✭✭✭✭
    #96
    Re: Boeing 787 toast
    Cariboocoot wrote: »
    Here's a wild idea: maybe the batteries were just plain defective. That can happen with any type of battery. It is especially possible with a new design. It could just be that no one did anything wrong, that everything did work out on paper, but still some undetectable flaw occurred which was enough to cause the problem.

    These batteries used an existing Yuasa type of cell, just combined into a new assembly with integral battery management system.
    There has been no indication that a particular manufacturing run had a problem, although I believe that the two failed batteries had similar manufacturing dates.

    But there were a lot of things that were not considered in the design. That is the part that scares me most.

    They did not really do a good enough analysis, IHMO, of the mechanical effects of repeated deep discharges and fast charges combined with atmospheric pressure variations. No smoking gun, but a good probability that the wrapped layers of electrode and separator suffered mechanical damage that eventually resulted in an internal short in one cell.

    There was a brief reference in one of the reports that suggested that there may have been some winding anomalies (bulging, folding) in the cells of the good forward battery of the Boston plane. (As seen in a CAT scan. No disassembly done on the good battery AFAIK.)

    Once that happened, the inadequate thermal isolation design led to all the cells failing in thermal runaway mode.
    SMA SB 3000, old BP panels.
    · Share on Twitter

Categories