In 2006 lab test, 787 battery blew up, burned down building...

[TMMT]

In 2006 lab test, 787 battery blew up, burned down building...

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020199686_787batterysafetyxml.html

 

[ksu_aviator]

The point of testing isn't to see how it works under ideal conditions. The point of testing is to force it to fail to see what happens. The fact that the building burned down tells us that the battery can catch fire and nothing more. The building burned for its own defects and probably poor test design.

 

[dicko]

The point of testing isn't to see how it works under ideal conditions. The point of testing is to force it to fail to see what happens. The fact that the building burned down tells us that the battery can catch fire and nothing more. The building burned for its own defects and probably poor test design.

So ....... the same company that makes the battery chargers for the 787 burns down their own building during testing, and you're not concerned ?

Have you ever considered a career with the FAA ?

 

[jmreii]

Must be the same organization in which certifies a particular aircraft for known icing conditions only to go back and change it under the threat of lawsuits. Testing standards were worthless to begin with leading a person to believe money is worth more than a human life!

 

[bri5150]

The point of testing isn't to see how it works under ideal conditions. The point of testing is to force it to fail to see what happens. The fact that the building burned down tells us that the battery can catch fire and nothing more. The building burned for its own defects and probably poor test design.

While your point is valid, at the very least, this is VERY bad PR.

 

[ackattacker]

The point of testing isn't to see how it works under ideal conditions. The point of testing is to force it to fail to see what happens. The fact that the building burned down tells us that the battery can catch fire and nothing more. The building burned for its own defects and probably poor test design.

Well, that's a bit simplistic. Sometimes the point of testing is to force it to fail, and sometimes it's just to gather operational parameters (i.e. how it DOES work under normal conditions).

IF the point of that particular test was to "force it to fail", then presumably they would have expected failure and taken precautions so that a failure wouldn't burn down the building.

BTW there are many different kinds of Lithium battery chemistry. Some more volatile than others. From what I've read, the 787 batteries utilize the Lithium Cobalt Dioxide chemistry, similar to most laptop computers, and considered the least safe although they have very high energy density. Most electric cars such as the Chevy Volt utilize Lithium Manganese Dioxide which is slightly less energy dense but is much less susceptible to thermal runaway so it's far better from a safety and liability standpoint. There's also Lithium Iron Phosphate, which is even less energy dense but is considered extremely safe.

RC hobbiests have gone through this whole debate. The statistics of people burning down their house or car while charging RC lithium batteries are frightening. Now many RC enthusiasts are switching to Lithium Iron Phosphate even though it has less energy density.

 

[dicko]

While your point is valid, at the very least, this is VERY bad PR.

The company that burnt down their own building wasnt testing the battery. They were testing the charger they designed and built. A separate company designed and built the battery.

All the 'burn down our own building' company proved, was they're battery charger didn't work very well when attached to a battery. They also sent defective chargers to Boeing. The FAA said that didn't count, because the chargers were never installed. :erm:

 

[ackattacker]

http://www.luxresearchinc.com/news-and-events/press-releases/148.html

Interesting read.

 

[Stukadriver]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8R0ig0J4wk

This is a good demo, if you can put up with the sales pitch.

 

[Jar Jar]

Must be the same organization in which certifies a particular aircraft for known icing conditions only to go back and change it under the threat of lawsuits. Testing standards were worthless to begin with leading a person to believe money is worth more than a human life!

Didn't you read the NPRM on the rest rules? A Human life is worth ~$5M.

 

[KNOTS]

The point of testing isn't to see how it works under ideal conditions. The point of testing is to force it to fail to see what happens. The fact that the building burned down tells us that the battery can catch fire and nothing more. The building burned for its own defects and probably poor test design.

Oh, when you explain it like that.... it sounds so much better.

Why don't we install one at your house as a power source for you to use? Afterall... it did pass rigorous FAA testing standards prior to being put on the 787.

 

[SIG600]

They test engines to failure in development too. Wings, structures, etc. Whats the point?

The fact that they burned down their own building, while trying to fail the battery, just says they're clowns and weren't prepared for the battery fire that they were trying to cause.

 

[igneousy2]

They test engines to failure in development too. Wings, structures, etc. Whats the point?

The fact that they burned down their own building, while trying to fail the battery, just says they're clowns and weren't prepared for the battery fire that they were trying to cause.

Because the fire ended up being larger and more difficut to extinguish then they anticipated?

Doesn't this demonstrate that the engineers don't fully understand the technology and the implications should they get a runaway?

 

[ackattacker]

They test engines to failure in development too. Wings, structures, etc. Whats the point?

The fact that they burned down their own building, while trying to fail the battery, just says they're clowns and weren't prepared for the battery fire that they were trying to cause.

I dunno, according to this guy, who was there, the battery exploded "for no reason" and the charger wasn't even running at the time.

 

[JumpersAway]

I wonder if anyone at Boeing, at any time, thought to themselves "Hey, maybe all this outsourcing of our product is going to be bad for the quality of our product"? The thing has a fuselage constructed of Chinese carbon fiber- wonder how long it will be before they start having problems with that?

 

[xjhawk]

Correct me if I am wrong about the outsourcing at Boeing-but the management at some of the companies and the problems they were facing forced boeing to buy those bad companies and install their own management and quality control?

 

[igneousy2]

It's not just outsourcing by Boeing, part of the problem was the companies were "outsourcing the outsourcing". The french company Thales is the company that Boeing contracts for the electric system on the 787 who then contracts the Japanese company GS Yuasa for the batteries. I cannot imagine the logistics of maintaining quality control on so many layers of parts, contracted by so many different companies, in so many different countries.

 

[JimNtexas]

It's not just outsourcing by Boeing, part of the problem was the companies were "outsourcing the outsourcing". The french company Thales is the company that Boeing contracts for the electric system on the 787 who then contracts the Japanese company GS Yuasa for the batteries. I cannot imagine the logistics of maintaining quality control on so many layers of parts, contracted by so many different companies, in so many different countries.

Is there a company (including Boeing USA) that makes both aircraft electrical systems and batteries?

AFAIK Boeing doesn't make tires either. So what?

 

[jmreii]

Didn't you read the NPRM on the rest rules? A Human life is worth ~$5M.

The rest rules are for the crews flying passengers. I have had more than one FAA person tell me he or she could care less if a cargo jet crashes into a cow pasture, its not a problem unless the jet hits a occupied house.

 

[igneousy2]

Is there a company (including Boeing USA) that makes both aircraft electrical systems and batteries?

AFAIK Boeing doesn't make tires either. So what?

Boeing makes neither on the 787.