When will the next 787 burn?

Posted in the Minneapolis Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Bushwhacker

Minneapolis, MN

#1 Apr 26, 2013
FAA approved flights to begin.

It's not a matter of IF but when the next fire and perhaps explosion will occur on a 787. You see the stonger the battery box the more intense the explosion. So when Boeing built a stronger battery box it just made up a more powerful explosion. Ask any terrorist and they will tell you it's so.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#2 Apr 26, 2013
The box is stronger than the possible explosion, think car's engine/gasoline.....

What's even sillier is they added insulation to prevent heat...

No explosion, without heat..

Think riding a bicycle, moron.....
Bushwhacker

Minneapolis, MN

#3 Apr 26, 2013
Why does a pressure cooker make a wonderfull explosion container?

The gasses from lithium ion batery cells is explosive.

Fill any container with explosive gasses and it WILL explode.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#4 Apr 26, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
Why does a pressure cooker make a wonderfull explosion container?
The gasses from lithium ion batery cells is explosive.
Fill any container with explosive gasses and it WILL explode.
The box is vented to the outside I believe, so it will not explode unless the gases, hydrogen and oxygen, in stoichiometric ratios, cannot vent out of the box. I am pretty sure the box is vented to the outside.

If the gases cannot vent out, a spark is needed, that would have to be a bad connection to the group of cells forming the battery or an internal short during recharge inside the cells. Both could happen.

While the explosion could happen, it is unlikely to result in lots of damage, battery venting systems attached to the cells use explosion of the hydrogen and oxygen to blow the fire out.

The more likely scenario for a lithium battery failure is that a cell goes into thermal runaway(things do not conduct electricity as well when they are warm, the resulting heat feeds back, causing the cell to melt, opening the electrodes to open environment, potentially shorting, sparking, and catching the hydrogen produced during recharge on fire.)

Insulating the cells from one another may stop this, or it may just make it take longer for the other cells not in thermal runaway to heat up and also go into thermal runaway, resulting in the battery burning up. Insulating the cells would make them less likely initially to cause other cells around them to fail, but the insulation could actually make them operate at hotter temperatures, contributing to more battery failures than the previous configuration. In addition, if the cells operate warmer because they are insulated, corrosion increases internally, approximately doubling for every 10 deg. C of operating temperature, so running the batteries hotter with more insulation shortens the battery life, and increases the internal resistance, making the battery warmer as the battery ages.

This is what could happen, but not necessarily what will happen. It is still a poor battery chemistry selection choice for the application, with the main benefit being weight to power/energy density, and the drawback being the potential for catastrophic failure.

Only time will tell.
Bushwhacker

Minneapolis, MN

#5 Apr 26, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>The box is vented to the outside I believe, so it will not explode unless the gases, hydrogen and oxygen, in stoichiometric ratios, cannot vent out of the box. I am pretty sure the box is vented to the outside.
If the gases cannot vent out, a spark is needed, that would have to be a bad connection to the group of cells forming the battery or an internal short during recharge inside the cells. Both could happen.
While the explosion could happen, it is unlikely to result in lots of damage, battery venting systems attached to the cells use explosion of the hydrogen and oxygen to blow the fire out.
The more likely scenario for a lithium battery failure is that a cell goes into thermal runaway(things do not conduct electricity as well when they are warm, the resulting heat feeds back, causing the cell to melt, opening the electrodes to open environment, potentially shorting, sparking, and catching the hydrogen produced during recharge on fire.)
Insulating the cells from one another may stop this, or it may just make it take longer for the other cells not in thermal runaway to heat up and also go into thermal runaway, resulting in the battery burning up. Insulating the cells would make them less likely initially to cause other cells around them to fail, but the insulation could actually make them operate at hotter temperatures, contributing to more battery failures than the previous configuration. In addition, if the cells operate warmer because they are insulated, corrosion increases internally, approximately doubling for every 10 deg. C of operating temperature, so running the batteries hotter with more insulation shortens the battery life, and increases the internal resistance, making the battery warmer as the battery ages.
This is what could happen, but not necessarily what will happen. It is still a poor battery chemistry selection choice for the application, with the main benefit being weight to power/energy density, and the drawback being the potential for catastrophic failure.
Only time will tell.
Thanks for the explanation.

I sincerely hope NO 787s have another problem.

It's interesting one of the Japanese airlines will add a realtime monitoring system to the 787s they fly. Such monitoring would seem like a great idea. At least for a period of time to get a track record for the Boeing fix.

Seems like a strong box full of hydrogen gas and flamable electrolyte and ample source of sparks with a relatively small vent hole might blow up.

Maybe Boeing did their homework but history indicates they might not have. Furthermore other users of lithium-ion batteries in cars are saying the Boeing lithium-ion batteries are a design for a disaster. I don't fly much and will be avoiding the 787 until it flys for a couple of years without a undesirable outcome.

Thanks again for the informative posting.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#6 Apr 27, 2013
The box is stronger than the possible explosion, think car's engine/gasoline.....

What's even sillier is they added insulation to prevent heat...

No explosion, without heat..

Think riding a bicycle, moron.....
Consistent

Grantsburg, WI

#7 Apr 27, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
The box is stronger than the possible explosion, think car's engine/gasoline.....
What's even sillier is they added insulation to prevent heat...
No explosion, without heat..
Think riding a bicycle, moron.....
Just get help, and no taking 787 to your Gay Capital of the world, "The HOME of AIDS", Haiti.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#8 Apr 27, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
The box is stronger than the possible explosion, think car's engine/gasoline.....
What's even sillier is they added insulation to prevent heat...
No explosion, without heat..
Think riding a bicycle, moron.....
What is even sillier is that the heat is caused inside each cell on recharge of the said cells. Insulating them makes each individual cell warmer. How many battery and fuel cell patents do you have again, subject matter expert on everything slewche?

As for the box being stronger than the explosion, automobile engines direct the force of the very small explosions out through the exhaust vents. If the explosions were not directed to the crankshaft by way of the pistons and the gases out through the exhaust, the engine would likely break apart. You might want to think on your explanations occasionally.

There has to be holes cut into the box to allow conductive wiring in and out to the battery, in addition, holes to vent gases. If there is a big explosion inside the box, all the force/heat from said explosion will force out through those holes at whatever is outside the box, or if the venting is not great enough, possibly rupture the box. Think fuel tank explosion. That is why the gases are vented outside the plane by way of battery exhaust manifolds. If the battery overheats, going into thermal runaway, the cells can melt, flooding the box with a lot of hydrogen and oxygen, that can explode given a spark.

Your simplistic attempt to compare the battery box to an internal combustion engine is way off.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#10 Apr 27, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>What is even sillier is that the heat is caused inside each cell on recharge of the said cells. Insulating them makes each individual cell warmer. How many battery and fuel cell patents do you have again, subject matter expert on everything slewche?
As for the box being stronger than the explosion, automobile engines direct the force of the very small explosions out through the exhaust vents. If the explosions were not directed to the crankshaft by way of the pistons and the gases out through the exhaust, the engine would likely break apart. You might want to think on your explanations occasionally.
There has to be holes cut into the box to allow conductive wiring in and out to the battery, in addition, holes to vent gases. If there is a big explosion inside the box, all the force/heat from said explosion will force out through those holes at whatever is outside the box, or if the venting is not great enough, possibly rupture the box. Think fuel tank explosion. That is why the gases are vented outside the plane by way of battery exhaust manifolds. If the battery overheats, going into thermal runaway, the cells can melt, flooding the box with a lot of hydrogen and oxygen, that can explode given a spark.
Your simplistic attempt to compare the battery box to an internal combustion engine is way off.
Insulating them makes them warmer, so they vented it, too... As for my patents, I hold as many as you, but the experts who fixed it hold more... Many more than a moron who, said it would take 6 months or never be fixed....

Have a "Guiness", we can drink to your stupidity....

Pretty funny, you demanded a bet YOU RAN AWAY FROM & LOST !!!
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#11 Apr 27, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>What is even sillier is that the heat is caused inside each cell on recharge of the said cells. Insulating them makes each individual cell warmer. How many battery and fuel cell patents do you have again, subject matter expert on everything slewche?
As for the box being stronger than the explosion, automobile engines direct the force of the very small explosions out through the exhaust vents. If the explosions were not directed to the crankshaft by way of the pistons and the gases out through the exhaust, the engine would likely break apart. You might want to think on your explanations occasionally.
There has to be holes cut into the box to allow conductive wiring in and out to the battery, in addition, holes to vent gases. If there is a big explosion inside the box, all the force/heat from said explosion will force out through those holes at whatever is outside the box, or if the venting is not great enough, possibly rupture the box. Think fuel tank explosion. That is why the gases are vented outside the plane by way of battery exhaust manifolds. If the battery overheats, going into thermal runaway, the cells can melt, flooding the box with a lot of hydrogen and oxygen, that can explode given a spark.
Your simplistic attempt to compare the battery box to an internal combustion engine is way off.
Pretty funny, you've gotta ignore the vents, the experts, and your own lies... Poor childish guy. Took less than a month, broke, dumb, drunk.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#12 Apr 27, 2013
Perhaps, if you were non-stupid, instead of a non-starter. People would pay attention to you ??

Nope, blather about 6 months, on a battery rework done in February.

Yeah, I wrote rework and so did Boeing, boi.

Boeing said on Monday that the first flight test of its reworked battery system for the 787 Dreamliner went "according to plan," enabling it to move on to formal testing.



The company said it would analyze the results of several weeks of testing, which included blowing up the batteries in labs, and then forward the results to the Federal Aviation Administration, probably early next week. Aviation analysts said the F.A.A., which has overseen the testing, could approve the changes later this month if no other problems surface, and the planes, which have been grounded since mid-January, could be flying again in May.

Gee, "6 months and never" moved to May ????

You American job haters/teabaggers need new watches, sundials ain't working...
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#13 Apr 27, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
<quoted text>Insulating them makes them warmer, so they vented it, too... As for my patents, I hold as many as you, but the experts who fixed it hold more... Many more than a moron who, said it would take 6 months or never be fixed....
Have a "Guiness", we can drink to your stupidity....
Pretty funny, you demanded a bet YOU RAN AWAY FROM & LOST !!!
Unlikely that you hold any patents, while I worked in R&D building different battery chemistry's for over 10 years. Grow up, mental midget.
Bushwhacker

Minneapolis, MN

#14 Apr 27, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
Perhaps, if you were non-stupid, instead of a non-starter. People would pay attention to you ??
Nope, blather about 6 months, on a battery rework done in February.
Yeah, I wrote rework and so did Boeing, boi.
Boeing said on Monday that the first flight test of its reworked battery system for the 787 Dreamliner went "according to plan," enabling it to move on to formal testing.
The company said it would analyze the results of several weeks of testing, which included blowing up the batteries in labs, and then forward the results to the Federal Aviation Administration, probably early next week. Aviation analysts said the F.A.A., which has overseen the testing, could approve the changes later this month if no other problems surface, and the planes, which have been grounded since mid-January, could be flying again in May.
Gee, "6 months and never" moved to May ????
You American job haters/teabaggers need new watches, sundials ain't working...
On one hand you claim the batteries won't blow up and the other "which included blowing up the batteries in the lab".

IF the batteries are vented enough to prevent an explosion HOW did Boeing manage to blow up batteries in a lab?

I pray the continued test flights, with paying passengers, go without a hitch. I would like to fly a SAFE 787.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#15 Apr 27, 2013
Insulating them makes them warmer, so they vented it, too...

As for my patents, I hold as many as you, but the experts who fixed it hold more... Many more than a moron who, said it would take 6 months or never be fixed....

Have a "Guiness", we can drink to your stupidity....

Pretty funny, you demanded a bet YOU RAN AWAY FROM & LOST !!!

Yeah, you're a high "funkioning" guy, who can't find $10k.... LMAOROFU~!
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#16 Apr 27, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
Why does a pressure cooker make a wonderfull explosion container?
The gasses from lithium ion batery cells is explosive.
Fill any container with explosive gasses and it WILL explode.
"wonderfull, batery"

You're my expert, when I need moronically misspelled mutterings....
Bushwhacker

Minneapolis, MN

#17 Apr 27, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
Perhaps, if you were non-stupid, instead of a non-starter. People would pay attention to you ??
Nope, blather about 6 months, on a battery rework done in February.
Yeah, I wrote rework and so did Boeing, boi.
Boeing said on Monday that the first flight test of its reworked battery system for the 787 Dreamliner went "according to plan," enabling it to move on to formal testing.
The company said it would analyze the results of several weeks of testing, which included blowing up the batteries in labs, and then forward the results to the Federal Aviation Administration, probably early next week. Aviation analysts said the F.A.A., which has overseen the testing, could approve the changes later this month if no other problems surface, and the planes, which have been grounded since mid-January, could be flying again in May.
Gee, "6 months and never" moved to May ????
You American job haters/teabaggers need new watches, sundials ain't working...
On one hand you claim the batteries won't blow up and the other "which included blowing up the batteries in the lab".

IF the batteries are vented enough to prevent an explosion HOW did Boeing manage to blow up batteries in a lab?

I pray the continued test flights, with paying passengers, go without a hitch. I would like to fly a SAFE 787.
The Truth

Saint Paul, MN

#18 Apr 28, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
<quoted text>
On one hand you claim the batteries won't blow up and the other "which included blowing up the batteries in the lab".
IF the batteries are vented enough to prevent an explosion HOW did Boeing manage to blow up batteries in a lab?
I pray the continued test flights, with paying passengers, go without a hitch. I would like to fly a SAFE 787.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-m...
Consistent

Grantsburg, WI

#20 Apr 28, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
<quoted text>They ran them outside parameters and proved the box held the explosion... Pretty sad, you're such a child.
Who are these people?

These Psychotics and Sociopaths

But researchers have found that the brains of sociopaths function differently than normal brains. And their brains function in a way that makes their emotional life unredeemably shallow. And yet they are capable of mimicking emotions like professional actors.
Bushwhacked

Saint Paul, MN

#23 Apr 28, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
They ran them outside parameters and proved the box held the explosion... Pretty sad, you're such a child.
Ethiopian Airlines has started flying the 787 again. What more proof does anyone need? Gay Slewsie and Ethopian Airlines both say they are safe.
Bushwhacker

Minneapolis, MN

#24 Apr 28, 2013
The airlines with 787s flew 50,000 hours before the 2 batteries overheated causing the fleet grounding.

New failures will not occur soon, but over time.

Let's all say a silent prayer no-one is injured in future events.

On a wing and a prayer the 787 flys.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Local widow of Ebola victim waiting for survivo... 14 min Free Money 1
Twin Cities: lowest metro unemployment rate in US 3 hr Liberal 24
Nina Pham 'cured of Ebola' and set to meet Obama 3 hr Liberal 6
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 5 hr Batch 37 Pain Is ... 32,994
New York physician tests positive for Ebola 20 hr cantmakeitup 4
Autopsy reports on Ferguson Shooting 20 hr cantmakeitup 13
He fled, fired -- and died (Feb '07) 21 hr Gonar 163
Minneapolis Dating
Find my Match

Minneapolis Jobs

Minneapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Minneapolis News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Minneapolis

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]