Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

Mark Hanson-2

Hi Folk's,
I was curious if anyone knows what type of lithium chemistry is in the 787 lithium fire.  I haven't had any problems with my CALB lithium-iron-phosphate LiFePO4 batteries, now just passed 10k miles in 6 months.  
BTW, when I sold my E-Porsche with Ni-Cads STM-180's they had 40k miles, the next guy put on another 10k and they're still going strong with the new owner at 60k miles.  So far ni-cads have been the longest lived (crappy-heavy lead was 10k max).
Have a renewable energy day,Markwww.REEVA.info      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20130116/d9b5357a/attachment.htm>
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

brucedp5
Take a look at

http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/EVLN-Overheated-Battery-Grounded-Boeing-787-Dreamliners-td4660631.html
EVLN: Overheated Battery Grounded Boeing 787 Dreamliners


There was a piece last week, but it had little details only concern. The above piece at least names the supplying li-ion vendor.


{brucedp.150m.com}
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

David Rees
In reply to this post by Mark Hanson-2
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Mark Hanson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I was curious if anyone knows what type of lithium chemistry is in the 787 lithium fire.  I haven't had any problems with my CALB lithium-iron-phosphate LiFePO4 batteries, now just passed 10k miles in 6 months.

The batteries used in the 787 are highly unstable (lithium-cobalt)
compared to LiFePO4.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1081753_boeing-787-batteries-same-as-those-in-electric-cars-umm-no

-Dave
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

robert winfield
you would think that after Sony had problems with LiCo batteries in laptops a few years ago.  They were exothermic

--- On Thu, 1/17/13, David Rees <[hidden email]> wrote:


From: David Rees <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 3:46 PM


On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Mark Hanson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I was curious if anyone knows what type of lithium chemistry is in the 787 lithium fire.  I haven't had any problems with my CALB lithium-iron-phosphate LiFePO4 batteries, now just passed 10k miles in 6 months.

The batteries used in the 787 are highly unstable (lithium-cobalt)
compared to LiFePO4.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1081753_boeing-787-batteries-same-as-those-in-electric-cars-umm-no

-Dave
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20130117/d91ea82b/attachment.htm>
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

Sean Korb
Think project extensions, cost overruns, corporate realities.  Imagine
in 2004 when they had to have the final final final design spec for
the lithium battery.  THey had to go through complete testing for
years, validate every aspect at all condidtions to pass and be
incorporated in the final design.

A little bit of fire in laptops?  Does that mean we have to scrap our
*already* *certefied* *for* *use* battery pack and have another delay?

No.  Acceptable risk.  And now they'[re grounded and they'll have to
do a redesign anway.

But... maybe there will be a small suppy of these 787 batts coming on
the used market soon?

Just my opinion, not worth a lot, mind you as I don't even play an expert on TV.
sean

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 4:08 PM, robert winfield <[hidden email]> wrote:

> you would think that after Sony had problems with LiCo batteries in laptops a few years ago.  They were exothermic
>
> --- On Thu, 1/17/13, David Rees <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> From: David Rees <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire
> To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 3:46 PM
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Mark Hanson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I was curious if anyone knows what type of lithium chemistry is in the 787 lithium fire.  I haven't had any problems with my CALB lithium-iron-phosphate LiFePO4 batteries, now just passed 10k miles in 6 months.
>
> The batteries used in the 787 are highly unstable (lithium-cobalt)
> compared to LiFePO4.
>
> http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1081753_boeing-787-batteries-same-as-those-in-electric-cars-umm-no
>
> -Dave
> _______________________________________________
> UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
> For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20130117/d91ea82b/attachment.htm>
> _______________________________________________
> UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
> For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
>



--
Sean Korb [hidden email] http://www.spkorb.org
'65,'68 Mustangs,'68 Cougar,'78 R100/7,'60 Metro,'59 A35,'71 Pantera #1382
"The more you drive, the less intelligent you get" --Miller
"Computers are useless.  They can only give you answers." -P. Picasso
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

Lee Hart
 > The batteries used in the 787 are highly unstable (lithium-cobalt)
 > compared to LiFePO4... You would think that after Sony had problems
 > with LiCo batteries in laptops a few years ago, Boeing would be
 > more careful...

Whenever someone uses a new technology, there is a tendency to pretend
it is just like the old one, only better. The people selling it will
encourage this view.

So, the engineers will plan for the failure modes they KNOW about, based
on what the PREVIOUS generation of battery did. But they can't plan for
failure modes that they DON'T know about.

Sony got "burned" by the LiCo batteries because they didn't know they
could burn so dramatically. After all, no previous battery technology
(lead-acid, nicad, nimh) could burn like that. As I recall, there were
quality control problems in the cells that could cause internal shorts,
which started the fires.

Presumably, Boeing knew about this. So, they probably set up quality
controls to prevent that type of failure from happening again. But,
there were obviously OTHER failure modes that they DID NOT know about.

All types of lithium batteries burn. The LiCo cells, because of their
higher voltage and higher stored energy, burn worse than LiFe cells. But
it's like comparing a box of matches to a box of kindling. Once lit,
they both burn dramatically.

And, any type of battery can provide a source of ignition. It can supply
enough voltage and current to heat something red-hot, which can start a
fire in surrounding materials, even if the battery itself won't burn.

It will be interesting to find out what actually caused the fires. That
will be the only way subsequent designers can learn from it, and avoid
making the same mistake again!
--
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls
and looks like work. -- Thomas A. Edison
--
Lee A. Hart, http://www.sunrise-ev.com/LeesEVs.htm
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

Ed Blackmond
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, Lee Hart wrote:

> Sony got "burned" by the LiCo batteries because they didn't know they
> could burn so dramatically. After all, no previous battery technology
> (lead-acid, nicad, nimh) could burn like that. As I recall, there were
> quality control problems in the cells that could cause internal shorts,
> which started the fires.

I thought the fires were caused by a protection circuit inside the cell.  
When the operating conditions (temperature of, voltage accross, or current
through the cell) exceeded specifications, the protection circuit would
open, disconnecting the battery.

The computer designers exceeded the specifications of the batteries by
creating long series chains (3 or 4) cells.  When the protection circuit
decided to protect the cell, the higher voltage caused an arc inside the
cell which started the fire.

Ed

_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

lwiniarski
In reply to this post by Lee Hart



When/why do you need the batteries anyway?  Only when the engines are stopped right?  i.e. emergency?    

Not to make light of the situation, but it would be ironic if the emergency battery system caused the plane to go down.      You really really really really

want this to be right... Otherwise you might be better to leave out the batteries entirely and make damn sure the engines never failed.
Sounds like they are right to ground them for this.
   

If you had several well separated smaller battery packs, at least you'd be assured that no single battery failure could cause a fire so big as to be unmanageable.   Might even
provide a way for them to literally fall out of the airplane if they got too hot.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20130117/8666346b/attachment.htm>
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

Bill Dube
In reply to this post by Lee Hart
I think this is the spec sheet for the cells used:
http://www.s399157097.onlinehome.us/SpecSheets/LVP10-65.pdf

The specific energy is less than LiFePO4, so they were not very
bright in choosing these. They could have picked LiFePO4, avoided the
fires, and kept the battery boxes the same size.

The specs on the GS batteries:
http://www.s399157097.onlinehome.us/SpecSheets/LVP10-65.pdf

I was looking at the photos of the remains for the battery boxes.
There is no thermal management. I also saw no internal disconnect,
but I could be mistaken.

The metal oxide (cobalt, for example) release the oxygen once they
reach a critical internal temperature. Since they have flammable
electrolyte, they have everything they need internally to burn. Like
a rocket. I

LiFePO4 don't have available internal oxygen. They release flammable
electrolyte, and that is it. If you exclude oxygen, they don't burn.
Big difference. If LiFePO4 do catch fire, they burn more like a
couch, not a rocket.

It is not due to simply the energy contained, it is a whole different
kind for fire. You simply cannot put out a metal oxide cell, once it
has ignited.

Bill D.


>All types of lithium batteries burn. The LiCo cells, because of
>their higher voltage and higher stored energy, burn worse than LiFe
>cells. But it's like comparing a box of matches to a box of
>kindling. Once lit, they both burn dramatically.

_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

Peri Hartman
In reply to this post by lwiniarski
I can't begin to name all the reasons why the batteries are needed.  But I
will say a primary (the primary?) reason would be to keep the cockpit and
all the critical flying mechanics working if there is loss of power from the
engines.  

Loss of power could happen for several reasons.  There could be a
malfunction and the engines stop; the generators could go bad; something
else in the electrical system (circuit breaker?) could go bad.  And so on.
Regardless of why, you still want to be able to control and fly the plane
and try to land safely!  (maybe in the potomac?)

Peri

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Lawrence Winiarski
Sent: 17 January, 2013 3:49 PM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire




When/why do you need the batteries anyway?  Only when the engines are
stopped right?  i.e. emergency?    

Not to make light of the situation, but it would be ironic if the emergency
battery system caused the plane to go down.      You really really really
really

want this to be right... Otherwise you might be better to leave out the
batteries entirely and make damn sure the engines never failed.
Sounds like they are right to ground them for this.
   

If you had several well separated smaller battery packs, at least you'd be
assured that no single battery failure could cause a fire so big as to be
unmanageable.   Might even
provide a way for them to literally fall out of the airplane if they got too
hot.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20130117/8666346b
/attachment.htm>
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)



_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire [pictures]

lwiniarski
In reply to this post by lwiniarski
Some interesting info here
http://advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?p=20500003 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20130117/5528d3a5/attachment.htm>
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

Bill Dube
In reply to this post by Peri Hartman
I should note that selected models of the Cessna business jets have
been flying LiFePO4 batteries since 2010.
http://saeaero.saejournals.org/content/3/1/149.abstract


_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

Tom Keenan
Some of the aircraft I worked on originally used NiCad batteries.  These
were used to power the aircraft and start the engines at remote airfields
(no ground power unit) and could provide about 20-30 minutes of power for
the radios, instruments etc. in the event of multiple generator failures.

One thing about NiCad is the possibility of thermal runaway.  They had a
greater potential if the batteries were used to start a reluctant engine
(drained significantly) then charged up too fast by the generators, or used
to many times during a day for starting.  On one aircraft type I worked on
(Beechcraft B200) there was a modification available to replace the NiCad
battery with a lead-acid starved electrolyte (AGM) battery.  The AGM
batteries could be abused forever and not overheat, but were not serviceable
and had a replacement interval of about 24 months.  

I imagine that they will likely replace the Yuasa Lithium batteries with
old-fashioned (but very safe) AGM lead acid batteries.  The amount of weight
difference really isn't significant in that large of an aircraft, and will
get them flight compliant in no time.

Tom Keenan

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Bill Dube
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:34 PM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

I should note that selected models of the Cessna business jets have been
flying LiFePO4 batteries since 2010.
http://saeaero.saejournals.org/content/3/1/149.abstract

_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

EVDL Administrator
On 17 Jan 2013 at 20:13, Tom Keenan wrote:

> One thing about NiCad is the possibility of thermal runaway.

This is also true of lead batteries, no?

David Roden
EVDL Administrator
http://www.evdl.org/


_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

Lee Hart
>> One thing about NiCad is the possibility of thermal runaway.

EVDL Administrator wrote:
> This is also true of lead batteries, no?

Of course. It's true of *all* batteries. If something goes wrong with
the charger, and it keeps forcing energy into a fully-charged battery,
that energy has to come out somehow. It will normally come out as HEAT!

Now, that battery might not be combustible. But it will gas, and could
even boil its electrolyte, or produce steam, or melt down its plastic
case, or deform something enough to cause a short circuit. Any of these
situations could lead to a fire, too.

--
*BE* the change that you wish to see in the world. -- Mahatma Gandhi
--
Lee A. Hart, http://www.sunrise-ev.com/LeesEVs.htm
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

Bill Dube
In reply to this post by Bill Dube
It is looking more like the BMS (or "charger" as the press calls it,)
is to blame. Might still be the batteries. BMS should have caught it, however.

Nice article here:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/509981/grounded-boeing-787-dreamliners-use-batteries-prone-to-overheating/

The comments are even more interesting. The "charger" company office
burned to the ground in 2006. Looks like one of the "charger" company
employees filed a whistle blower lawsuit due to shipping defective
product. Interesting reading.

My bet is that it the problem is an unbalanced pack, either caused
by, or uncorrected by, the BMS. Whatever the root cause is, it was
compounded by picking Cobalt Oxide chemistry.

Bill Dube'
 

_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

brucedp5
This post was updated on .
Normally, I wait until the final resolve is stated. But because there is
continuing interest to developments on this topic, I have a couple of
pieces on this that I will post tonight.


{brucedp.150m.com}



-
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Bill Dube wrote:
> It is looking more like the BMS (or "charger" as the press calls it,)
> is to blame. Might still be the batteries. BMS should have caught it,
> however.
>
> Nice article here:
> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/509981/grounded-boeing-787-dreamliners-use-batteries-prone-to-overheating/
>
> The comments are even more interesting. The "charger" company office
> burned to the ground in 2006. Looks like one of the "charger" company
> employees filed a whistle blower lawsuit due to shipping defective
> product. Interesting reading.
>
> My bet is that it the problem is an unbalanced pack, either caused
> by, or uncorrected by, the BMS. Whatever the root cause is, it was
> compounded by picking Cobalt Oxide chemistry.
-
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

brucedp5
[ref
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/EVLN-Voltage-ruled-out-in-Boeing-li-ion-battery-fire-td4660746.html
EVLN: Voltage ruled out in Boeing li-ion battery fire

NTSB: Plane battery that burned was not overcharged
What Does the Boeing Dreamliner Li-Ion Battery Fire Mean for EVs?
]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

rodhower
>>NTSB: Plane battery that burned was not overcharged>>What Does the Boeing
>>Dreamliner Li-Ion Battery Fire Mean for EVs?

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/osvehicle.pdf

Public fire departments responded to 329,500 vehicle fires in the United States
during
2002. These fires caused 565 civilian deaths, 1,825 civilian injuries and
$1,392,000,000
in direct property damage. (See Table 1.) Vehicle fires accounted for 20% of the
1,687,500 fires reported to U.S. fire departments that year. In that same year,
vehicle
fires caused 17% of all civilian fire deaths, 10% of all civilian fire injuries
and 13% of the
nation’s property loss to fire. More people died from vehicle fires than from
apartment
fires, and vehicle fires caused seven times the number of deaths caused by
non-residential
structure fires.1

What do those fires Mean for ICE vehicles?


----- Original Message ----
From: brucedp5 <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Tue, January 22, 2013 3:53:15 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

[ref
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/EVLN-Voltage-ruled-out-in-Boeing-li-ion-battery-fire-td4660746.html

EVLN: Voltage ruled out in Boeing li-ion battery fire

NTSB: Plane battery that burned was not overcharged
What Does the Boeing Dreamliner Li-Ion Battery Fire Mean for EVs?
]



--
View this message in context:
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/Lithium-ion-type-chemistry-in-787-fire-tp4660615p4660753.html

Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

Peri Hartman
What does "not overcharged" mean anyway?  They announced that the charge
voltage did not exceed the correct top voltage.  But, did the charge current
switch to trickle as the cells became full?  

Or, here's a stretch: did the BMS logic work properly and stop full cells
from being overcharged while others were still charging, but the charge
current didn't decrease correspondingly?  Or, did the BMS shunt several
cells out of the circuit when they became too unbalanced, putting too much
load on the remaining cells?  

The reporters oversimplify the meaning of the reports.  Annoying.

Peri

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Rod Hower
Sent: 22 January, 2013 5:38 AM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

>>NTSB: Plane battery that burned was not overcharged>>What Does the Boeing
>>Dreamliner Li-Ion Battery Fire Mean for EVs?

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/osvehicle.pdf

Public fire departments responded to 329,500 vehicle fires in the United
States
during
2002. These fires caused 565 civilian deaths, 1,825 civilian injuries and
$1,392,000,000
in direct property damage. (See Table 1.) Vehicle fires accounted for 20% of
the
1,687,500 fires reported to U.S. fire departments that year. In that same
year,
vehicle
fires caused 17% of all civilian fire deaths, 10% of all civilian fire
injuries
and 13% of the
nation's property loss to fire. More people died from vehicle fires than
from
apartment
fires, and vehicle fires caused seven times the number of deaths caused by
non-residential
structure fires.1

What do those fires Mean for ICE vehicles?


----- Original Message ----
From: brucedp5 <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Tue, January 22, 2013 3:53:15 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Lithium ion type chemistry in 787 fire

[ref
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/EVLN-Voltage-ru
led-out-in-Boeing-li-ion-battery-fire-td4660746.html

EVLN: Voltage ruled out in Boeing li-ion battery fire

NTSB: Plane battery that burned was not overcharged
What Does the Boeing Dreamliner Li-Ion Battery Fire Mean for EVs?
]



--
View this message in context:
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/Lithium-ion-typ
e-chemistry-in-787-fire-tp4660615p4660753.html

Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)


_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

12