As Boeing’s 787 enters the second month of its fleet-wide grounding, the U.S. airframer is poring over data collected on a series of flight and ground tests and says it is making “good progress” toward a solution. (www.aviationweek.com) More...
I wonder why no mention seems to be being made of NiMH, Nickel metal hydride, for the batteries. It has a much greater energy density than NiCad, and is certainly a proven technology. Using those batteries would, of course, depend on whether the physical space available in the 787 is large enough for that type of battery.
How can mind of the Regulator be known when the REAL cause of the problem still eludes the investigators ? Like I have stated in another place , what if the real culprit is NOT the batteries ? But some thing or some where else ? The batteries may be only the effect and not the cause ? So we all have to wait for sufficient data to confirm the causes beyond all reasonable doubt or beyond a shadow of doubt , as is generally said in the legal parlance ! .
Alert to overheating would need a response to that alert. I think of myself 180 minutes from an airfield and I get an overheat alert. Panic time or can action be triggered to resolve the overheat? Containment - isn't it a fact of aviation? Bird strikes - contain the debris. Turbine explodes, contain. Whoops, I guess the Qantas A380 didn't contain its parts all that well but it illustrates containment is an option. Personally I remember all the NiCads I had for my portable devices, chargers all over the place, and was darn glad to ditch the last one in favor of LiIon. One caveat - I will remain happy unless my house goes poof.
When will Boeing management get their collective heads out of their glove boxes and consider other types of batteries? Looks like they are followers of old adage, "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!"
The problem with going to older batteries is that they are alot bigger and heavier. The compartment where the batteries are contained are way to small for these larger, older ones. (Older = Non-NiCad)
It shouldn't be too difficult to re-size the battery compartments, especially since ALL of the 787's are sitting on the ground. My point has always been that Boeing should consider battery alternatives and build into future aircraft the ability to make these changes. If they don't, they are making a great mistake.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the problems all been on the ground? The engines provide all the electrical power when airborne. It just seems to me like the problem is less in the battery design and more in the charging regime, which becomes evident when the batteries are subject to load. Time will tell. The engineering is way out of my league, as it is with 99.9% of the users of this forum, but it's funny how many here are so quick to tell BOEING ENGINEERS what they should do. Laughable.
I get a bad feeling about "containment", since the original problem is just masked.
Translation: they will still have the potential for 1000 degree fires on a plastic aircraft, which they think is safe so long as it is covered (contain) up.
