Forums

Update on 787 Battery Problems

Started by Joe Gwinn March 24, 2013
> I found it particularly interesting that Securaplane and > > the Labor Department blew off Leon, but to a huge > > extent, history has vindicated his claim that the > > charging systems were unsafe on aircraft.
Really? Show us where any investigation has found anything at all wrong the charging system.
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:42:40 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:17:45 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> =
wrote:
> >>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:06:59 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:22:02 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>=
wrote:
>>> >>>>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 16:35:44 +0100, Jeroen <jeroen@nospam.please> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>On 2013-03-24 16:24, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:45:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn =
<joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages =
28-29,
>>>>>>> there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results =
and
>>>>>>> proposed fixes. =20 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was=
that
>>>>>>> there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system=
with
>>>>>>> the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested >>>>>>> independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested >>>>>>> together. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did =
test the charger
>>>>>> and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they =
used a battery
>>>>>> simulator after that. >>>> >>>>>Surely you are joking? >>>>>I hope. >>>>>Jeroen Belleman >> >>>Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source. >> >><http://www.aviationweek.com/topicsevents/Boeing787.aspx> >> >><http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=3D/article-xml/AW_03_18_20=
13_p28-559071.xml>
>> The agency's investigation found among other things no record of >> the final production-standard charging system having been tested >> with the actual GS Yuasa-made battery. According to the NTSB >> report, Securiplane, the charging system developer, tested the >> unit with a simulated electric load instead of an actual battery. >> The company apparently took this precaution after having earlier >> suffered a fire at its facility during battery testing.=20 >>Yikes... > >Yikes squared. I tell all my engineers and test people that when =
something weird
>happens, even if it goes away, Investigate! It will probably happen =
again.
> >NASA lost two shuttles by looking away from problems.
Worse the second shuttle loss was caused by an incorrect and = inappropriate solution to the first loss. Totally disgusting. ?-)
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:49:07 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

> >tm wrote: >>=20 >> NASA's failures makes for a long list and a very high cost to =
taxpayers.
>>=20 >> Any business run the same way would have long failed. > > > Name one comparable business.
Union Carbide? Jones-Manvillle? The assholes responsible for Love Canal (and eleventy-seventeen more superfund sites). All got away essentially scot-free. ?-)
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:33:25 +0100, Jeroen <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

>On 2013-03-24 18:06, John Larkin wrote: >> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:22:02 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>=
wrote:
>>=20 >>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 16:35:44 +0100, Jeroen <jeroen@nospam.please> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2013-03-24 16:24, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:45:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn =
<joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>> I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages =
28-29,
>>>>>> there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results =
and
>>>>>> proposed fixes. =20 >>>>>> >>>>>> What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was =
that
>>>>>> there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system =
with
>>>>>> the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested >>>>>> independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested >>>>>> together. >>>>> >>>>> Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did =
test the charger
>>>>> and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they =
used a battery
>>>>> simulator after that. >>> >>>> Surely you are joking? >>>> I hope. >>>> Jeroen Belleman >>=20 >> Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 > >Wow! The mind boggles. Here they have a flaming demonstration that >something's seriously wrong and they decide to look the other way! >Astonishing. Simply unbelievably stupid. > >Jeroen Belleman
Yep; there is a short anglo-sxon monosyllable that covers it. ?-)
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:51:27 -0400, "tm" <No_one_home@white-house.gov>
wrote:

> >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:8jeuk8ln2ogf2gfo6jeddhfi11iep7pnha@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:17:45 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:06:59 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:22:02 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 16:35:44 +0100, Jeroen <jeroen@nospam.please> >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On 2013-03-24 16:24, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:45:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages >>>>>>>> 28-29, >>>>>>>> there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and >>>>>>>> proposed fixes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested >>>>>>>> independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested >>>>>>>> together. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test >>>>>>> the charger >>>>>>> and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used >>>>>>> a battery >>>>>>> simulator after that. >>>>> >>>>>>Surely you are joking? >>>>>>I hope. >>>>>>Jeroen Belleman >>> >>>>Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source. >>> >>><http://www.aviationweek.com/topicsevents/Boeing787.aspx> >>> >>><http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_18_2013_p28-559071.xml> >>> The agency's investigation found among other things no record of >>> the final production-standard charging system having been tested >>> with the actual GS Yuasa-made battery. According to the NTSB >>> report, Securiplane, the charging system developer, tested the >>> unit with a simulated electric load instead of an actual battery. >>> The company apparently took this precaution after having earlier >>> suffered a fire at its facility during battery testing. >>>Yikes... >> >> Yikes squared. I tell all my engineers and test people that when something >> weird >> happens, even if it goes away, Investigate! It will probably happen again. >> >> NASA lost two shuttles by looking away from problems. >> >> >> >> >> -- > >NASA's failures makes for a long list and a very high cost to taxpayers.
You are both absolute retards. Their contributions outweigh any claim of failure by several orders of magnitude. Especially the perceived failure(s) dumbfucks like you dream up.
>Any business run the same way would have long failed.
Yeah, and you hang out with Branson. Sure. If things there were the same way, your mother would have had the sense to flush you, right after she plopped you into the toilet bowl. I doubt you know the first thing about how "things" are run at NASA. Less still about the tax coffers. Face it, you're clueless.
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 20:33:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

> >The building looks like mostly concrete block construction and steel >roof. So, what's burning to justify a 3 alarm fire? The >yellow-orange color comes from incandescence of unburnt carbon >particles, which covers too many possibilities. =20 > >Also, the fire started at about 9AM, presumably about an hour after >Leon arrived. Most industrial accidents occur later in the day, when >people are more tired and less careful. > >3. The chronology of Leon's employment at Securaplane seems too well >documented. There are no holes, no lapses of memory, no >inconsistencies, and little in Leon's favor. Leon appears as evil >incarnate, but that's rarely the case with such employees. Even the >worst employee has their good points, which are suppose to be >documented in such investigations. It's just too neat and clean. > >There are several other oddities that bother me, but as in the three >I've itemized, there's nothing substantial. Just oddities that make >me suspicious of the investigation report. >
That is pretty much the way i read it as well. Management often gets a "piece of the action" on some big contracts, like this one. Severe self interest for there to be "no problem" with the product. ?-)
On Thursday, March 28, 2013 11:30:35 PM UTC-4, josephkk wrote:

> > Union Carbide? Jones-Manvillle? The assholes responsible for Love Canal > > (and eleventy-seventeen more superfund sites). All got away essentially > > scot-free. >
Do you mean Johns Manville? They're still going strong and part of Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway empire.
On Mar 28, 11:42=A0pm, MrTallyman <MrTally...@BananaCountersRUs.org>
wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:51:27 -0400, "tm" <No_one_h...@white-house.gov> > wrote:
> >NASA's failures makes for a long list and a very high cost to taxpayers. > > =A0 You are both absolute retards. =A0Their contributions outweigh any cl=
aim
> of failure by several orders of magnitude. =A0Especially the perceived > failure(s) dumbfucks like you dream up. > > >Any business run the same way would have long failed. > > =A0 Yeah, and you hang out with Branson. =A0Sure. > > =A0 If things there were the same way, your mother would have had the sen=
se
> to flush you, right after she plopped you into the toilet bowl. > > =A0 I doubt you know the first thing about how "things" are run at NASA.
I have a buddy who worked there. He identified a mission-critical race condition in a spacecraft's computer and refused to sign off on a subsystem. He explained the circuit in detail--dreadful engineering. It a) was absolutely unreliable under prime conditions, and b) created a catastrophic non-recoverable single-point failure that defeated the craft's redundant safety systems. But, correcting the problem would've upset the schedule. Something about budget heat and not wanting to get cut. They couldn't fire him outright without a scandal over the design, so they re-assigned him to make-work in no-man's land and tried to get him to quit. But, since he had nothing to do, the other engineers kept bringing him broken stuff on the sly, and that made him impossible to fire--they needed him. The managers were selected by sex and race over competences, leading to a ma$$ive money bleed. Big projects + dumb architectures based on NIH, politics. All sorts of stories. If n(NASA)>10%, I'd be amazed. -- Cheers, James Arthur
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:30:35 -0700, the renowned josephkk
<joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:49:07 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" ><mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> >>tm wrote: >>> >>> NASA's failures makes for a long list and a very high cost to taxpayers. >>> >>> Any business run the same way would have long failed. >> >> >> Name one comparable business. > >Union Carbide? Jones-Manvillle? The assholes responsible for Love Canal >(and eleventy-seventeen more superfund sites). All got away essentially >scot-free. > >?-)
Love Canal was Hooker Chemical, not UC, and what they did was legal at the time, and their sale of the property contained proper notification and liability clauses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal The government incompetents got off scott free. There was government incompetence involved in the UC Bhopal disaster as well. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:08:57 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:30:35 -0700, the renowned josephkk ><joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:49:07 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >><mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>tm wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> NASA's failures makes for a long list and a very high cost to =
taxpayers.
>>>>=20 >>>> Any business run the same way would have long failed. >>> >>> >>> Name one comparable business. >> >>Union Carbide? Jones-Manvillle? The assholes responsible for Love =
Canal
>>(and eleventy-seventeen more superfund sites). All got away =
essentially
>>scot-free. >> >>?-) > >Love Canal was Hooker Chemical, not UC, and what they did was legal at >the time, and their sale of the property contained proper notification >and liability clauses.=20 > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal > >The government incompetents got off scott free.=20 > >There was government incompetence involved in the UC Bhopal disaster >as well.=20 > > >Best regards,=20 >Spehro Pefhany
Thanks for the lookup on Love Canal. It was obviously easy enough to get that additional specific one right. I also wanted to make the point = about all the superfund sites which you helped with a bit. ?-)