I am joining late on this thread, but after reading through the 37 pages of posts. There appears to a lot of battery experts on this thread, discussing about temp sensors, cell separation etc.
But no body seems to discuss why
1. Boeing never experienced this problem during 3 years of flight tests and ANA during nearly an year of operation.
2. Is it just a coincidence that we have 2 fire incidents in one month.
3. Surely the battery would have gone through a rigorous testing before manufacture and it is difficult to imagine that there were no problems at all with this compact design of a highly volatile chemistry.
4. What was the reason for 100 batteries removed before these incidents. No alarms were raised for a new aircraft.
4. From the data available with me, these batteries perform almost the same function as on Boeing 777, except for emergency breaks from Main battery, in case of a total loss of power landing. Then why B787 require a battery that can give 150 amps?
Can some one with the required knowledge and info enlighten.
It is sad to see Boeing fortify this volatile battery with thicker walls just to get the airplanes airborne again. You only need another incident, even if contained fully, for the travelling public horrified even to go near the aircraft. Remember the well engineered DC10 that disappeared along with the company. Boeing's venture on a bleed-less road was risky enough, but this route is a very risky for them and the airlines. I hope FAA and NTSB will think twice before they give the green signal.
