Speed of Sound:

Are you saying this is the new battery containment box for the 787? What is your source?

Mostlylurking:

It does not look like a gludge to me. This is what I would expect the box to look like. It looks very strong and profesionally built. I am sure the weight is a bit of an issue but im am sure it is lighter than a NiCad in a box. According to an earlier post a LI has about 10 times the energy density of a Nicad

Kerosense Kraut:

You are right, the new box is not addressing the root cause of the fault. It is not a fix. It is there for that 1 in 10,000,000 chance of failure. The root cause is a bit sketchy but it seems the other changes such as modifying the max charge limit are addressing the root cause.

Sorry I dont know how to make the fancy blue quote boxes.

Please tell me that's a model, because if that is going on an airplane, I'm not.

Make it Four...
 

those three incidents plus the battery pack that Secura burned up in 2006--do you suppose that overcharging just might possibly be involved here, considering the charred remains of a battery thermal runaway, even though supposedly the FDR did not show evidence of overcharge and thus thermal runaway did not occur. Seeing is not believing...

What connects to the battery pack? The battery charger unit and the APU controller. One is a current source, the other a current sink. Overcharging can be caused by overcurrent too, not just overvoltage...although 32 volts is too high for trickle charging that chemistry.

Cool Guys, TURIN et al.
 

Sorry about the size of the picture guys.

You can't upload photos on this forum so it is a link to a high definition pic. I have now downloaded it, resized it and uploaded and linked to my Photobucket site.

I assume you guys are using a different browser to me. Mine resizes any photo to 'fit the box'.

The source is Boeing themselves.

The Boeing Company: Commercial Airplanes - 787 Electrical and Battery Systems Photos

My second thought was that visual inspection and maintenance of this unit is not going to be quick!;)

The first picture (as shown earlier in thread without the cover) has this caption on the Boeing site:
Eeerr, sorry guys but it does NOT eliminate the potential for fire!!! The potential is exactly the same as before. :rolleyes:

Cool Guys:
Step 1. Hit the "Quote button" (words inside a balloon icon) from the format bar in the reply screen.
Step 2. Paste in the words you want to quote.
Rinse and repeat as needed.

glad rag:
This photo (follow link) shows the cover as well as the box. Clearly the cables shown connected to the battery in the open box constitute a test harness. The way the real cables come out of the box is much different.
And yes, replacing the battery inside the box will be much more difficult.

The name of The Thing
 

I suggest we don't follow Boeing's choice of "battery containment box" or "battery enclosure" but call it what it is: FIRE BOX.

Can anyone read what the hazard label sticker says on the battery ?

It says:

"Caution. Electrostatic Sensitive Device, Conductive Connector Cap Required".

From what I can see the plastic cover and the steel one are identical in form. A harness leads from the battery to a terminal on the cover to which a further harness is attached.

I wonder how the case will be vented?


Replacing the battery - about 40 additional screws to undo. Unless - perhaps - the LRU will be the battery and the case.

So what is their concept for operating the box? With a single hot cell will you have to shut down the entire battery and divert? Declare an emergency? What does all this mean for ETOPS?

Please, please, tell me that this rubbish was written by a PR girlie fresh from a Media Studies college course, and not by one of Boeing's technically-qualified staff. Honestly, if this nonsense had gone out under Boeing's name in Phil Condit's time then HE would have needed a Firebox to contain him !

Yes, but batteries don't require replacing often do they.

Oh, wait a minute. :uhoh:

Sos. Thanks very much.:ok:

"Honestly, if this nonsense had gone out under Boeing's name in Phil Condit's time then HE would have needed a Firebox to contain him !"

Phil Condit eh? Hmmm....

Boeing: What Really Happened - Businessweek

??
 

The pictures, the '...eliminates the potential for fire' captions are made for public consumption I assume. So I'll be generous and surmise they mean a CABIN fire :*

But that would mean Boeing thinks we (pax) are all simpletons, perfectly happy to share a fuselage with a fire/potential fire of ANY kind, no matter how well they claim it's contained. That can't be right can it? They can't be so desperate to restart deliveries that they think we'd swallow that?? :ugh:

Even if the FAA approve this lash-up it doesn't necessarily follow that EASA will does it? Or will Boeing then scream Airbus favouritism and protectionism . . . And I can't see the JCAA being pushed into something as apparently unsatisfactory as this either. Boeing seem to have modified their philosophy from "safety above all else" to "safety above all else within reason and provided it can be achieved quickly and with as little disruption and cost as possible" . . .

I for one am not going to rush to fly on it - at least on ETOPS routes.

Phil Condit
 

Was the only Boeing boss in recent times that Airbus respected and was afraid of. Same goes for his beautiful baby the 777.

The rest, "managers" and products, (747-8, 737Max & 787) are poor, pale, competitors.

At least the next unlucky firemen will hope so :\.

Genuinely ignorant SLF question.

If I were a passenger and I pitched-up with such a battery in a 'fireproof' box, would I be allowed to check it in as hold baggage?

@Cows getting bigger

That to my mind puts the entire thing into a nutshell - well done!