HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
REGISTER   |   LOGIN   |   HELP
<<  <  Page 4/4
GeorgeG
User Rank
Platinum
It sucks to be the new kid
GeorgeG   2/5/2013 9:43:27 AM
New technologies are always the target of abuse just like the new kid in a high school. When the fed managed to set a few EVs on fire, this got enormous coverage which ignored the fact that, in one case a seriously damaged vehicle was stored in an unsafe fashion and in another the gasoline vehicle parked beside the EV caught fire taking the EV with it. This piqued my curiousity. Fortunately, there are pretty good publicly available stats to look at. Even though there aren't that many EVs around, the proportion of EVs catching fire proves to be trivial relative to the proportion of gasoline powered cars catching fire while the occurence of spontaneous combustion of gasoline powered cars is astronomically higher than for EVs. Not only that, the stat for vehicle fires causing death is similarly skewed - an ordinary IC vehicle is much more likely to fry its occupants than an EV (on a per vehicle basis). And yet, which one gets the press coverage? This is the classic irrational fear of new things which the press likes to play up. At one time they put out a broadly repeated story that automobiles were dangerous because driving at more than 17 mph could be harmfull. They haven't done a good gasoline fired story since the days of the Firenza.

3drob
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Designers without applying knowlege = Danger.
3drob   2/5/2013 9:35:37 AM
NO RATINGS
It's interesting that in the article there is a reference that a similar amount of energy in the form of gasoline being a bigger fire hazard.  I guess that big tank of jet fuel contained in the same plane, that DIDN't catch fire BTW, is proof only that anything touched by the Green Groupies will be politicized until nothing is left in the conversation but hyperbole.

The fact is, this article (a good one) has a title that's more ironic than probably intended.  Boing's problems ARE an indictment of Electric Car's use of LiIon technology.  If Boing cannot get it right, with the massive safety critical emphasis placed on passenger plane design, how could ANY car company (with the emphasis on minimizing both NRE and recurring cost) be expected to get it right?

Hyperbole aside, Boing's cluster will hopefully help make electric cars and hybrids safer by the lesson's learned (when they are learned, I'll hold off judgment until then).  It certainly points out the non-trivial nature of advanced battery technology.

My Hybrid uses NiMH technology, not perfect but acceptably safe.  Is it's energy density really lower than LiION after you take into account the additional weight of the necessary cooling?

Charles Murray
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Designers without applying knowlege = Danger.
Charles Murray   2/4/2013 6:35:38 PM
NO RATINGS
The reason for the fires is still somewhat of a mystery at this point, Rich. But your comment about not being conservative enough in their battery protection is probably right. The experts I've talked to have said that -- whatever the reasons for the incidents -- active cooling would have mitigated some of the risk.

Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Boeing's Woes
Ann R. Thryft   2/4/2013 12:40:56 PM
NO RATINGS
Thanks for this, Chuck. It continues to amaze me how often members of the non-technical press get things wrong.

apresher
User Rank
Blogger
Boeing's Woes
apresher   2/4/2013 10:30:12 AM
NO RATINGS
Excellent post, Chuck. I would have never thought about how the woes at Boeing could spill over as a negative perception of battery technology used elsewhere.

richnass
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Designers without applying knowlege = Danger.
richnass   2/4/2013 8:56:49 AM
NO RATINGS
Great post Chuck. If I read this right, the aviation engineers weren't conservative enough in their battery protection. Whereas their automotive counterparts were. Very interesting debate.

g_ost
User Rank
Gold
Re: Designers without applying knowlege = Danger.
g_ost   2/4/2013 8:51:13 AM
NO RATINGS
I like this article very much. But in aviation the risk should be precise evaluated and allways minimized (the cost underlinks risk). Li-Ion will remain the most interesting electrical energy storage solution until the large TFBs will come ...2030???

Niel
User Rank
Gold
Designers without applying knowlege = Danger.
Niel   2/4/2013 7:03:48 AM
NO RATINGS
This debarcle reminds me of event's in other industrys, Fix Or Repair Daily fitted a 'new' (to them) diesel engine to an existing product, Perkin's gave them the thermal load data and specified the minimum radiator needed, Fix Or Repair Daily's designers however went with a too small rad. resulting in cooked engines with cracked cylinder heads. Perkins after a short while of replacing engine's at their cost refused to supply anymore unless the rad. was upsized, Fix Or Repair Daily refused to do so and sourced an engine from another supplier, this one being less powerful needed less cooling, but Fix Or Repair Daily's designers fitted a huge cross-flow rad. more than twice the size needed, IF they'd used that with the Perkin's unit's it would have been fine, but the 'loss of face' admitting they were wrong was not acceptable.

Fix Or Repair Daily also had a series of trucks a few years later which were involved in several fatal 'accidents', each time the rear wheels had locked up under braking whilst unloaded slewing the truck sideways into oncoming traffic or pedestrian walkways. The fault was simply the designer deciding that a load/unload valve to compensate for load weight and grip level changes wasn't required. A practical braking systems engineer contracted to solve the issue tried various tricks, including graphite loading the brake shoes, but every time the rears locked up without warning, he fitted a load valve from a larger truck in the same range and it cured the problem. Fix Or Repair Daily's answer to his report was to tel him he was wrong and to fit smaller rear brakes, which whilst fine unloaded were not upto the job when loaded!

I suspect Boeing's designers had access to the huge knowlege pool on L-ion tech, but for space/cost reasons, and factors I will not speculate upon publicly, went with the smallest package possible, living in hope they'd get away without the cooling others, such as auto industry designers, know will be required. Long term if they don't admit their error those with a tech background will refuse to fly in a Boeing, the public perception of other L-ion use will still be tarnished, poor design choice shouldn't be an option, design by accountants needs to be stopped when it involves 'mission and safety critical' systems.

 

Perhaps asking accountants about reputational damage and limitation of risk needs to be part of their, and designers, training?

<<  <  Page 4/4


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
Lumus and eyeSight have partnered to create consumer-grade devices that offer all the prime functions of smart glasses without the bulk.
VisLab joins the autonomous car effort with the DEEVA prototype.
NASA and Boeing developed a huge, carbon composite cryogenic fuel tank for deep space missions, and started testing it last month. The 18-ft cryotank will enable heavy-lift launch vehicles to send both humans and robots into deep space.
Focus on Fundamentals -- a new Design News webinar series -- kicks off April 29 with How to Select Drives for Robotics Applications. Don't miss it!
Research and other advancements in the realms of robotics, diagnostic and treatment devices, nanotechnology, and medical implants may one day make humans superior versions of their natural selves.
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
3/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
2/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
12/18/2013 Available On Demand
11/20/2013 Available On Demand
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Apr 21 - 25, Creating & Testing Your First RTOS Application Using MQX
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: April 29 - Day 1
Sponsored by maxon precision motors
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service