Re: Lithium battery fires

krw wrote:
In article <VPbej.8040$cq5.5994@trndny06>, sci.electronics.design, ehsjr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...

krw wrote:

In article <5JVdj.1617$Ko6.1031@trndny02>, sci.electronics.design, ehsjr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...


Richard Henry wrote:


"Martin Griffith" <mart_in_medina@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:rvdfn3t34qkn75eq8q8udie2bks3f08sdv@xxxxxxxxxx



Found this
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_29_18/ai_n6280925/print


That's a pretty old report (2004).




Do you have a later report in mind?




If not, what do you have in mind?


A lot of these batteries have been recalled and replaced. Perhaps something more recent would show that it's still a problem worth worrying about?


Perhaps. Is that what Richard had in mind? We'll
never know, unless he replies.

But regarding needing a new report to confirm the
previous one, that seems like backwards logic. In
the absence of evidence that a solution to the
problem has been implemented and verified to be
effective, assuming the problem no longer exists
is not a logical conclusion.


I wouldn't expect a "non-report". If it were still a serious problem I'd expect to see it on the "nightly news" with the headlines "Sony Kills Three Hundred In AirBus 380 Crash!".


And unless there has been a change since 2004, the FAA
still treats it as a problem worth worrying about:
http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/systems/Lithium-ion_battery_04112006.pdf


You *are* talking about a government bureaucracy.


Personally, I have no inside information on lithium battery
fires. Whatever information I have is just what I've read.
But I find the information in the url in Martin Griffith's post
far more compelling than the rebuttal, if that's what it was,
that Richard Henry posted: "That's a pretty old report (2004)."


The only information I have was the recall notice that said I had nothing to worry about since mine (though Sony batteries) weren't affected. The problem was well known and fixed by a manufacturing process change (crimps of the Li foil applied incorrectly, IIRC).


Thus the questions does Richard have a later report or
something else in mind.


Again, I wouldn't expect a report of an event that doesn't happen.

Right - there can't be and analysis of an event that doesn't
happen. What is needed is what you got at the consumer level,
but at a much more detailed level, to get the FAA to change regs. Something covering the investigation done into the failures/
cause(s)/corrective actions taken/tests performed etc at a
detailed level sufficient to address all the FAA concerns.

And for Richard's post, had he presented the kind of information
you presented, those original questions would not have occurred.
There's meat in what you say; Richard's post leaves questions
as to what he has in mind.

Ed
.

Loading