Boeing’s Dreamliner was an “international” plane built by contractors all over the world from many countries. As with anything like this it was a coordination nightmare. My understanding of this “event” was the problem was in the BMS system program not the batteries them selves. The system was spec’d to be at 100% charged at all times, something that has been determined to be on the ragged edge of theses batteries, you never want to overcharge them and this is what happened. They simply where over charged causing them to overheat. Also they where trickle charged at all times, another no no. I believe there were some issues with the BMS circuit boards as well on the bats. As for the chemistry, all it takes is someone to push hard from a major supplier from a country that planed to buy the Dreamliner who had an interest in sales first to talk someone into their product.
Steve in Solomons MD
But sport planes don't carry hundreds of passengers. If the amount of weight difference between LiFePO and LiCo is that critical, I am sure that it could be made up by creating carbon fiber drink carts instead of aluminum ones ;-) or reducing the baggage allowance per passenger accordingly.
The Dreamliner packs a total of about 5kwh of lithium batteries. Eric's 8kwh pack weighs 200lbs. So how much weight has been saved by using LiCo?
Using your own 25% lighter than LiFePO figure, that would amount to a whopping 50lbs. The maximum take-off weight of the Dreamliner is about 500,000lbs. So we're talking a 1% of 1% weight savings by using LiCo. Bravo Boeing.
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (58) |
No comments:
Post a Comment