Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rising number of lithium battery incidents on airplanes worry crew

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 101 posts

Re: Rising number of lithium battery incidents on airplanes worry crew

#81

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

spiffytech wrote: post #54
maccam912 wrote: post #53

Here's a question this group might know the answer to: are lithium battery and lithium-ion battery being used interchangeably by airlines? When they say "lithium" do I need to read that to also mean li-ion as well? Am I the dummy who thinks they mean two separate things and everyone else knows they mean the same thing?

They're the same thing. At this point no batteries are made purely from lithium (I remember seeing some research on that front). It's all lithium ion, lithium polymer, etc. In casual settings the terms get used interchangeably.

Lithium primary cells (not rechargeable) are very different from Lithium ion, Lithium polymer, Lithium iron phosphate, etc.

Re: Rising number of lithium battery incidents on airplanes worry crew

#82

Post by DangitBobby »

aaomidi wrote: post #69
asdff wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What airline? Most will just bill to the card used to buy the ticket.

That’s not really an authorized transaction

Neither is walking off without paying for the water.

Re: Rising number of lithium battery incidents on airplanes worry crew

#83

Post by whitemary »

poo-yie wrote: post #70
grepfru_it wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched someone pretend to fall asleep after getting their bottle of water. Then pretended to be asleep until they landed. They got off the plan with a free bottle of water.

Good grief! Sad when someone needs to play games for a bottle of water.

A good example of the future we have to look forward to

Re: Rising number of lithium battery incidents on airplanes worry crew

#85

Post by londons_explore »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #21
VygmraMGVl wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're in an enclosed tube with lots of people, so fire is a lot worse. Most lithium ion battery fires in cabins are from loose vape batteries, probably shorting on keys or change. Some are from crushing pouch cells in tablets or phones, sometimes by seats. Besides that, there isn't anything about planes that is causing these fires.

I would imagine that the proliferation of cheap devices using lithium batteries also contributes to the issue somewhat. While anything with a lithium-ion battery is susceptible (as seen with the exploding Samsung Note debacle), bargain bin electronics are almost certainly not selecting batteries to as high of a standard as something with better profit margins, like an ultrabook or flagship phone. Cheap chargers also…

One contributor is that most batteries have a protective circuit built in. It usually has a DW01 chip and a pair of MOSFETs to prevent overcurrent charging, overvoltage, undervoltage, and overcurrent discharging, all for under a cent.

Since most batteries are protected, the cheapest chargers can be 'dumb', with a simple constant current output. When the battery is charged, the built in protection device will stop the charge when charged.

However, only most batteries have this protection. If you plug one of these cheap dumb chargers into a battery that doesn't have the protection circuit, then it will catch fire after a few hours.

Re: Rising number of lithium battery incidents on airplanes worry crew

#86

Post by londons_explore »

londons_explore wrote: post #85
kitsunesoba wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would imagine that the proliferation of cheap devices using lithium batteries also contributes to the issue somewhat. While anything with a lithium-ion battery is susceptible (as seen with the exploding Samsung Note debacle), bargain bin electronics are almost certainly not selecting batteries to as high of a standard as something with better profit margins, like an ultrabook or flagship phone. Cheap chargers also…

One contributor is that most batteries have a protective circuit built in. It usually has a DW01 chip and a pair of MOSFETs to prevent overcurrent charging, overvoltage, undervoltage, and overcurrent discharging, all for under a cent. Since most batteries are protected, the cheapest chargers can be 'dumb', with a simple constant current output. When the battery is charged, the built in protection device will stop the…

The usual culprit is 'replacement' (non-OEM) batteries for an expensive device, for example a drill. The OEM version has a smart charger and a protected battery. A non-OEM battery lacks protection. A non-OEM charger is dumb. Either alone is safe. Combine them, and a fire happens. And because the device is expensive, the people in China who designed the battery and charger never had the original device to do proper testing with.

Re: Rising number of lithium battery incidents on airplanes worry crew

#87

Post by nradov »

bubblehack3r wrote: post #84

It's funny people are worried about lithium batteries when lighters are still allowed on planes...

US airlines only allow common lighters. Over many years those haven't been a problem in practice. Torch lighters are prohibited.

https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/travel/baggage/dangerou...

Re: Rising number of lithium battery incidents on airplanes worry crew

#89

Post by nradov »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #33
crazygringo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parachutes would barely save any lives. First, commercial air travel is incredibly safe. Second, parachuting requires extensive training which a negligible number of passengers have. It's not like you just jump out of a plane and it works automatically. Not to mention dealing with cold, oxygen deprivation, landing in the middle of the ocean, etc. Third, it's going to take at least a half hour for everyone to put para…

You just invented https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Airframe_Parachute_Syst... even though i don't know how that would work on a commercial sized plane.

Ballistic recovery parachute systems aren't scalable. The necessary size and weight would be completely impractical for anything much larger or faster than a Cirrus.

Commercial air travel is very safe. The few crashes that do occur usually involve flight into terrain, mid-air collisions, or structural break up. Parachutes are ineffective for those failure modes. The parachute on a Cirrus mainly protects against total engine or flight control system failures, which aren't a real concern on airliners.

Post reply on HN