Elon Musk: Boeing 787 battery fundamentally unsafe

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/elon-musk-boeing-787-battery-fundamentally-unsafe-381627/

by aaronbrethorst • 13 years ago

369 242 13 years ago

garretruh• 13 years ago

While I have enormous respect for Elon Musk, I would hope that Boeing engineers have just as thorough an understanding of the workings and safety implications of Lithium-ion batteries. Though Tesla's engineering is admittedly much more focused around battery technology, Boeing has decades of experience with aircraft electrical systems.

avelis• 13 years ago

It would appear that Boeing had a small oversight. Building a plane is not like building a car. There are different requirements. While some requirements overlap there are clear fundamental differences.

Now, with that said, it could be that SpaceX and Tesla were allowed to focus more on batteries while Boeing had to improve jet engine efficiency as well as electrical battery usage.

neurotech14• 13 years ago

SpaceX and Tesla try to keep as much of this in-house as possible, so they can maintain full oversight and make changes without unnecessary cost overhead.

Boeing had 10 layers of contractors involved in this SNAFU. WWED = What Would Elon Do.

gvb• 13 years ago

Pedantic: Boeing subcontracted the jet engine efficiency improvements to Rolls-Royce (Trent 1000) and GE (GEnx).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent_1000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GEnx

MikeCapone2• 13 years ago

I'm sure Airbus engineers are also great with wing design, yet they recently had problems with the A380 wings because it was something new with which they didn't have as much experience. The same could be said about these advanced lithium-ion batteries, I believe.

djt2• 13 years ago

no doubt Boeing know that even if the batteries smoke and fail they wont be a threat to safety, but Musk has a better handle on marketing. If there is smoke on a plane or car people expect the worst, regardless of if it is actually a safety issue.

jlgreco7• 13 years ago

I don't know, don't Li-ion batteries tend to fail fairly spectacularly? Those melted cars after Sandy come to mind.

martinced• 13 years ago

From my limited experience with smoke in cars, sadly they often turn to fire. Because, you know, like the first humans that did create fire, very often when a fire starts there's smoke...

I've seen a Saab in which the ashtray started to smoke and then before we could pull out (on the highway) the dashboard had flames and started to melt.

And I've seen a very nice and shiny Porsche 911 Carrera model 964 whose alternator belt did broke and then started "burning" on the engine. We smelled it and then we could see smoke. By the time we opened the engine trunk (with our fire extinguisher in hand) it was on fire. Funnily enough the repair were under warranty and there wasn't much to change (the trunk needed to be repaint and one or two pieces changed).

When there is unexpected smoke on a plane it is a safety issue.

Seen that a Boeing supplier's factory went up in flames due to a battery that took fire, I'm not exactly sure there's "no doubt Boeing know that even if the batteries smoke and fail they won't be a threat to safety". Same for the 16 hybrid sport cars that burst into flames on that parking lot due to batteries shorting.

I think that: "There's no smoke without fire" may be the sentence you're after ; )

geekylucas• 13 years ago

Li-ion fires tend to generate oxygen and so they are quite hard to put out. At 30,000 ft in the air I would consider this a fairly significant threat to safety.

jonknee2• 13 years ago

The batteries actually went up in flames though, it wasn't just smoke (I'm recalling the the adage about where there's smoke there's fire). The new flagship plane from Boeing wasn't grounded worldwide because there was no threat to safety.

neurotech14• 13 years ago

I have enormous respect for Elon Musk, and he's right, large cells without thermal barriers between cells are dangerous.

Boeing doesn't have a "decade of experience" with Lithium-Ion batteries though. The particular type of batteries have an elevated risk profile, but are light weight. The 787 has a larger APU than previous aircraft, and requires a larger battery to start the APU.

These particular batteries are Lithium Cobalt Oxide. One of the sub-contractors, Securaplane, who made the battery controller/charger, had their factory destroyed by fire, after a battery malfunction in 2006.

Edit: Cessna had problems with their Lithium-Ion batteries in some Citations, and had to replace them with NiCADs in a emergency airworthiness directive.

rst• 13 years ago

It's not necessarily Boeing's engineers. A lot of the 787 design (not just fabrication) was subcontracted out, so it's just as likely to have been whatever subcontractor had the combination of low bid and business connections to win the contract.

Ref: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2013/02/04/130204ta_...

joezydeco3• 13 years ago

The 787 electrical design was subcontracted to Thales, who then subcontracted the battery work to GS Yuasa:

http://www.gsyuasa-lp.com/content/thales-selects-gs-yuasa-li...

chernevik2• 13 years ago

I shouldn't be surprised if there aren't several people within Boeing with exactly the right expertise. Whether they were identified and listened to by management is a separate question.

If Musk is right (IANA Battery Guy), I would presume there are cost / design trade-offs involved. And some exec had to evaluate those against safety issues. Those are engineering decisions, they're also business decisions. If the execs deciding that didn't have the proper background to make an engineering evaluation himself, they are left trying to decide which engineers to trust. It isn't at all hard to see someone getting that wrong.

starpilot• 13 years ago

I'm an aeromechanical engineer, not an electrical one, but I suspect the fewer-cells design was chosen to save weight. Many unconventional design decisions in aerospace (everything with holes, novel materials which trickle down to cars and golf clubs) are driven by the need to reduce weight.

fnordfnordfnord12• 13 years ago

Yes, the situation you describe is not unlike the one at Morton Thiokol prior to the Challenger accident. You should look up the story of how Feynman (who was not an Aerospace engineer, gasp!) managed to bring the Challenger accident cause to light, despite some of the accident investigation committee's best efforts.

Camillo• 13 years ago

This is a very smart move by Musk from a PR point of view. By accusing Boeing's batteries of being fundamentally unsafe, he garners the maximum amount of trust from people who are concerned about battery safety, so that, when he immediately follows up with an explanation of why this couldn't happen on a Tesla, those very people are already leaning towards believing him. This goes over much better than attempting to defend the safety of high-density batteries in general.

MikeCapone2• 13 years ago

I think he probably saw it as a defensive move: He doesn't want li-ion technology to get a bad name, and that doesn't mean only explaining why Tesla's approach is safe, but also trying to help others avoid mistakes that could hurt the whole industry including his company.

dmix• 13 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_best_defense_is_a_good_offe...

> Generally the idea is that offensive action preoccupies the opposition and ultimately its ability to directly harm.

nextparadigms3• 13 years ago

That makes sense.

Osmium• 13 years ago

> This is a very smart move by Musk from a PR point of view.

This is an awful PR move if he's wrong. I hope he's sure.

sfall2• 13 years ago

an MIT professor already backs up what he is saying, he is not on his own with his opinion

amcaskill• 13 years ago

It's a smart PR move in either scenario. It's unlikely this will matter if he is wrong.

If he is correct, this will become an even larger main stream news story and there is a good chance that his prescience will be picked up and included in how it is reported.

More importantly, if this becomes a major story, he has preempted the inevitable look at other products (tesla) which include li-ion batteries by describing the distinction between the two. This could become a major shitstorm that Tesla gets rolled into but by making this statement he's getting out in front of it and shaping how that story will be told.

If he is wrong, the batteries are fine and there is no story.

Avitas• 13 years ago

That makes me wonder what the next public and private PR moves should be for Boeing. My first guess is that their strategy should:

A) Mention the tradeoffs involved with any engineering project

B) Quickly accept blame instead of pushing it off to a supplier, a single employee and/or group (i.e., even if they have excellent reason and evidence for doing so)

C) Make known their official stance on Elon's technical assessment

I also think that they should first respond to Elon privately and later make a public statement--when they are ready. I happen to think they should make a public statement about what Elon's statement rather quickly. However, I realize that their executive staff and PR department may need some time to discuss this.

Because Elon is so "high-profile," if they don't handle this wisely, the press will give them two black eyes instead of one.

CamperBob23• 13 years ago

D) Invent a time machine and qualify two different battery types, as they should have done in the first place.

Everything else will keep the 787 on the ground for a very long time, I'm afraid.

djloche• 13 years ago

D) take EM's offer and source the batteries / solution to a joint boeing-spacex/tesla project and proudly proclaim that they're going to the world's experts on batteries, the same people that NASA trusts - SpaceX. This provides positive press for both companies and (provided they fix the problem) resolves any long term problems that might completely destroy their business (like having multiple planes catch fire or blow up).

All it will take is to swallow their pride for a moment and go to their competitor to help solve the problem.

coryrc• 13 years ago

Tesla's /cells/ are also "fundamentally unsafe", but they make the /batteries/ as safe as possible.

Fundamentally _safe_ would be LiFePO4 chemistry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery

Longer lifespan and significantly cheaper than cobalt, manganese, etc; but 20% lower specific mass. Survives having a nail driven through a fully-charged cell with only some smoke and a small bit of flame -- not a meltdown like the more active chemistries.

bigiain• 13 years ago

"Tesla's /cells/ are also "fundamentally unsafe", but they make the /batteries/ as safe as possible."

While it's certainly true that the Li-ion chemistry used in the Tesla's batteries are flammable, keep in mind the current common alternative to those potentially burning cells is carrying round a metal or plastic tank with 10 or more gallons of gasoline in it. If there weren't a 100+ year history of people doing just that and getting away with it most of the time, you surely wouldn't be allowed to do it in today's safety-conscious society.

stonemetal• 13 years ago

I don't know. I could see it getting to a less tech savvy media outlet and become Founder of Tesla openly admits batteries in their cars are fundamentally unsafe.

Spooky232• 13 years ago

A smart move would be waiting for the NTSB report instead if assuming that you can divine what is happening with a minimal set of facts.

I've had my share of "experts" opine on their imagine root causes of problems based on whatever bullshit they made up while the incident response folks were figuring it out using real data.

The problem is, the folks figuring this out aren't talking, because they aren't done. So now a bunch of people will remember what Elon Musk said, and the whole process is tainted.

IMO, good PR is talking about how your company implemented battery technology in a safe way. Not this.

chii• 13 years ago

it makes strategic sense to taint your competitor, if there is no repercussion for doing so, but lots of advantages.

eduardordm• 13 years ago

Elon seems to really want to get involved in this. Make no mistake, Boeing and SpaceX are fierce competitors for government contracts with very dubious selection processes.

I'm saying this because he is a businessman, not an engineer. He seems to be getting a lot of information about the 787s batteries inner workings when the number of airplanes and suppliers are very limited.

Edit: I'm not trying to be cynical, but I do think that if Elon really wanted to help he should contact Boeing and do it instead of playing politics.

sfall2• 13 years ago

while not a PE he is no slouch, he has a bachelor's in physics

Evbn2• 13 years ago

Which covers 0 information about Li battery vs other kinds, especially considering when he earned his Bachelor's.

digikata3• 13 years ago

Is a Professional Engineer certification relevant here? All the PEs I've met work in the civil engineering field.

richardjordan3• 13 years ago

My understanding is that Elon Musk, a physicist by education, is indeed an engineer and was very hands on in the engineering processes at SpaceX, so I'd assume he wasn't out of the technical loop that led to design decisions at Tesla.

michaelkscott• 13 years ago

Maybe a little OT but:

Can you be considered an "ist" by having just a BS degree. That is, physicist, computer scientist, etc...

If no, what is the requirement? Masters or PhD?

rpm4321• 13 years ago

"I'm saying this because he is a businessman, not an engineer."

Musk is the Chief Designer at Space-X, Product Architect at Tesla Motors, and a member of the Stanford University Engineering Advisory Board. He has previously served as a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board. - Wikipedia.

snowwrestler4• 13 years ago

Elon Musk is not an engineer. He does not have an engineering degree and does not hold an engineering license.

I'm a huge fan of the guy, but he is not an engineer.

aptwebapps• 13 years ago

He did offer his help initially, although that may have been a political move as well.

MysticFear2• 13 years ago

"Desire to help Boeing is real & am corresponding w 787 chief engineer." https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/295162137297428480

WestCoastJustin• 13 years ago

Forbes is running an article [1], suggesting it is in Boeing/SpaceX/Tesla's goint best interested to prove/make safe lithium ion batteries. Reason being, they all have products that use them, and they should have a great reputation, and there should be zero stigma attached to them.

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2013/01/29/why-elon-m...

jpeg_hero• 13 years ago

Everybody thought Musk was grandstanding when he first made the offer, but it sounds like he's got the answers!

AndrewKemendo• 13 years ago

This a month and a half after Boeing/Lockheed was derisive about Musk publicly:

http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2012-12-18/musk-vs...

lostlogin4• 13 years ago

Good link. One would hope that had nothing to do with it, but....

josefresco• 13 years ago

Wow, a $70 billion market dominated by essentially only two major players. Sounds like a market ripe for disruption.

notahacker4• 13 years ago

If you have the ability to put together a team that can raise a few hundred million in venture capital to go after a few big government contracts, then maybe. There's a reason why some markets are dominated by essentially two major players.

Not sure where the $70 billion valuation comes from either, but if you add together the market capitalization of Boeing, Lockheed Martin and SpaceX you're still under $100 billion. Boeing and Lockheed Martin also make other stuff.

backprojection• 13 years ago

So what's the motivation for using these batteries in the 787 anyway? Can they just switch to whatever they've used before?

sp332• 13 years ago

The new engine requires much higher-capacity batteries to start them. A battery with the old tech would be huge and heavy. The new battery technology is much lighter than the old ones.

lostlogin4• 13 years ago

That's interesting - why are the batteries onboard and not ground equipment? Obviously restarting a stalled engine would be handy, but is this something that actually happens? And if it is, couldn't the running jets provide the power somehow? I seem to remember that some old WW2 prop aircraft had ground equipment requirements to start them from cold (power or warmed air or something?) Obviously this isn't an area I know about but I am curious about it. Thanks.

gee_totes• 13 years ago

Do you know if there's anything unique about the electrical system that would cause a greater load than a comparable aircraft?

I'm thinking high-tech radar, wifi, photon torpedoes, etc.

neurotech14• 13 years ago

Not exactly. The larger battery is because the APU is larger. The engines are started on APU power, not directly from battery power. You are correct that Lithium Ion batteries are significantly lighter than older NiCad batteries.

AngryParsley• 13 years ago

Quick, get ahold of the engineers at Boeing! Tell them to switch to whatever they used on their older planes! Surely they haven't considered that idea yet!

Have you ever been in a situation where a manager proposes a technical solution that everyone else has already dismissed as preposterous? Now you know how it feels to be on the other side of that.

With that mockery out of the way, I'll give my understanding of the situation: The lithium ion batteries on the 787 are much smaller and lighter than their predecessors. They also take up less space and require different input and output voltages and currents. They have different charging profiles. Swapping them out with an older battery technology is infeasible. It would require redesigning other components to make room, building new transformers and voltage regulators, and writing new software to charge the batteries safely. It would also reduce the range, capacity, and/or efficiency of the 787.

I do apologize if I went overboard with the mockery. Please don't take it personally; it's fun to write.

alanctgardner22• 13 years ago

You certainly do live up to your name there, Parsley.

supercanuck• 13 years ago

The public doesn't see this as Larry Ellison criticizing Bill Gates, but that is essentially what is happening.

wnoise• 13 years ago

What do you mean by this analogy?

snowwrestler4• 13 years ago

One fierce competitor in an industry publicly criticizing another. (Their motives may not be completely pure.)

apapli• 13 years ago

I think this is a very smart move by Musk. Grow the Tesla brand at very little cost, and potentially win a new client to sell batteries to.

Surely a Boeing contract would bring decent margins (they will now pay a premium for a quick fix) and much bigger scale economies for Tesla to further decrease their operating cost base.

robomartin5• 13 years ago

While I can't dispute anything that is being said I think it is unfortunate that this is playing out the way it is.

I can't dispute it because there's virtually no reliable publicly-available information on the design of this battery pack. I think it is unbecoming of an engineer or scientist, particularly of prominence, to voice such opinions without access to design data from the source.

Before I could even begin to dare to voice opinion I would need to study CAD models, electrical and electronic diagrams and test data. I would also want to have access to representative samples of the packs for inspection. Even then, unless there was something so obviously wrong with the design that a conclusion was inescapable I'd refrain from rash public comments and redouble evaluation efforts to make sure every angle was evaluated exhaustively.

Having designed high-performance, high-current chargers in the past I know a thing or two about battery technology, particularly when it comes to failure modes. When you are doing that kind of work you purposely test designs to induce and document failures and design around them when possible. Yes, I have blown-up lots of batteries and chargers. And, yes, this means that if you've worked with high-energy battery technologies (and electronics in general) you get a good general sense of the good, the bad and the ugly. I get it. And I would still want design and test data from the horses-mouth before uttering a word.

The problem here is that the engineers at Boeing are not clowns. Unless you consider people with advanced degrees from the top engineering schools in the world to be clowns. This is an industry that takes what they do very, very seriously. A lot of work, simulation and testing goes into all of their projects. I could not imagine the engineers at Boeing slapping together a battery pack for something like the 787 project without years of work and testing. I just can't see it. Yet, they are human beings which means that mistakes and miscalculations do happen. That's true of any human endeavor.

And so, making such comments is also disrespectful. I understand competitive forces very well. But there's a time and a place for that.

If he is wrong he'll have a lot of explaining to do. If that is the case I hope he'll devote just as much energy to issuing the necessary apologies and clarifications as he does being critical.

EDIT:

If you ever get a chance to visit the Boeing factory in Seattle it is a must. I did many years ago. As an engineer it was fascinating. I remember one test they showed us where they clamped down (I think) a 747 wing in this huge structure and used incredibly large hydraulic jacks to bend the wing up and down repeatedly for failure-mode testing. I could be wrong, but I think I remember the peak to peak bending at the wing-tip was in the order of ten stories. I could not imagine designing and building an electro-mechanical structure that could do that and survive with enough functionality to get people safely back to ground level.

I think this might be it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRf395ioJRY

Here's video on the 787 wing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA9Kato1CxA

Also: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/03/boeing-787-passes-incre...

So, yes, please, I think it might be wise to remain quiet and let those who actually have real data go through a proper investigative process and get us real answers. If anything out of respect for the work, talent and dedication that goes into designing and building such amazing products.

oasisbob• 13 years ago

I could not imagine the engineers at Boeing slapping together a battery pack for something like the 787 project without years of work and testing.

Assuming you're right in regards to the skills of their engineers, wouldn't it only be relevant if Boeing designed the battery pack themselves?

jessaustin5• 13 years ago

Anything that goes into a new model of jumbo jet should have reams of test documentation. Multiple people at Boeing would have examined and approved this stuff. If they were fooled they shouldn't have been.

msandford3• 13 years ago

Even if the engineers at Boing are REALLY good (and that's not guaranteed by any means) then you've still go the subcontractor problem to deal with. Boeing didn't design, engineer, fabricate, test and qualify these batteries in-house.

Saying that they have advanced degrees from prestigious institutions makes it less likely that they have made mistakes is a non-starter. There ARE PROBLEMS with the batteries FULL STOP. The degrees of those involved make no difference anymore. How seriously they take things doesn't matter.

I don't see that any Tesla cars have caught on fire according to Google (probably not accurate) but in terms of any metric you'd like to see, they're doing much better. Fires per passenger mile, fires per car per year, etc.

venus2• 13 years ago

> Boeing didn't design, engineer, fabricate, test and qualify these batteries in-house.

Are you implying Tesla does?

http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/panasonic-en...

monochromatic2• 13 years ago

> There ARE PROBLEMS with the batteries FULL STOP

Because Elon Musk says so? Do you base your trust in him on his degrees?

commandar• 13 years ago

>unless there was something so obviously wrong with the design that a conclusion was inescapable

Isn't that exactly what both Musk and Professor Sadoway are suggesting in the linked article?

hnwh2• 13 years ago

Sadoway is one of the world's leading geniuses in this field.

robomartin5• 13 years ago

I'd be very interested in what they are saying if --and only if-- they had access to Boeing and FAA design and test data.

You have to remember that the FAA had to approve these subsystems as well. I don't have any first-hand experience on just how detailed (or not) this certification process might be. Once again, how could anyone say anything at all without looking at data.

To make a really dumb analogy, it's like claiming to know what happened with a race horse that died clear across the country because you know race horses. Wouldn't you first have to see the veterinarian's records on that horse as well as such things as dietary and other data before really being able to say anything at all.

In other words, I am not detracting from the expert status some of these folks enjoy. Not at all. I think it is precisely because they might be domain experts at some level that they should behave with decorum and refrain from making comments without a full stack of the necessary data.

willis77• 13 years ago

Furthermore, hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to rush in after the fact and make up reasons (even if those reasons are legit) to explain what is retrospectively obvious. Where was this warning before the incidents? As you stated, it's completely opportunistic and out of line to make this kind of claim without the due diligence.

pdonis2• 13 years ago

Where was this warning before the incidents?

Where was the evidence that there was anything to warn about before the incidents? Everybody trusted Boeing to have a robust battery design. Now it appears that at least some aspect of it was not robust.

rgbrenner• 13 years ago

I've said it before... Musk just wants attention.

The investigators looking into this have already said they haven't found a problem with the batteries.. and they are turning their attention to the electrical system.

So who are you going to believe. Musk, who has no access to the details of these batteries, or the investigators who have access to everything and are looking at and testing these batteries themselves.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21230940

pdonis2• 13 years ago

The investigators looking into this have already said they haven't found a problem with the batteries.. and they are turning their attention to the electrical system.

You're missing a key point: they are turning their attention to the electrical system that controls how the batteries charge and discharge. That means that, even if the batteries themselves have no design problems per se, their failure modes under an overcharge condition are highly relevant. Which is exactly what Musk and Prof. Sadoway are critiquing: they're not saying the batteries were manufactured badly or designed badly for normal operation; they're saying the batteries were not properly designed to cope with the failure mode that the electrical control system is suspected of inducing.

accoinstereo• 13 years ago

Sure, you'd act real careful to protect the sanctity of your word.

But bear in mind this man leads two multimillion dollar companies. I can imagine the PR/marketing opportunity was difficult to pass up. Even if further data proves his assessment of Boeing's configuration ill-advised, a majority of impressions will remain in his favor. He may have even nipped any comparisons between Boeing's "dangerous" technology and Tesla in the bud.

A reader might walk away from the story with the idea that Tesla engineers are more skilled than Boeing engineers. Call it what you want, but that's a helluva branding opportunity.

InclinedPlane3• 13 years ago

Respect?

What respect is due to a design that puts people's lives in danger?

Yes, respect the engineers, and make sure to criticize the design and not the engineer, but please criticize the ever loving fuck out of the design.

This isn't about corporate pride here. This is about lives.

My life. Your life. Your family's lives. Everyone who flies in a plane is potentially endangered by faulty aircraft designs.

So please, Mr. Musk, and any other engineer who can level meaningful criticisms at any design that has significant human safety implications, make your voices heard.

When Ralph Nader does this sort of thing he is lauded, I don't think Musk's criticisms should be viewed in any different light.

ecaron• 13 years ago

> When Ralph Nader does this sort of thing he is lauded, I don't think Musk's criticisms should be viewed in any different light.

Just as a point of fact, Ralph Nader was hardly universally lauded when he entered the arena of public critiques: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed#Criticisms

jessedhillon• 13 years ago

What respect is due to a design that puts people's lives in danger?

Competent, well-meaning people are due the benefit of the doubt. Also, your logic assumes what is in debate, ie you're using circular logic.

zb• 13 years ago

What respect is due to a design that puts people's lives in danger?

No lives are in danger, because the planes are grounded. They will not fly again until the cause of the present issue is found and resolved. It doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to me that that puts Musk's comments in a slightly different light for some people.

Note that if Musk were a (Chartered) Professional Engineer (which afaik he is not) he might well be called upon to explain these comments to an Ethics committee. Here is a snippet (from the IPENZ Code of Ethics) that I imagine is probably fairly representative of Professional Engineers' obligations:

    11. Not review other engineers’ work without taking reasonable steps to inform them and investigate

    (1)	A Member who reviews another engineer’s work for the purpose of commenting on that work must take reasonable steps to—

      (a) inform that engineer of the proposed review before starting it; and

      (b) investigate the matters concerned before commenting.

    (2)	Subclause (1) does not apply if taking those steps would result in there being a significant and immediate risk of harm to the health or safety of people, damage to property, or damage to the environment.

fnordfnordfnord12• 13 years ago

Blah blah, appeal to authority... It's too complicated for you... etc etc. More appeals to authority, and a plea to patiently wait for word from up on high that they've figured out at last, whatever it was that they missed the first time.

Some of what you said may be true, but it's also a typical thing one might say after any engineering (potential) disaster. I'm pleased that some persons with appropriate knowledge have spoken out and I hope that it will remove any pressure Boeing engineers may feel to give their battery issue less attention than it deserves.

I have to say that if that's your best reasoning, I hope you stay far away from any life-safety critical engineering decisions for vehicles that I'm to set foot in.

ubernostrum2• 13 years ago

I find it amusing that you are one-sidedly complaining about appeals to authority when so many comments, on both sides, in this thread boil down to "my preferred expert is better than your preferred expert".

andyjohnson02• 13 years ago

The thing that will "remove any pressure Boeing engineers may feel to give their battery issue less attention than it deserves" is heat from the NTSB and FAA, not self-serving pronouncements by some guy who happens to run a couple of tiny (compared to Boeing) high-tech engineering companies.

mossplix• 13 years ago

The problem is not the engineers.. The problem is most of the engineering was outsourced. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/01/21/what-wen...

dredmorbius3• 13 years ago

You're misstating the wing flex test results.

The 787 Dreamliner saw wing flex of 154% of design maximum, at "approximately 25 feet", to quote your own sources. That's a 2.5 storey building.

The 747's wingspan, depending on aircraft configuration, ranges from 195 to 224 feet, which is approximately 19 - 22 storeys (assuming 10' per storey).

wamatt• 13 years ago

The point you make about design of the 787 is fitting. Many of us can appreciate its awe inspiring technological splendor. However, one does have to wonder if it's possible, that this feeling could be overly motivating your defense of Boeing, and criticism of Mr Musk?

We can probably agree that no one (Musk included), is without reproach. However historically we see a person willing to go all in, literally putting all his liquidity toward his new ventures. It does seem somewhat implausible he simply keeps striking it lucky.

I haven't the foggiest clue if he's right or not, but it does appear he's taken a calculated risk. Accordingly, he will be punished or rewarded as the story unfolds.

His approach seems somewhat harsh/brazen, but is that what really matters here?

When your're the unlucky patient strapped to the operating table, in need of critical surgery (assuming only two doctors were available), would want the specialist with the highest level of competency, or the one with the nicest bedside manner?

yread• 13 years ago

I think that talking about the battery pack being inherently unsafe is completely off-topic here. GS Yuasa manufactures batteries for 60 satellites and they haven't had a single failure there http://www.gsyuasa-lp.com/content/gs-yuasa-lithium-ion-batte...

In aviation people usually very thoroughly figure out what went wrong and why and only then suggest fixes. And the fixes are designed by the people who have access to the complete system.

jessaustin5• 13 years ago

GS Yuasa manufactures batteries for 60 satellites and they haven't had a single failure there

I wouldn't expect fire to be a common failure mode in outer space.

KMag3• 13 years ago

Musk's allegation is that the 787 battery is a poor design, not that it was manufactured incorrectly.

Your point would be a good point if Musk's allegation were that GS Yusa had manufactured the batteries incorrectly or if the satellite battery were of the same design as the 787 battery AND used under similar conditions.

However, my understanding is that the 787 battery is a new design and used under conditions rather different from a satellite.

nextparadigms3• 13 years ago

So you're saying Elon Musk shouldn't have said this? Then how do you explain this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/business/boeing-aware-of-b...

If anything they should be called out for it.

kenkam• 13 years ago

I have seen the same wing bending test for the A380 at the Airbus factory in Chester. It is jaw-dropping.

The engineers have to climb into the wing to fit rivets and electrical wires. Sometimes it takes 20 minutes to crawl to the spot they want. Since they take a portable lamp with them, a popular prank was to switch someone's light off when they were well inside the wing.

Another anecdote from the Airbus engineer was Boeing had to cut a 747 wing apart because their engineer got stuck in there working on a wing. Can't verify this claim though.

Confusion• 13 years ago

Boeing batteries are overheating. Tesla batteries are not overheating. There are sufficiently similar requirements on their performance and safety that any layman can conclude there is something wrong with Boeings design.

  The problem here is that the engineers at Boeing are not clowns.

The problem here is that you think that is what is being alleged. It isn't: an enormous and old company like Boeing can have an entrenched culture that leads to decisions being made that do not follow the advice of the engineers. What makes Tesla and SpaceX competitive is not their technical knowledge: it's the fact that they can use that knowledge effectively.

NASA's engineers aren't clowns either, yet their shuttles exploded, unnecessarily. The Feynman committee tore their procedures, not their engineering ability, to shreds.

smackay• 13 years ago

It was an engineer, Roger Boisjoly, who repeatedly warned about the safety of the o-rings, particularly in low temperatures. The decision to launch the shuttle came from management not the engineers.

http://www.space.com/14522-roger-boisjoly-shuttle-challenger...

madaxe• 13 years ago

Bingo - the engineers may have said one thing, and the project manager/board of arbitrary decisions may have said "my cousin makes batteries" or "fewer cells will mean easier part replacement".

Engineering is only part of making an engineered product.

hyperbovine• 13 years ago

In the specific context of engineering, the only thing I have ever heard about Boeing's "entrenched culture" is that they are obsessed with safety. A Boeing airliner is a modern miracle of overengineering.

to_jon• 13 years ago

Elon's comments have some validity, but there is a bit of grandstanding going on. Thermal runaway with lion batteries isn't a random event. It's very predictable and very preventable. 99% of lion batteries in use have a built in thermosensor so that they can charge correctly without exploding---because any lion battery will explode if charged too fast or if it goes into overvoltage.

So since all of the variables to prevent thermal runaway are know, it should make no difference how closely together they are placed. However in this case there is either a problem with the charging software---which isn't adequately performing and preventing the condition that is causing the batteries to overheat OR the batteries themselves (although in good working order) are not performing within the correct performance envelope that the software has been developed to use.

Screaming that placing the cells too close together is bogus. You laptop has cells placed equally close together as do all Tesla vehicles---and they can burn and explode just like the ones on the 787---yet that is a very rare occurrence. Because all of the charging parameters are known. Same applies to the Boeing batteries, but something is not performing according to plan.

In space, the parameters are completely different. Fire is the absolute worst case scenario in space and everything that can be done to mitigate the chance of one will be taken. Which is why the batteries on the SpaceX vehicles are spaced out they way they are. Yes, they know all of the parameters for the batteries, but the logistics of changing a battery in space are much different than those of an aircraft.

Boeing's fault in all of this is that something is not performing according to spec---and they knew that due to all of the battery swaps the Japanese airlines were doing. At that point they should have grounded and figured out the problem. But past Elon, others have already stepped up and criticized Boeings move to lions in the first place. Nickel cadmium batteries would have weighed 40 pounds more and have barely 1/1000th of a chance of thermal runaway that lithium ion batteries do. They don't charge as fast, but they are still well within the performance envelope needed by the 787.

jacquesm2• 13 years ago

I'm going to disregard the bits about wings and the general engineering attitude at Boeing. It is simply not relevant.

Musk has one very important justification to make the statement he did: that battery caught fire. That alone is proof positive that he is right. If the charger should fail, is it then permissible that the batteries catch fire? If not then they are fundamentally unsafe.

For that reason alone this is a valid statement, and there are more justifications (such as BIG cells with LITTLE spacing which is problematic) for the use of the word 'fundamental'.

There is enough data available about the architecture for people with far more experience than you to make such statements, the amount of energy liberated from such a big cell should it go wrong is enormous and that alone is a reason to avoid big cells.

I'm sure Elon is picking up PR points here but you can't just discard what he is saying because he does not have engineering samples on his desk. The incident proves his point quite effectively, this design really does have problems.

praxeologist• 13 years ago

I totally agree with this and I can tell you that I have been in the same position as Musk in an analogous situation. From what my competitor was saying about their own product it was several red flags. There is no way such and such can be true unless you are doing X and Y wrong.

codex3• 13 years ago

A battery on fire is not necessarily an indicator of a problem in the design. It could be a manufacturing, software, or maintenance defect. It's too early to jump to conclusions. However, unless it's a maintenance defect, it's almost certainly an indicator of a flaw in quality control and verification.

virtualritz• 13 years ago

It does not matter if the you have the best engineers in the world as long management's primary concern is not flawless designs, from an engineering pov, but striking a balance between that and some unrelated economic measure. When it comes to safety, such compromises are always /very/ dangerous.

I would think the people who designed the space shuttle's rocket boosters weren't clowns either. Didn't prevent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disast... from happening.

agumonkey• 13 years ago

But did Boeing design those or was it outsourced far away ? There was an article on how they misdesigned the building system, it might have been a integration hell, reducing chances of thorough testing.

I don't know a single thing about this domain, but SpaceX embeds the same kind of batteries in a much larger and complex constraint space, it's another point for Musk POV.

Too bad Boeing and SpaceX didn't work together, it could have been a very synergic, local partnership.

belorn• 13 years ago

Information is being withheld. It's hard to expect respect while at the same time withholding critical information in the name of company secrets.

Take building designs, public accessible for any engineer to take a look. If a flaw is published like in this article, it can be verified by independent sources. If someone was hiding blueprint designs and a article like this was published, everyone would assume the architect was up to no good. The respect for the work, talent and dedication would only go as far as a courtesy phone call before publishing.

So regarding planes who's design and inner working is now days mostly regarded as company secrets, staying quiet would be worse than speaking out about a issue. Boeing should see this is an perfect time to publish their electrical and electronic diagrams, together with test data, and let independent engineers either verify the authors claims or denounce it.

temphn• 13 years ago

Generally sympathetic to this point of view, but Lockheed/Boeing actually started this war by publicly calling SpaceX's tech into question. From Dec. 18 2012:

http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2012-12-18/musk-vs...

  The Lockheed-Boeing venture, United Launch Alliance, has 
  launched “hundreds of billions of dollars” of satellites 
  on 66 consecutive missions, said Robert Stevens, 
  Lockheed’s chairman and chief executive officer.

  “I’m hugely pleased with 66 in a row from ULA, and I don’t 
  know the record of SpaceX yet,” Stevens said at a Dec. 14 
  Bloomberg Government breakfast in Washington. “Two in a 
  row?

A public statement like that probably means that both Lockheed and Boeing have been beating up on SpaceX as "risky" behind closed doors for a while. Musk saw an opportunity to turn the tables and took it, first by offering to "help" on Twitter and then via these comments. This is separate from the technical issue at stake, but looks like Musk may not have started this particular fight. Moreover, given that SpaceX and Boeing are going to head-to-head, it is likely that Musk/SpaceX has now made a fairly detailed study of Boeing's batteries to make their case in subsequent competitive launch bids.

hollerith• 13 years ago

>Before I could even begin to dare to voice opinion I would need to study CAD models, electrical and electronic diagrams and test data. I would also want to have access to representative samples of the packs for inspection.

Has Boeing shared this information and this access with anyone except regulators?

Are they under any obligation to do so?

If not, then the more people who follow your suggested rule of not saying anything unless they have all the info, the greater the incentive for manufacturers and the regulators to choose never to give out the information.

podperson• 13 years ago

So Musk lays down his ideas for good battery design and is backed up by a guy from MIT. Seems fairly solid.

Boeing guy says something like "I design battery cells not to fail, then assume they will. I then design battery so if one cell fails others won't. Then I assume they will and design for that."

What we know is that the cells fail, then batteries fail, then noxious smoke blows into the cabin, so if what he says is true his designs have failed in three different ways. Seems to me Musk has more credibility here.

Now, is this guy a clown? No -- he's probably a smart, competent guy who is doing what he's required to do given the situation he's in, while he's probably just been in ten meetings where people screamed "I told you so!" at each other.

bones6• 13 years ago

Musk probably isn't screwing around. I've been reading comments but no one has mentioned it: Who's to say he doesn't have access to one of the grounded 787s? He could have flown his MIT friend over to take a look with him and torn one of the batteries apart. He's the type of guy who could personally know the owner of a 787. Without schematics, he can tell a lot from the work Tesla has done. He could probably even see a near exact configuration they already tried.

gtani• 13 years ago

in addition to NYT story, Seattle Times, which has a reporter fulltime on aviation

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020241162_7...

jessaustin5• 13 years ago

"I design a cell to not fail and then assume it will and the ask the next 'what-if' questions," Sinnett, [Boeing's 787 chief project engineer] said. "And then I design the batteries that if there is a failure of one cell it won't propagate to another. And then I assume that I am wrong and that it will propagate to another and then I design the enclosure and the redundancy of the equipment to assume that all the cells are involved and the airplane needs to be able to play through that."

OK, maybe part of this is bravado, and it seems that the failure of one cell certainly has spread to another, but so far at least no plane has crashed as a result. I think Boeing's engineers should get some credit for that? One could imagine worse results than we've seen, especially in fields of engineering that don't have aviation's safety practices.

cpleppert2• 13 years ago

>>but so far at least no plane has crashed as a result. I think Boeing's engineers should get some credit for that?

There are a grand total of 49 planes total that have been produced and the plane has been in service for little over a year. The fact that no plane has crashed tells you nothing statistically about the safety record of the design.

The fact that aviation has a great safety record is MORE reason to worry about any issue, not less. Modern commercial planes are expected to fly for decades over tens of thousands of flights. Even a small issue that is incredibly unlikely is too dangerous when compared to the great safety record of existing airplanes.

ck2• 13 years ago

They should switch to LiFePo4 chemistry which will not burn.

My bike battery is made of that.

keeperofdakeys• 13 years ago

LiFePO4 and LiMn2O4 chemistries aren't magic, although they are less prone to 'rapid disassembly', there is always a possibility. LiCO4 does have advantages though, mainly related to energy density. For something like a car, or a plane, higher energy density in cells means greater efficiency for weight vs. energy potential. Also, it isn't like lithium cobalt is going to explode if you look at it wrong. Nearly all the risk can be prevented by proper cell management, via electronics.

LiFePO4 and LiMn2O4 have the advantage of larger output potential, which for your bike, allows a large amount of power to be put into the electric motor from a small battery. Electric cars/planes get around this by putting lots of cells in parallel, but requires quite a lot of regulation.

gregcohn• 13 years ago

This article makes it sound like it could have been an issue more with the human factors surrounding battery user than with the battery itself. http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020241385_7...

codex3• 13 years ago

I've found that humans are much better at doing than they are at thinking. Humans can generate countless hypotheses and evidence to support those hypotheses, and yet most human theories are flat out wrong. This is why we have the scientific method, which verifies hypothesis with good old fashioned elbow grease.

The real "five whys" question here is: "Why did this battery get through Boeing's (most certainly exhaustive) certification process and win FAA approval?" Boeing is well aware of the risks of lithium ion batteries and must have "proven" to themselves and the FAA that this design was sound through rigorous testing.

I suspect there is an "unknown unknown" here; something so unexpected a test couldn't be fathomed to exercise it. How does one find unknown unknowns? It's a fascinating question.

jevinskie• 13 years ago

EEGuy• 13 years ago

There is a published picture [1] of one of the failed assemblies next to a normal assembly of the same type, sitting on a forklift pallet. It's easy to gauge the assemblies' physical size and count a minimum of 16 visible cells. Not visible in the photograph are bus bars or power connector.

I don't see a lot of paint discoloration, and a label of some kind is not charred or much discolored.

[1] http://phys.org/news/2013-01-overcharging-batteries-eyed-boe...

alan_cx• 13 years ago

From a complete position of ignorance, I have never felt comfortable with these batteries in aeroplanes.

On of my wastes of time is RC modelling. These batteries have been used now for quite some time for power. What we RC people know is that while these batteries have great performance, it very easy to make one blow up if not handled correctly. Enough burned out sheds can testify to this. So, even if the engineers say they they can use them safely, I will always feel nervous of their use. Fine for things like RC models, laptops, phones, real cars even etc, but the plane use, to me, has a question mark against it.

OK, Im 100% sure engineers can make a great defence of their use, but there will always be a nagging doubt for me.

alanctgardner22• 13 years ago

I think people have exaggerated feelings of insecurity about planes versus cars. Maybe it's because heavier-than-air flight just doesn't jive mentally, or maybe it's because you have very little personal control when flying. Either way, you carry these batteries on your person, in your coat pocket, in a bag, leave them in your study downstairs, hell, drive around in a big box made of them. Fisker Karmas were in the nasty habit of bursting into flames, but that was viewed as a one-off design flaw, not a crushing blow to 'batteries in cars' as a concept. I think the collective anxiety we feel towards planes, as a culture, shapes our views of these incidents too much. If your car was on fire on the highway you may not have handled it as well as the pilot in this scenario.

LnxPrgr3• 13 years ago

Even old-fashioned gasoline cars carry with them a tank of incredibly flammable fuel, a battery that can dump hundreds of amps into a short circuit (and that vents explosive gas in normal operation), and a much higher risk of colliding with other things on the ground. IIRC car crashes kill on the order of 30,000 people a year in the US.

That said, I have had my engine catch fire while driving down the Interstate. It took me a few seconds to pull over and get out of the car. The best pilot ever isn't about to land a 787 from cruising altitude anywhere near as fast. I can only hope the design keeps the battery fire from endangering life or taking out anything else important in the meantime.

But my understanding is the rate of spectacular li-ion battery failures is phenomenally low. Incidents happen, but the vast majority of batteries behave themselves. From the early reports I've heard, the Boeing situation sounds like one of abuse.

But like I said with the Fisker situation, we won't really know anything about Boeing's situation until the investigations are complete.

Either way, I'll drop my phone in my pocket today with confidence, right before doing something else far more likely to hurt me: driving to work.

yardie• 13 years ago

> Japanese inspectors have cleared the maker of the battery, GS Yuasa, of any defects before the unit leaves the factory. But both Japanese and US investigators continue to examine and test the batteries to understand why they failed after they were integrated into the 787 electrical system and operated on commercial flights.

So it's not the batteries but how they are integrated into the plane? How is this any different than how Tesla has packed their cells? Their cells looked pretty densely packed from my POV.

3amOpsGuy2• 13 years ago

I'm just surprised there isn't more damage from the fire! I use similar chemistry batteries (although much smaller) in RC planes (they are very energy dense for their weight).

When they are damaged (normally through charging incorrectly but in some cases through puncture / crash damage) they burn extremely rapidly and very violently for their size.

The damage in the photographs of the 787 is not on the scale i was expecting.

jlgreco7• 13 years ago

This is a bit off-topic, but I have been considering retrofitting my roomba with Li-ion batteries but am a bit concerned about the fire risk (partly because I don't want to loose the roomba, but mostly since it is in my apartment.) Is there anything that comes to mind that I should particularly look out for or consider?

3amOpsGuy2• 13 years ago

May be worth exploring the differences between "safer" cells such as LiFe / A123 vs the riskier Li-ion & LiPo types.

I understand the charging strategy for A123 is much simpler to implement than for Li-Ion (may not even need a micro controller) but i'm not 100% confident in that statement!

nextparadigms3• 13 years ago

So basically Boeing chose to use the cheaper kind of batteries, instead of the more secure kind. I imagine isolating thousands of tiny cells is quite a bit more expensive than isolating much larger ones.

dade_• 13 years ago

I think Elon is justified for taking a public stance to protect his own interests. As his companies develop products with the same battery technology, it is likely that the hazards of the Boeing battery design could become associated to the entire battery technology. This would be disastrous for his organizations. I consider this a pre-emptive defensive move against technically ignorant public and media. Boeing has a strong reputation and will surely weather this mess just fine by identifying corrective action and doing the right thing.

codex3• 13 years ago

Elon might know a thing or two here, as just last year Tesla's battery testing facility caught on fire [1]. In the absence of more information, allow me to publicly speculate that perhaps that facility is fundamentally unsafe. <g>

[1] http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/peninsul...

teyc• 13 years ago

Being a bit snarky there?

Fukushima reminded me that there are some designs that required active safety systems, while others like thorium reactors can be designed with passive safety system.

Musk was not offering to help out with designing a new plane. He was offering help with battery systems. This, he has more expertise than Boeing or its direct subcontractor did.

Musk did not strike me as a person who have actively sought out publicity for publicity's sake in the past. Personally, I'd rather more eyes went through the design of a plane that I might ride in one day. Teslas are too pricey for me.

Elon Musk: Boeing 787 battery fundamentally unsafe

Related Stories