Boeing has submitted paperwork for a fix to FAA. They are improving the battery assembly and enclosing the battery assembly inside a fireproof battery box with over board vents, so that should the "improved" battery catch fire again the fire will be contained inside the battery box and the smoke vented overboard.
The "improved" battery is only medium convincing. This is a replaceable cell battery. Eight separate cells, each yielding a little less than four volts are packed inside a metal box. Wired in series this gives a 28 volt battery, the standard aircraft battery voltage for the last 70 years or more. There is a battery monitor, an electronic black box that checks each cell, jumper straps to tie the cells together in series, a wiring harness for the battery monitor. Changes involve wrapping each cell in tape, lock washers on the terminal straps, more shrink tubing to insulate the wiring harness. The battery monitor will be reprogrammed to alarm more readily. These are quality control measures that are a good idea in general, but don't sound like a real fix. The real problem is that for some reason battery cells now and then decide to catch fire. Once a single cell catches fire, it will light off its neighbor cells since they are all packed cheek by jowl inside the battery assembly.
In going over all the paperwork generated, it was revealed that Securiplane, the maker of the 787 battery charger, never tested their charger on a real battery. Due to a previous battery fire in their lab, they decided testing with real batteries was too dangerous. All testing of the charger circuitry was done on simulated batteries instead of the real thing. That's surprising. Anyone with real flight line experience will tell you that simulators are never exactly like the real thing.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Cruises from Hell
Been a lot of stories of cruise ship breakdowns. Carnivale Cruise lines makes the news most often. The worst was one ship that lost all engine power at sea. They had to get towed back to port. With no electric power, the galley was in trouble, no refrigerators, no stoves. Cuisine suffered, passengers were fed on MRE's. Running water stopped running and toilets stopped flushing. No one was hurt, but that was pure luck. Passengers and TV news told horror stories for days. There have been several others resulting in cruises cut short.
A ship without engine power full of passengers is a disaster waiting to happen. A little bad weather and a powerless ship will sink. The weather in the Caribbean isn't as nasty as the North Atlantic, but, they do get hurricanes from time to time. In the interests of passenger safety we need to insist on cruise ships that never loose power at sea.
The real problem is unseaworthy cruise ships. Any ship of that size ought to have twin screws, twin engines, twin engine rooms so that if one breaks the other keeps the ship moving and the electricity flowing. Everything ought to be duplicate and redundant. Engine rooms ought to have sprinklers in case of fire. No single failure should disable the ship. There are insurance company and government regulations on ship construction. Are these regulations stiff enough? And do they apply to cruise ships registered in Panama or other third world sinkholes? Building ships right costs more than just slapping them together any old which way. Cruise lines are competitive. They have an obligation to their stock holders to make a profit. They will take short cuts compromising passenger safety unless there are regulations and inspectors enforcing those regulations.
We had senator Chuckie the Schumer on TV calling for a "passenger bill of rights". Such as the right to a refund, and the right to have the toilets flush. A lawyer's solution to everything. That isn't the problem.
A ship without engine power full of passengers is a disaster waiting to happen. A little bad weather and a powerless ship will sink. The weather in the Caribbean isn't as nasty as the North Atlantic, but, they do get hurricanes from time to time. In the interests of passenger safety we need to insist on cruise ships that never loose power at sea.
The real problem is unseaworthy cruise ships. Any ship of that size ought to have twin screws, twin engines, twin engine rooms so that if one breaks the other keeps the ship moving and the electricity flowing. Everything ought to be duplicate and redundant. Engine rooms ought to have sprinklers in case of fire. No single failure should disable the ship. There are insurance company and government regulations on ship construction. Are these regulations stiff enough? And do they apply to cruise ships registered in Panama or other third world sinkholes? Building ships right costs more than just slapping them together any old which way. Cruise lines are competitive. They have an obligation to their stock holders to make a profit. They will take short cuts compromising passenger safety unless there are regulations and inspectors enforcing those regulations.
We had senator Chuckie the Schumer on TV calling for a "passenger bill of rights". Such as the right to a refund, and the right to have the toilets flush. A lawyer's solution to everything. That isn't the problem.
Why do I still watch Meet the Press?
Can't be 'cause I want to find out what's going on. This morning we had democrat Charles Van Hoolen claim that Obama had made $1.5 trillion in cuts. In actual fact, Obama is going to spend more this year than he did last year, even after the "drastic" sequester. You cannot claim a cut when spending goes up. Chalk up Mr. Van Hoolen as another democrat who doesn't tell the truth. Oh well, last week democrat Kasini Reed claimed $2.5 trillion in cuts. So this week they cut their cuts by a cool $1 trillion.
Then we had moderator David Gregory talk about an acceptable ratio of spending cuts to tax hikes. Right now that ratio is $600 billion to zero. And we all remember what divide by zero yields.
Switch subjects to gay marriage (important topic) . We find out that it's now called "marriage equality" 'cause that sounds better than "gay marriage".
Chris Matthews goes off on a rant about the necessity to think of gay marriage as a right. Chris omits mentioning the "right" of gay marriage ought to be decided the same way every thing else in a democracy is decided, by the ballot box. Gay marriage becomes a right when there are enough votes to pass it into law. If you don't have the votes, it ain't a right.
Then we had moderator David Gregory talk about an acceptable ratio of spending cuts to tax hikes. Right now that ratio is $600 billion to zero. And we all remember what divide by zero yields.
Switch subjects to gay marriage (important topic) . We find out that it's now called "marriage equality" 'cause that sounds better than "gay marriage".
Chris Matthews goes off on a rant about the necessity to think of gay marriage as a right. Chris omits mentioning the "right" of gay marriage ought to be decided the same way every thing else in a democracy is decided, by the ballot box. Gay marriage becomes a right when there are enough votes to pass it into law. If you don't have the votes, it ain't a right.
Friday, March 15, 2013
It's difficult to be Republican these days.
The hard part is creating a party platform that will attract voters. After the disaster of Nov 2012, Republicans have been doing a lot of soul searching. Practicing Republicans (selectmen, school board, State reps, party officials, party workers) want the party to stand for jobs, tax cuts, spending cuts, and improving the economy. They don't want to get mixed up in the wedge issues (abortion, contraception and gay marriage), cause they know these issues are losers. They drive away more young voters, than the elderly voters they appeal too. If the practical Republicans had their druthers, no Republican would ever mention a wedge issue, especially in primary elections.
Trouble is the abortion issue is huge and it really motivates a lot of voters. Used to be the country was split 50-50 on it. Recent polling suggests that the pro abortion sentiment is now ahead maybe 55 to 45 percent. That's huge. Means every time the issue comes up, Republicans loose by 10 percent. In American elections 10 percent is a landslide.
Guess which party the 45 percent anti abortion voters join? I'll give you a clue, it ain't the democrats.
So here we are with a load of gung ho anti abortion voters in the party. It's a democratic party, we cannot kick them out or brainwash them. And they vote in primaries. So the Republicans have a LOT of wedge issue voters that won't go away. And Republican candidates have to come to the best terms they can make with them.
Trouble is the abortion issue is huge and it really motivates a lot of voters. Used to be the country was split 50-50 on it. Recent polling suggests that the pro abortion sentiment is now ahead maybe 55 to 45 percent. That's huge. Means every time the issue comes up, Republicans loose by 10 percent. In American elections 10 percent is a landslide.
Guess which party the 45 percent anti abortion voters join? I'll give you a clue, it ain't the democrats.
So here we are with a load of gung ho anti abortion voters in the party. It's a democratic party, we cannot kick them out or brainwash them. And they vote in primaries. So the Republicans have a LOT of wedge issue voters that won't go away. And Republican candidates have to come to the best terms they can make with them.
Ford needs a better ad man
It's a maximally ineffective TV car ad. It starts off with an animated cartoon of a SUV. As the voice over explains that the SUV is too small to hold all the passengers. The cartoon car shows bulges all of a sudden. Then they melt down the cartoon car and redraw it. A happy voice over now explains how everyone fits inside, now. That uses up half the ad time.
Then we finally get to see a photo of the car they are trying to sell. It bursts thru a big sheet of wallpaper. The car is not on screen long enough to really see it. It's painted mud color. It has an odd name "C-Max" which is never spelled out on screen. It has three grownups squeezed into the back seat looking squashed which kinda negates the point the cartoons tried to make. Price is not given.
That ad ain't gonna sell cars.
To sell a car on TV you want to show the car,.early and all the way thru. You want to show the car name prominently and early, 'cause cars all look alike these days. Give the car a real pronounceable name rather than random strings of letters and numbers.Show people doing fun things in the car at interesting places. For instance parked at a beach with surfboards on the roof. Or with skis on the roof at a ski resort. Or towing a boat trailer to a fishing spot. Or beside a tent at a scenic campground. And paint the car a real color, not mud.
Then we finally get to see a photo of the car they are trying to sell. It bursts thru a big sheet of wallpaper. The car is not on screen long enough to really see it. It's painted mud color. It has an odd name "C-Max" which is never spelled out on screen. It has three grownups squeezed into the back seat looking squashed which kinda negates the point the cartoons tried to make. Price is not given.
That ad ain't gonna sell cars.
To sell a car on TV you want to show the car,.early and all the way thru. You want to show the car name prominently and early, 'cause cars all look alike these days. Give the car a real pronounceable name rather than random strings of letters and numbers.Show people doing fun things in the car at interesting places. For instance parked at a beach with surfboards on the roof. Or with skis on the roof at a ski resort. Or towing a boat trailer to a fishing spot. Or beside a tent at a scenic campground. And paint the car a real color, not mud.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)