 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / Portable Macs / August 2006Exploding laptops
Dell is recalling more than four million laptop computers because the battery might explode. Good heavens. Who needs terrorists? But it gets worse, because several other companies, including Apple, use the same type of battery. Apple says they are investigating to see if there is a potential problem. But what do we do until then? Is it a good idea to remove the battery before, say, boarding a plane? Or am I just being a little too nervous? > Dell is recalling more than four million laptop computers because the > battery might explode. Their phrase is "risk of fire." That's rather a different claim, really. > But what do we do until then? Is it a good idea to remove the battery > before, say, boarding a plane? Or am I just being a little too nervous? What about being on a plane would cause a battery to explode? Dell (and AFAIK all other manufacturers who have recalled batteries) tells users to not use the batteries, implying that it won't spontaneously do _anything_. If your battery is affected (why a Dell user would post here, I don't know, but the advice is general), do what the manufacturer tells you to do and problem solved.  SignatureLater, John johajohn@indianahoosiers.edu 'indiana' is a 'nolnn' and 'hoosier' is a 'solkk'. Indiana doesn't solkk. > What about being on a plane would cause a battery to explode? Dell (and > AFAIK all other manufacturers who have recalled batteries) tells users > to not use the batteries, implying that it won't spontaneously do > _anything_. If your battery is affected (why a Dell user would post > here, I don't know, but the advice is general), do what the manufacturer > tells you to do and problem solved. this one exploded and the laptop was not in use at the time - it was sleeping and not even plugged into the charger. <http://blog.wired.com/cultofmac/index.blog?entry_id=1533636> > > > What about being on a plane would cause a battery to explode? Dell (and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > <http://blog.wired.com/cultofmac/index.blog?entry_id=1533636> Well, being plugged into the charger doesn't seem obviously significant to me, but then I'm no expert on such things. Anyway, my point is that in Dell's case, and in the cases where Apple has issued recalls on batteries, they tell people to stop using the battery. They don't tell people to leave them in a sleeping machine, nor to simply unplug the machine from the wall. By saying "it won't spontaneously do _anything_" I mean that the battery, when sitting on a shelf, seems unlikely to spontaneously explode or catch fire, or whatever. This evaluation depends crucially on a number of assumptions about the mechanism of the explosion/fire, however. I just don't have enough information to make substantial claims about it. OTOH, I haven't seen anyone else present such information either. I'm not trying to downplay the issue, but it's easy to let some graphic pictures and anecdotes give one a distorted sense of the situation. Short of not using battery-powered devices, there's not much more that I can do than to follow my manufacturer's recommendations, and that's what I'm advocating. AFAIK, Apple hasn't made any special recommendations, so I'm pursuing computing as usual. ;-) SignatureLater, John johajohn@indianahoosiers.edu 'indiana' is a 'nolnn' and 'hoosier' is a 'solkk'. Indiana doesn't solkk. > ... > I'm not trying to downplay the issue, but it's easy to let some graphic [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm advocating. AFAIK, Apple hasn't made any special recommendations, so > I'm pursuing computing as usual. ;-) Well, some graphic pictures are graphic for good reasons. I'm no stranger to electronic devices and electronic fires, having spent a few years doing design of components and have performed failure analysis of fried components. So I'm not going to panic, far from it. But I can tell you that I'm not waiting for any company to tell me not going to boot up either my ibook or (especially!) my company-issue Del when I'm flying any more. I'll wait until I land. I strongly suspect that we'll soon see some changes in the testing and new UL specs on the issue. The problem is that the resulting regulations may affect the performance of these doodads. As someone has mentioned, it's difficult to have that much energy density and still keeping it relatively safe. Tho > > Dell is recalling more than four million laptop computers because the > > battery might explode. > > Their phrase is "risk of fire." That's rather a different claim, really. The news media have been saying "exploding," and the film clips of self-destructing laptops certainly support that description. > > But what do we do until then? Is it a good idea to remove the battery > > before, say, boarding a plane? Or am I just being a little too nervous? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > here, I don't know, but the advice is general), do what the manufacturer > tells you to do and problem solved. I would not expect that simply being on a plane would cause the battery to explode. It is just that this seems an especially bad place for this to happen. If the laptop is in your carry-on and it catches fire, say, on your seat table, how do you put it out? Pouring water on a lithium fire makes it worse. I am not a Dell user. I like my PowerBook G4 very much, thank you. But Apple uses the same type of battery and says it is investigating whether its laptop batteries have the same problem. And these batteries are apparently starting fires without the computer even being plugged in. I live more than a ten hour drive from the nearest Apple reseller in Manila. If Apple recalled my battery, I would be in a world of hurt. > > > Dell is recalling more than four million laptop computers because the > > > battery might explode. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The news media have been saying "exploding," and the film clips of > self-destructing laptops certainly support that description. Well, I haven't seen video, only still pictures. I suppose for most people the sort of distinction that I'm making is likely to be interpreted as irrelevant nit-picking anyway. Based on the pictures that I've seen, the explosions seem to be pretty small and pretty well-contained. So long as you're not actually using the thing on your lap when it happens, it seems likely that nobody will get seriously hurt (though it's difficult to give an informed statement without much more information). > > > But what do we do until then? Is it a good idea to remove the battery > > > before, say, boarding a plane? Or am I just being a little too nervous? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to explode. It is just that this seems an especially bad place for this > to happen. I'm completely in agreement with you here. Pressurized environments and fire are a nasty combination. My point was that you face the same risk of the battery going off when using the machine, or carrying it around, off of the plane as on it. It sounds obvious, but it's hard to tell exactly what people (even myself, from time to time...) mean when evaluating their writing sometimes. > If the laptop is in your carry-on and it catches fire, say, > on your seat table, how do you put it out? Pouring water on a lithium > fire makes it worse. IIRC, burning Lithium actually calls for a class-D extinguisher, but I suspect that there's not going to be much burning metallic Lithium in the notebook fires. Either way, the cabin crew should hit it with the fire-bottle ASAP. I don't know whether they use class-D or the more common ABC dry-chem bottles on planes (I don't fly much at all, anyone know what they use?), but I suspect that the ABC dry-chem would do the job just fine. > I am not a Dell user. I like my PowerBook G4 very much, thank you. But > Apple uses the same type of battery and says it is investigating > whether its laptop batteries have the same problem. Yeah, sorry if that comment came off as being snippy, I didn't mean it that way. Look, there's basically two things going on here: 1) you need to decide how much (relative) risk you're willing to tolerate. If you don't want to risk an explosion on an airplane, then you need to make sure that your batteries don't board the plane. That's as simple as it gets. Slightly more risky than that would be to turn the machine off for the duration of the flight. I can't evaluate the increase in risk WRT sleeping versus using the machine, but those activities are somewhat riskier still. 2) it would be nice to be able to quantify the risk in these situations. Ok, Dell recalled a bunch of batteries with a common manufacturer. Apple uses the same chemistry in their batteries. But, is the problem inherent to the battery chemistry, or does it depend on the particular cells used, or the charge controller chip, or the firmware on the chip, or the computer's charger, or some interaction of these? Without knowing more about the mechanism, evaluating risk is difficult. Anecdotes don't give anything like a robust measure of the risk, in part because they typically don't include nearly enough information. So, I still recommend doing what your supplier tells you to do, and going with it. SignatureLater, John johajohn@indianahoosiers.edu 'indiana' is a 'nolnn' and 'hoosier' is a 'solkk'. Indiana doesn't solkk. > IIRC, burning Lithium actually calls for a class-D extinguisher, but I > suspect that there's not going to be much burning metallic Lithium in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > know what they use?), but I suspect that the ABC dry-chem would do the > job just fine. Aircraft have Halon fire extinguishers, at least in America. Just about the only place you will see them anymore except in some industrial applications. Halon is poisonous, but most people can stand it for long enough to put out a fire and it is less toxic than some other chemicals. It is very good in confined spaces. The worst problem with Halon, of course, is that it is a chlorofluorocarbon and thus very unpopular with the sort of persons who want to protect you from chlorofluorocarbons no matter how many people have to die in order to do it. :-) Halon is no longer being manufactured, but with recycling there should be enough to last through the end of the century. There are some substitutes, but none of them seem to work as well on aircraft. Either the substitutes are too poisonous for occupied compartments or they will not put out fuel fires or else they are just too corrosive. The limited market for Halon fire extinguishers makes them very expensive. Halon will put out any kind of fire except class D and F/K, but it is rated only 1-A for A fires. A lithium fire is a class D fire. PhostrEx has been approved by the FAA as a substitute for Halon, but I have not seen a PhostrEx extinguisher. PhostrEx really is poisonous and can cause blisters, but it is supposed to be very effective. It cannot put out a class D fire, either. My own Halon extinguishers (I have owned two airplanes) were checked every year for leaks and re-certified. I am glad I never had to replace one; it probably would have broken the bank. > > IIRC, burning Lithium actually calls for a class-D extinguisher, but I > > suspect that there's not going to be much burning metallic Lithium in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the only place you will see them anymore except in some industrial > applications. Ah, I had thought that they had limited Halon to the engine fire-bottles only. Thanks for the info. SignatureLater, John johajohn@indianahoosiers.edu 'indiana' is a 'nolnn' and 'hoosier' is a 'solkk'. Indiana doesn't solkk. > Halon is poisonous, Where do you come up with this BS??????? There is NO Poison involved with Halon.... It just displaces the Oxygen in the air because it is heavier than than air and starves the fire of its needed oxygen. No Poison involved..... Didn't you take chemistry in High School? Apparently you didn't learn anything....... > > Halon is poisonous, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Didn't you take chemistry in High School? Apparently you didn't learn > anything....... Before you light off on something like that, you might want to do a little research. Halon is mildly poisonous. The manufacturer says so. The distributor says so. The FAA says it is poisonous. The state of California declares it to be a known carcinogen (but then, everything in California is a known to the state to be a carcinogen). Halon 1301, of course, is not nearly as poisonous as Halon 104 (carbon tetrachloride), which is lethal. But the fact that Halon 1301 contains less poison does not make it non-poisonous. It is just not deadly. > > > Halon is poisonous, > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > tetrachloride), which is lethal. But the fact that Halon 1301 contains > less poison does not make it non-poisonous. It is just not deadly. In the State of Kalifornia, even water is posionous.... When was the last time you heard of anything that wasn't a "Carcinogen"..... > I'm completely in agreement with you here. Pressurized environments and > fire are a nasty combination. The desk you are sitting at right now is in a more highly pressurized environment than the airplane cabin. You don't need to worry about this. > > I'm completely in agreement with you here. Pressurized environments and > > fire are a nasty combination. > > The desk you are sitting at right now is in a more highly pressurized > environment than the airplane cabin. You don't need to worry about this. You know, I figured that someone would make this reply..but only _after_ I hit the "Post" button. lol I'll also note that I'm not the guy who was worried about his laptop exploding on a plane. Heck, I don't fly much, and when I do I don't whip out the AlBook and do anything with it. It stays stowed while I read a novel, motorcycle magazine, or some other unpowered text. Now then, on to fire and pressurized environments for the nit-picky. It's not necessarily the pressure that's the problem (though it _can_ cause problems itself, particularly in high-pressure systems). Pressurized environments usually run a high-percentage of recirculated air, exacerbating any problems caused by contaminants (e.g. combustion byproducts, potentially hazardous or irritating firefighting compounds, etc.). In the unlikely event of a fire causing problems for the cabin pressurization equipment (extremely unlikely to result from an "exploding" laptop), you get an additional set of problems, which can be nasty indeed. So, I believe that my statement is true, and applicable. SignatureLater, John johajohn@indianahoosiers.edu 'indiana' is a 'nolnn' and 'hoosier' is a 'solkk'. Indiana doesn't solkk. > > > I'm completely in agreement with you here. Pressurized environments and > > > fire are a nasty combination. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "exploding" laptop), you get an additional set of problems, which can be > nasty indeed. So, I believe that my statement is true, and applicable. Actually, an airplane pressurization system does not work that way. Air is drawn in and compressed by the fans and turbines in the engine or, in a piston airplane, by the turbocharger. Some is bled off before being fed into the firebox, cooled (in jets, the bleed air is very hot because of friction -- so hot that it is used in some deicing systems), and run into the cabin. There is a bleed air valve which the pilot can adjust to keep the cabin pressure at a particular altituded. When the pressure in the cabin exceeds that the valve is opened and air is released. It is quite a simple design, really, and almost foolproof. There is still quite a bit of recirculation going on, but not as much as what would be expected in some other pressurized systems. Actually, one way of dealing with cabin fires is to simply depressurize the plane and, if possible, open a window or door. All the smoke is drawn right outside. Small planes are not usually pressurized, of course, since pressurization is both expensive and heavy. But laptop computers are very popular with the pilots of these planes, being used for everything from flight planning to VFR navigation to just whatever else you use a laptop for. But then again, if your laptop catches fire in an unpressurized plane, all you have to do is open the window and toss it out. :-) >>Pressurized environments usually run a high-percentage of recirculated >>air... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > pressure in the cabin exceeds that the valve is opened and air is > released. It is quite a simple design, really, and almost foolproof. I recently completed a maintenance course for a small turbofan engine, and it was truly surprising how simple this system really is. Couple of valves, a few tubes, and that's it. (although I don't think there are any engines that tap from the hot section, i.e., turbines. I think they all tap from the cold section.) I suppose as far as components count goes, your typical powerbook is much more complex than a typical jet engine. Of course, if you own a Del, it may get hotter than a PW turbofan :-) Tho > >>Pressurized environments usually run a high-percentage of recirculated > >>air... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > (although I don't think there are any engines that tap from the hot > section, i.e., turbines. I think they all tap from the cold section.) Right. They all tap from the cold section. Part of the air is directed into the pressurization unit, the rest around the hot section to help cool it. > I suppose as far as components count goes, your typical powerbook is > much more complex than a typical jet engine. Of course, if you own a > Del, it may get hotter than a PW turbofan :-) I would settle for a simple PT-6A. On a Caravan, perhaps. On amphibs. My dream plane. > Tho > > >>Pressurized environments usually run a high-percentage of recirculated > > >>air... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > > Tho You got an extra Mill and a half ...... I suppose........ > > I would settle for a simple PT-6A. On a Caravan, perhaps. On amphibs. > > My dream plane. > > > > > Tho > > You got an extra Mill and a half ...... I suppose........ That is bare bones. Probably 3 equipped the way I would want it. > > I would settle for a simple PT-6A. On a Caravan, perhaps. On amphibs. > > My dream plane. > > > > > Tho > > You got an extra Mill and a half ...... I suppose........ That is bare bones. Probably 3 equipped the way I would want it. > > > I'm completely in agreement with you here. Pressurized environments and > > > fire are a nasty combination. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "exploding" laptop), you get an additional set of problems, which can be > nasty indeed. So, I believe that my statement is true, and applicable. Except Dufus, that the cabin of an airliner is only pressurized, when compared to the surrounding air at elevation, and not compared to SEA LEVEL.....typical Cabin Pressures are held at about 7500Ft...which is significantly lower than Atmopheric Pressures at SEA LEVEL... And for you information, if the pilot so chose, he could flush the air in the cabin with pressurized air from the engines and completely exchange the volume of air in the cabin in about 3 minutes. Part of the Pressurization Certification for Airworthyness Certicifate.... > > > > I'm completely in agreement with you here. Pressurized environments and > > > > fire are a nasty combination. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > LEVEL.....typical Cabin Pressures are held at about 7500Ft...which is > significantly lower than Atmopheric Pressures at SEA LEVEL... I didn't make _any_ claims about the pressure inside the cabin. For all you know, I was aware of your little tidbit when I first posted. Even so, I admitted that my original post was ambiguous and open to misinterpretation. I believe, however, that the misinterpretation is irrelevant to what I actually did claim. > And > for you information, if the pilot so chose, he could flush the air > in the cabin with pressurized air from the engines and completely > exchange the volume of air in the cabin in about 3 minutes. Part of > the Pressurization Certification for Airworthyness Certicifate.... I've already been (re)reminded about how aircraft pressurization works, thanks. cjcampbell was considerably more polite in his reminder, however, and I do appreciate his extra effort. Again, my claim is that fire in a pressurized environment is "nasty" where "nasty" means something like "considerably more complicated, and posing far more potential hazards than fires that people typically experience on the ground in daily life." That's all I ever claimed (actually, that's more than I explicitly claimed, but since people are happy to criticize what they _think_ I meant rather than what I actually wrote, I'm happy to defend myself on the basis of what _I_ think I meant). I don't see that claim as inconsistent with your, or cjcampbell's information about aircraft pressurization systems or fire-extinguishing requirements. I also don't see what I wrote as being particularly significant, though there are clearly those who disagree. <shrugs> Perhaps You (proper name, not a generic pronoun) would also like to point out that only a doofus wouldn't know that these laptops aren't actually exploding? I mean, they aren't. Go wild, score some more points on me; I've even done all the heavy lifting (twice actually) for you. SignatureLater, John johajohn@indianahoosiers.edu 'indiana' is a 'nolnn' and 'hoosier' is a 'solkk'. Indiana doesn't solkk. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.