3 ms·
Presumably the reaction to an in-cabin fire will be quicker than to that of a fire in the hold. Do these batteries provide their own oxidizer somehow (in that
by cr1895 10y ago
Presumably the reaction to an in-cabin fire will be quicker than to that of a fire in the hold.
Do these batteries provide their own oxidizer somehow (in that would flooding the hold with CO2 or something actually extinguish one on fire)?
I don't know how fire protection currently is within an airplane hold but surely this is a solveable problem. Maybe airlines are asking that people not put these batteries in the hold is because fire protection systems haven't yet been adapted to this risk.
- icebraining 10y agoPresumably the reaction to an in-cabin fire will be quicker than to that of a fire in the hold. A couple of decades ago I could see that, but nowadays? Surely installing an array of heat and smoke sensors wouldn't be that expensive?
- cr1895 10y agoNo it's probably not anything new but when you muck about with commercial airplanes things get expensive and take a lot of time (regulatory issues). It's one thing to modify something with your car, for example, but when you change something about a commercial airliner it's not so simple.
- pjc50 10y ago> Do these batteries provide their own oxidizer somehow Yes - the metal oxides in one of the electrodes decompose at high temperatures. CO2 will stop it setting other things on fire but the battery will continue to burn like a thermite reaction until it runs out of fuel.
- cr1895 10y agoAh...you say it's like thermite...could one of these melt its way completely through the plane fuselage?