Fire on JetBlue plane

[yellow]

there is no way the shrinkwrap of the "good" cell survives a temperature directly aside a "venting cell" that gets hot enough to melt the outside of the pack ...
fake, at least the red cell is fake! it was never at that position

 

[Monocrom]

My question may be elementary, but why not simply transport batteries inside a plastic case? I won't carry a lithium ion cell anywhere unless it is stored inside a high quality O-ring sealed case like a delrin capsule from Oveready or the Cell Vault XL from Thyrm. I don't even use the industry standard plastic shipping containers for fear they could open unintentionally during transit.

You want to know the ironic part?.... eFest actually makes plastic cases that hold 18650s, CR123s, etc. Simple, cheap, but effective.

 

[alpg88]

My question may be elementary, but why not simply transport batteries inside a plastic case? .

TSA regulation. plastic case is not a device. laws are usually written by people who do not have knowledge of things they legislate. even less so with people that enforce them.

i bring spare 18650 with me camping all the time, i use masking tape to tape positive end.

 

[recDNA]

I once had a perfectly good 18650 vent in a solarforce flashlight that had been untouched on a shelf for a week.(no flame) Folks suggested a short circuit but I find it unlikely. I think the thing just vented. Supposedly protected cell too. Unstable chemistry or whatever I will never know. Point is these things happen. I could understand outlawing loose cells not permanently installed in a device like a laptop. They really are dangerous on an airplane.

 

[recDNA]

TSA regulation. plastic case is not a device. laws are usually written by people who do not have knowledge of things they legislate. even less so with people that enforce them.

i bring spare 18650 with me camping all the time, i use masking tape to tape positive end.

I tape booth ends! LOL

 

[vadimax]

i wonder if putting one cell backwards, made the other go into reverse charge.

That "backwards" is crap Both cells were NOT in the charger when one of them went on fire. The photo is staged by a journalist:

CNN Caught Staging Fake News Scene

Nothing to discuss. I even have a great suspicion that the event has happened on a plane.

P.S.: It could not be better I have investigated multiple reports on the event. All report of batteries and laptop in the backpack, not a word about any chargers. And only CNN "provided" photos ROFL...

So I may be nearly 100% sure: this backpack, chargers and batteries are NOT from the real event!

 

[nbp]

Your link has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Let's keep on point.

 

[vadimax]

Your link has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Let's keep on point.

I am perfectly on the topic: the photos were sourced from CNN who lie systematically. The photos are fake. So this topic discusses a real event, but with staged photos

 

[vadimax]

Ok, here we go:

Gerald R. Ford International Airport
5500 44th Street SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49512

I have sent them an e-mail with a question if they have issued any photos of the backpack and its contents

 

[Modernflame]

The condition of the neighboring cell is a question mark for me too, but I'd stop short of saying the story is a whole cloth fabrication. I've had a new, high quality cell vent with flames on the charger during it's first charge cycle. These things do happen from time to time. In my case, the wrapper on the neighboring cell was slightly discolored, but only in one spot. If my uninvolved cell had been rotated half a turn in the charging bay, the damage would not have appeared in a photo. I say this not to rehash my episode, but to suggest that the red cell in the above photos might simply have been turned slightly as it was handled.

 

[vadimax]

The condition of the neighboring cell is a question mark for me too, but I'd stop short of saying the story is a whole cloth fabrication. I've had a new, high quality cell vent with flames on the charger during it's first charge cycle. These things do happen from time to time. In my case, the wrapper on the neighboring cell was slightly discolored, but only in one spot. If my uninvolved cell had been rotated half a turn in the charging bay, the damage would not have appeared in a photo. I say this not to rehash my episode, but to suggest that the red cell in the above photos might simply have been turned slightly as it was handled.

I may repeat my point of view once more: the battery on the image is reverse. We may make an assumption that the owner is an idiot, but not to that extent

Next, the charger inner space is absolutely clear without a single spot of melting of fire damage. At the same time it is melted from outside.

Third, CNN are known fake news generators.

The only logical conclusion possible: a) the cell was outside of the charger when it caught fire; b) the photo is staged, rigged, fake -- find a better determination if you like

 

[Modernflame]

I may repeat my point of view once more: the battery on the image is reverse. We may make an assumption that the owner is an idiot, but not to that extent

Next, the charger inner space is absolutely clear without a single spot of melting of fire damage. At the same time it is melted from outside.

Third, CNN are known fake news generators.

The only logical conclusion possible: a) the cell was outside of the charger when it caught fire; b) the photo is staged, rigged, fake -- find a better determination if you like

I'm not really interested in discussing news outlets, but all reports indicate the incident occurred on a plane and involved a lithium battery. Extra details were provided by CNN, but they were the only ones who report speaking directly with Grand Rapids Ford Airport spokeswoman, Tara Hernandez. The photo of the faulty cell also appears to have been taken on the hood of a white Ford pick up or SUV, like the ones driven by Airport security, as depicted on the airport's Facebook page.

In any case, the thermal runaway event is a reminder to our community to be discerning about cells, chargers, as well as the storage and transportation of batteries.

 

[LeanBurn]

...yet another normal person carelessly treating an Li-on rechargeable like any other rechargeable Ni-mH battery.

:tired: wake me up when this is an irregularity. :tired:

 

[Modernflame]

...yet another normal person carelessly treating an Li-on rechargeable like any other rechargeable Ni-mH battery.

:tired: wake me up when this is an irregularity. :tired:

Muggles...

 

[vadimax]

Some progress if anyone interested:

Dear Tara,


I do not need the original images. Would you be so kind as to approve or deny that images on this page http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/31/us/jetblue-flight-fire/ are original? They look somehow misleading: the intact cell is placed wrong in the charger (it is reversed), the charger bay with a charred cell is not damaged, and the charger itself looks like being melted from outside. But! If the image is original and batteries' position was not tampered with -- the reasons of fire are


a) wrong battery placement by the owner;
b) Efest charger protection from reverse polarity protection failure.


Kind regards, Vadim.

If she approves the images then we have a) and b).

P.S.: Damn, two "protection"s... I am an idiot

 

[Monocrom]

I may repeat my point of view once more: the battery on the image is reverse. We may make an assumption that the owner is an idiot, but not to that extent

Often it's more about sheer ignorance than stupidity. I recall quite clearly a few years back, a new member posted how he tried to recharge a couple of RCR123 cells, and immediately noticed something was way the Hell wrong. He removed the cells quickly and asked us what the issue may have been. We were all stumped until someone asked that he post a pic. of the charger and cells in question.

Well, he did. And I happened to be the first to notice it. Although the generic cells looked similar to generic RCR123s, I took a closer look at the photo and noticed they were labelled "CR123" NOT "RCR123." And we all know what that missing letter means. This new member had attempted to recharge primary cells because he assumed they were rechargeables, due to that's what he had ordered from some dealer somewhere out on the Net. Not a reputable one, nor one known to the CPF community. You can cheap out on certain things with minor consequences occurring at worst, but not with these types of cells.

That new member back then wasn't an idiot. He was simply ignorant. Problem is, ignorance and stupidity can sometimes lead to the very same consequences.

 

[Modernflame]

That new member back then wasn't an idiot. He was simply ignorant. Problem is, ignorance and stupidity can sometimes lead to the very same consequences.

We were all socialized into a world of alkaline batteries, which are utterly benign compared to lithium cells. The concept of dangerous batteries is simply foreign to the uninitiated. I often wonder if the relative danger of lithium cells will be the catalyst for a new generation of safer chemistry.

That said, I've never purchased any lithium batteries, whether primary or rechargeable, that did not include safety instructions, usually in large, bold print, highlighted in yellow or red, with little graphics of explosions and fires and stuff.

 

[Monocrom]

We were all socialized into a world of alkaline batteries, which are utterly benign compared to lithium cells. The concept of dangerous batteries is simply foreign to the uninitiated. I often wonder if the relative danger of lithium cells will be the catalyst for a new generation of safer chemistry.

That said, I've never purchased any lithium batteries, whether primary or rechargeable, that did not include safety instructions, usually in large, bold print, highlighted in yellow or red, with little graphics of explosions and fires and stuff.

The cheap stuff sometimes comes with no warnings at all. And unfortunately, there's a lot of cheap junk and shady individuals in the industry looking to turn a fast buck. And, look at the so-called reputable companies selling laptop computers. Either they don't warn customers of the rechargeables in the laptops, or they bury the warning in tiny, chicken scratch, print. They're the worst offenders.

Unfortunately, forget coming up with an absolutely safe technology for such cells. One day, a politician with more clout and charm than brains will be told about the existence of these exploding batteries that spew out literally toxic fumes. And such cells will soon enough be banned.

Human nature. Every few years some kid as part of his science experiment puts out a petition to ban water. He uses its scientific designation, and points out how "dangerous" it is, how many people get killed every year by it, etc. And without fail a staggeringly high number of people sign his petition to get it banned. Human nature.... a pathetic combination of stupidity or ignorance. Even worse is when you encounter those individuals who can lay claim to both. :shakehead