I wouldn't....
Want Halon in a cockpit, would you? One it's a CFC and two what if incapacitates the pilots, better no phones etc in the cockpit IMHO.
Boeing has sought a patent for a “Fire detection and suppression pack for battery-powered personal computing devices.” Filed in late 2015, before the Galaxy Note 7 went down in flames and airlines' safety spiels warned not to retrieve smartphones bursting into flames in the gears of business class seats, the device is …
Halon 1301 is bromotrifluoromethane, so it is not a CFC (ChloroFluoroCarbon).
Other than that, I completely agree that releasing suffocating gases in an enclosed space guaranteed to contain humans who can't leave without killing themselves and couple of hundred passengers (a.k.a. pilots in a cockpit of a passenger plane) is a pretty asinine idea.
I assume Boeing only patented it for purely humanitarian reasons: by getting the patent and refusing to licence it they can prevent others from killing their pilots and passengers.
Something like this, anyways.
Most pilots now fly with electronic flight manuals, something the rest of the world might recognise as an ipad, and hence a brick of lithium-ion which will combust if damaged. This is something relatively new in the industry but very commonplace now.
Pilots have supplementary oxygen masks right next to them,
And Halon is about the only fire suppression agent which wouldn't damage the rest of the avionics, which would still supress a lithium battery fire. This is not halon in the quantities that you used to flood the entire datacentre once upon a time. The CO2 used in this device is more dangerous to the pilots and avionics as it actually displaces oxygen. Halon doesn't work that way, rather it chemically inhibits the fire, not through oxygen displacement. Nor is it all that dangerous to Humans. There is plenty of halon on most aircraft anyway for cargo-hold fire suppression. And whilst the environmental concerns are valid, aircraft safety has historically taken prescedence, which is why we still use lead in solder.
Choice between Halon discharge + fly on supplemental oxygen versus a burning iPad on the flight deck? Ask any pilot.
Here is the FAAs current guide to fighting portable electronics fires in the passenger cabin.
and guess what fire suppression agent they reccommend?
This post has been deleted by its author
Exactly what I thought. Then again, I probably don't fully understand the physics and chemistry involved in those battery fires. Isn't the fire just a result from the heat which will build rather independently of the environment? What's going to happen to the device when placed in a inert atmosphere? Will the heat help releasing some other stuff which can result in an exothermic reaction nevertheless? In such a case, the case may buy just enough time to fling the whole thing out of the window ;-)
A better alternative might be to have a small water container (say 10mm thick) on the top and bottom of the tablet. This would absorb a lot of the heat if a battery failed reducing the impact on the plane. CO2 and/or Halon would not be very effective in puting out a Li-ion fire as such a battery is a self contained firework - it will continue to burn in the absence of atmospheric oxygen.
"cartridges full of one cartridge with CO2 to enhance cool-down effects"
The CO2 isn't there to put out the fire. It is designed to cool the battery down before it explodes. The cartridge is triggered when the device detects excessive heat and before ignition...
Hands up those people that haven't used a CO2 extinguisher to cool down their beer...
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
"The poster makes a good point that R&D effort is better spent on fixing the damned batteries, rather than inventing a 'bucket of sand'"
You know we can do two things? We can have a proverbial bucket of sand available UNTIL we solve the other issue. Workarounds are often quick and easy imperfect solutions put in place until a proper solution can be implemented.
Your argument sounds like the people that start screaming "Why are we wasting money going to space, we should be looking for cures for cancer" - My answer to them is the same, these things are not mutually exclusive, why not do both?
"Luckily, not everyone has the "Oh noes! That'll never be fixed, it's too difficult" attitude"
Quite the opposite, Im sure that battery manufacturers are well under way looking into the issue and Im sure that eventually we will have a workable solution, in the mean time I see no reason that we cant mitigate the risk through other means.
Even when the battery issue is resolved tech such as described in the patent will still be relevant as it describes not just the battery, but any fire within the device - OK they are uncommon but its not impossible for a device to catch fire and the battery not be the culprit.
@d3vy. The solution to the problem is to stop trying to make phones slim. There is no need for it - other than to make them easier to snap but that's not really a benefit to the customer. Everyone seems perfectly happy to make their phone 3 times as thick or more by putting it in a case so why not stop burning people pockets and arses and just make the thing solid and fit for purpose in the first place?
"The solution to the problem is to stop trying to make phones slim."
So you're saying that a fat lithium ion battery cannot catch fire?
I put it to you that your assumption is wrong. They might be less likely to do so but a less dense lithium ion battery can still catch fire.
As I have pointed out to others, this isnt just to stop batteries catching fire - though Im sure that was a major point they wanted to cover off, this will hinder/stop any fire within the device.
... which probably means that I need to learn more. That said, I will still ask:
Since the C02 canister adds weight and bulk, why not use a less power-dense battery of a more stable chemistry such as NiCad and dispense with the CO2 canister? Can it be that a Li-Ion battery plus CO2 canister is still a more power-dense arrangement than a NiCad battery?
Ideas?
I believe - though I may have mis-read that the idea is that consumer hardware could be put into this housing unmodified.
So the pilots iPad/Other onboard devices for the crew could be slotted into a fire proof dock while onboard.
There could of course be the argument that any device with a sufficiently high capacity battery could have the same system installed into the device itself, thats where your argument is valid.
C02 is extremely toxic too. The only reason it's ever called safe is that it's expelled quickly. Discharging a liquid C02 canister in a small area would likely cause the inhabitants to black-out for a moment.
The best bet for batteries is to seal them up with a vent facing outside, but that's ancient technology with no patent money. Lead-acid batteries are prone to spraying acid and lead powder when they fail so this has been around for long time.