Re: Laptop Battery recalls moronic hysteria or actual big spike in problems?

JohnS@hawaii.rr.com wrote:
> This issue was posted a while ago in this group but I noticed some
> people are really jumping on it at various websites.
>
I think SONY has a big problem. Apple is now recalling 1.8 MILLION Sony
batteries. And Dell just had an even bigger recall. The batteries
suffer from the same manufacturing defect.

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:48:42 GMT, "JohnS@hawaii.rr.com"
<JohnS@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>On 25 Aug 2006 20:18:33 -0700, "paulmd@efn.org" <paulmd@efn.org>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>JohnS@hawaii.rr.com wrote:
>>> This issue was posted a while ago in this group but I noticed some
>>> people are really jumping on it at various websites.
>>>
>>I think SONY has a big problem. Apple is now recalling 1.8 MILLION Sony
>>batteries. And Dell just had an even bigger recall. The batteries
>>suffer from the same manufacturing defect.
>
>Yeah as crazy as it seems I actually wonder about that. On one hand
>you would think no one would recall a product unless there was a
>defect but I wonder if there was a defect. They also claimed it was
>only certain batteries and yet they showed a laptop using another type
>of battery not recalled that caught on fire and there have been a
>string of fires in the past.
>
>If there are defects that would suggest a lot higher rate this year
>since the batteries were manufactured vs the past that certainly would
>be clear proof. A recall and substitution would make people think they
>got a "safe" product which would take the heat off the lith ion mkt in
>general.
>
>Ive got to wonder if there will still be the 20-40 fires anyway per
>year and if there would have been a significantly higher incidence of
>fires like thousands, tens of thousands with these defective
>batteries.

So far the evidence suggests Sony had changed their
manufacturing process and there was a change in internal
structure of the batteries which they later corrected, but
did not recall (at the time).

http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/...battery_1.html

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 01:17:51 GMT, "JohnS@hawaii.rr.com"
<JohnS@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 18:57:08 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>>Ive got to wonder if there will still be the 20-40 fires anyway per
>>>year and if there would have been a significantly higher incidence of
>>>fires like thousands, tens of thousands with these defective
>>>batteries.
>>
>>So far the evidence suggests Sony had changed their
>>manufacturing process and there was a change in internal
>>structure of the batteries which they later corrected, but
>>did not recall (at the time).
>>
>>http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/...battery_1.html
>
>
>Yeah I read the metal flake explanation. The problem is others posted
>stories about a Vaio catching on fire and they are supposed to not
>have that battery and of course theyve been catching on fire for years
>before these supposed batteries went on the mkt.

Well there's more than one way to burst a battery...

But no matter what else is working, if the cells themselves
are flawed, the rest many not matter.


>
>Heres a thing in the InfoWord article. If its so unique to Dell why
>did Apple recall them?

I wasn't convinced it was unique to Dell, only that it was
Dell batteries Sony _admitted_ were susceptible, possibly
because Dell was a large enough customer that they had a
little leverage. If Sony had denied it all, would Dell buy
from then again?

On the other hand, certainly Sony doesn't want to implicate
their entire line of batteries, will try to imply the
problem is as limited as they can get away with suggesting.

Remember that Sony might be more interested in retaining
sales and limiting liability, than being forthright.


>Its all a bit confusing. I think the Apple
>recall happened after people started pointing to a story about an
>Apple catching fire.
>
>
>Clancy said. "System related issues" that are unique to Dell came into
>play to cause the fire, he said.

Hard to say, even on the Dell batteries that are suspect, it
doesn't rule out some other failure mechanism causing a
failure before a cell flaw mattered.