EBME Forums Forums Maintenance Technical Assistance T34 Battery Error

Hi

Last year a MDA_2019_013-T34 update involved putting a small sticky backed foam pad into the battery compartment onto T34's. This was to keep the battery pressed against the battery terminals. An accompanying label was to be placed on the battery door showing how to install the battery.

Since doing this we are a lot of T34 with a Battery Error. On inspection we often find the pad to be torn in a way that suggests the battery has been forced down onto the pad, We suspect this may have the effect of pressing upwards on the battery causing the reported battery error by temporary disconnecting the battery.

Has anyone else experienced this?

Interesting. Here in Australia we had a similar notice, the TGA in our case, but the "solution" here was to take a pair of long nose pliers and bend the battery contacts out a bit further. Did not work long term but at least it is repeatable!

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

D.

It's a fundamental design compromise - where the "equation" must factor in the simplicity of the PP-3 format and the ease of battery replacement using a sliding "side door" (rather than an "end door" which might have held the battery securely in place against the contacts) versus a more complicated ("fiddly" for the user, more costly to manufacture) arrangement.

Maybe some sort of spring leaf in place of Mick's sticky foam is the "answer" (similar to the battery contacts, but at the other end of the battery compartment). Oh well, back to the drawing board.

On the other hand, I don't recall such problems with the (good, old) MS-16A and MS-26's (which used a more or less identical arrangement - with a design that dated back to the days of Pye Dynamics).

Thanks for your responses Dave and Geoff. After further investigation I'm tending to think this is a battery issue. CME have a Field Service Announcement stating we should now be using the Duracell Pro - the battery we have been using with no issues until now is the NX Power Tech and I understand in Community is the Duracell Ultra. We have just observed the reported fault with the NX in the workshop.

MS-16A and MS-26? - surprised you are fondly remembering such modern stuff Geoff - We still have a Hanley clockwork in our museum - no battery problems there

Have a good weekend - stay safe.

Mick

I was also wondering about the battery ... if only because the various issues of the CME/McKinley manuals seem a bit specific in that regard. They mandate alkaline or lithium if I remember rightly. No zinc-carbons, no rechargeables.

What error indications are you seeing ... "Low Battery" and (or) "End Battery" (5.8 v and 6.0 v respectively)?

But I wonder what the real issue is ... instantaneous max current draw, or some such thing. What is the critical factor to look for amongst all the PP-3 variants ... mAh?

I would have thought that the Duracell "Ultra Power" should be more that adequate, though. But, there again, so should the NX by the look of things. It would be interesting to set up an experimental test rig to monitor current drain during simulated use.

I see that Duracell now has a "Procell Intense" 628 mAh alkaline PP-3 aimed at "high drain" applications; so maybe these could be the "answer". Pricey though, of course.

Otherwise, by all means bring back the Handley.

I notice from those data sheets that the PP-3* spec for overall length allows +/- 2 mm ... could this also be a significant factor?

Others I have looked at give 48.5 +0/-2 mm.

* Other international codes are available (eg, ANSI, IEC et al).

I too was concerned regarding the effectiveness of the manufacturers foam pad modification, under the Yellow Card scheme I alerted the MHRA - I am of the opinion that the foam pad modification is not a robust solution and that damage to it occurs during normal use - we are still experiencing regular failures. Please see MHRA response below:-

Dear Mr Magee,
MHRA ref: 2019/008/028/401/007

Subject: T34 Syringe Drivers

Following on from your reports, BD/CME have provided a response summarising their findings.
Their response is summarised as follows:

“Four photographs were received with the feedback showing damaged foam pads within the battery compartment confirming the customer's experience. This type of damage is typical of damage that can be caused if the battery is incorrectly fitted or removed.

Due to the soft nature of the foam pad, it is important that the insertion of the battery should be performed in accordance with the DFU instruction (DFU 100-090SM Rev.04 page 15). The insertion of the battery should be completed by placing the bottom of the battery in the compartment first and while it is being ensured that the battery rests on the foam pad.

The completion of the battery insertion is achieved by pushing the top of the battery down and ensuring the battery is correctly inserted in the compartment. Improper insertion of the battery, or removal of the battery using improper accessories (e.g. scissors or any other sharp objects) may result in damage to the foam pad. In case of a damaged/ dislodged foam pad, replacement of the foam pad is essential for preventing discontinuity between the 9V battery and the contacts”.

Well, all that reads reasonably enough to me, Darren ... what other (robust) solution do you suggest?

Something more permanent and not prone to damage/falling off.

In the mob, we would call the modification a "battle-damage" solution Geoff - a temporary fix to get you back home, like bodge tape or tie wraps - this modification I would place firmly in this class. Gash - an emergency, rather than a permanent solution.

This is just a piece of sticky backed foam which tends to lose its qualities under compression, the adhesive fails over time also. Thats why we often find them missing.

Do the job right. Make the battery compartment the right size ideally or devise a retrofit solid spacer to make it so - these foam pads are US.

Its important to ensure drug infusion therapy is not interrupted!

Aha, "in the mob"!

Well back in those days I sometimes got roped in to carry out what was known as "the investigation of defects". And, if I remember correctly, in many cases there was no "defect" at all ... and the root of the equipments' tendency to disappoint was often what we might call "operator error" ("finger trouble", failure to follow laid down drills or procedures, or what-have-you).

Then, as now, I always tried to proceed in a methodical manner. For instance, I would start with a series of questions, in order to establish - identify - the problem.

So, in the case being considered ... what is the actual problem? And how does it manifest itself? "Low battery", "End battery" ... or some other indication?

These devices are not new; they have been in common use for a number of years now. Has this battery problem always been an issue with these little pumps, or have they (somewhat mysteriously) only recently started to occur?

Are the correct (recommended) batteries always being used? In other words 6LR61 (or whatever type MHRA or whomever are now suggesting)?

When examining the battery compartment of failed devices ... is any obvious damage evident? Misshapen (or tarnished) battery contacts ... worn or damaged plastic runners at the far end?

Maybe someone can remind us how many full deliveries each battery is normally expected to provide.

Yes, of course "it's important to ensure drug infusion therapy is not interrupted". But remind us ... when failure occurs, is it OK to just swap in a fresh battery and carry on? Not so easy to do quickly when on a patient, perhaps (with Lockbox etc.). Users can check (or confirm) remaining battery capacity via the Info button, right?

MDA/2019/013
CME FSN download