Lithium Batteries

Mark wrote:
On Oct 12, 1:03Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Oct 11, 11:37Â*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:
This from FAA:

FAA ON LITHIUM BATTERIES
The FAA Friday released a Safety Alert to address "risks in transporting
lithium metal batteries in cargo by aircraft," noting that UPS Flight
006, a 747 that crashed on Sept. 3, was carrying large quantities of
lithium batteries. Fire was reported on the UPS flight but the FAA notes
that a cause of the crash has not yet been determined. The crash
destroyed the aircraft and killed the crew. The FAA has found that
lithium metal batteries are not only "highly flammable and capable of
ignition" but also possess destructive explosive potential. The agency
says Halon 1301, the fire suppression agent found in Class C cargo
holds, "is ineffective in controlling a lithium metal cell fire" and
lithium metal battery explosions can lead to "rapid fire spread" in
cargo compartments. Lithium-ion batteries are somewhat different. They
can exhibit the same thermal runaway as lithium metal batteries, but the
FAA says Halon 1301 is capable of suppressing lithium-ion battery fires.
The FAA's alert offers recommendations that are limited to batteries
flown in cargo holds and do not apply to batteries carried by passengers
or crew. The FAA is considering courses for further action.

Thanks for the post about the old technology lithium
batteries which don't have a rat's ass of relevance to
the nanotitanate lithium batteries discussed in this
forum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCkXw...1&feature=fvwp
http://www.hobbypartz.com/life.html
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/index.php
http://www.metaefficient.com/recharg...hiumion-batter...

You do understand that FAA Safety Alerts have relevance to aviation,
don't you?

He posted that to make a counterpoint to my assertions
regarding the future of electric flight. Your point is mute.

So now you are a mind reader?

It could be that he posted it because a FAA Safety Alert is of general
interest to the aviation community.

Your point is mute. Electric aviation will replace internal
combustion aviation.

Never going to happen in the lifetime of anyone reading this today.

BTW, the Chevy Volt is in danger of losing the federal tax breaks and
subsidies because of the internal combustion engine it has.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Oct 13, 5:49*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Oct 12, 1:03*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Oct 11, 11:37*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:
This from FAA:

FAA ON LITHIUM BATTERIES
The FAA Friday released a Safety Alert to address "risks in transporting
lithium metal batteries in cargo by aircraft," noting that UPS Flight
006, a 747 that crashed on Sept. 3, was carrying large quantities of
lithium batteries. Fire was reported on the UPS flight but the FAA notes
that a cause of the crash has not yet been determined. The crash
destroyed the aircraft and killed the crew. The FAA has found that
lithium metal batteries are not only "highly flammable and capable of
ignition" but also possess destructive explosive potential. The agency
says Halon 1301, the fire suppression agent found in Class C cargo
holds, "is ineffective in controlling a lithium metal cell fire" and
lithium metal battery explosions can lead to "rapid fire spread" in
cargo compartments. Lithium-ion batteries are somewhat different. They
can exhibit the same thermal runaway as lithium metal batteries, but the
FAA says Halon 1301 is capable of suppressing lithium-ion battery fires.
The FAA's alert offers recommendations that are limited to batteries
flown in cargo holds and do not apply to batteries carried by passengers
or crew. The FAA is considering courses for further action.

Thanks for the post about the old technology lithium
batteries which don't have a rat's ass of relevance to
the nanotitanate lithium batteries discussed in this
forum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCkXw...1&feature=fvwp
http://www.hobbypartz.com/life.html
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/index.php
http://www.metaefficient.com/recharg...hiumion-batter....

You do understand that FAA Safety Alerts have relevance to aviation,
don't you?

He posted that to make a counterpoint to my assertions
regarding the future of electric flight. Your point is mute.

So now you are a mind reader?

Yes.

It could be that he posted it because a FAA Safety Alert is of general
interest to the aviation community.

No.

Your point is mute. Electric aviation will replace internal
combustion aviation.

Never going to happen in the lifetime of anyone reading this today.

I think it'll come within a couple of decades.

BTW, the Chevy Volt is in danger of losing the federal tax breaks and
subsidies because of the internal combustion engine it has.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Chevy Volt is already antiquated technology.

---
Mark

Mark wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:49Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Oct 12, 1:03Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Oct 11, 11:37Â*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:
This from FAA:

FAA ON LITHIUM BATTERIES
The FAA Friday released a Safety Alert to address "risks in transporting
lithium metal batteries in cargo by aircraft," noting that UPS Flight
006, a 747 that crashed on Sept. 3, was carrying large quantities of
lithium batteries. Fire was reported on the UPS flight but the FAA notes
that a cause of the crash has not yet been determined. The crash
destroyed the aircraft and killed the crew. The FAA has found that
lithium metal batteries are not only "highly flammable and capable of
ignition" but also possess destructive explosive potential. The agency
says Halon 1301, the fire suppression agent found in Class C cargo
holds, "is ineffective in controlling a lithium metal cell fire" and
lithium metal battery explosions can lead to "rapid fire spread" in
cargo compartments. Lithium-ion batteries are somewhat different. They
can exhibit the same thermal runaway as lithium metal batteries, but the
FAA says Halon 1301 is capable of suppressing lithium-ion battery fires.
The FAA's alert offers recommendations that are limited to batteries
flown in cargo holds and do not apply to batteries carried by passengers
or crew. The FAA is considering courses for further action.

Thanks for the post about the old technology lithium
batteries which don't have a rat's ass of relevance to
the nanotitanate lithium batteries discussed in this
forum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCkXw...1&feature=fvwp
http://www.hobbypartz.com/life.html
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/index.php
http://www.metaefficient.com/recharg...hiumion-batter...

You do understand that FAA Safety Alerts have relevance to aviation,
don't you?

He posted that to make a counterpoint to my assertions
regarding the future of electric flight. Your point is mute.

So now you are a mind reader?

Yes.

Lunatic.

It could be that he posted it because a FAA Safety Alert is of general
interest to the aviation community.

No.

Paranoid lunatic.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Oct 14, 1:03*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:49*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Oct 12, 1:03*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Oct 11, 11:37*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:
This from FAA:

FAA ON LITHIUM BATTERIES
The FAA Friday released a Safety Alert to address "risks in transporting
lithium metal batteries in cargo by aircraft," noting that UPS Flight
006, a 747 that crashed on Sept. 3, was carrying large quantities of
lithium batteries. Fire was reported on the UPS flight but the FAA notes
that a cause of the crash has not yet been determined. The crash
destroyed the aircraft and killed the crew. The FAA has found that
lithium metal batteries are not only "highly flammable and capable of
ignition" but also possess destructive explosive potential. The agency
says Halon 1301, the fire suppression agent found in Class C cargo
holds, "is ineffective in controlling a lithium metal cell fire" and
lithium metal battery explosions can lead to "rapid fire spread" in
cargo compartments. Lithium-ion batteries are somewhat different.. They
can exhibit the same thermal runaway as lithium metal batteries, but the
FAA says Halon 1301 is capable of suppressing lithium-ion battery fires.
The FAA's alert offers recommendations that are limited to batteries
flown in cargo holds and do not apply to batteries carried by passengers
or crew. The FAA is considering courses for further action.

Thanks for the post about the old technology lithium
batteries which don't have a rat's ass of relevance to
the nanotitanate lithium batteries discussed in this
forum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCkXw...1&feature=fvwp
http://www.hobbypartz.com/life.html
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/index.php
http://www.metaefficient.com/recharg...hiumion-batter...

You do understand that FAA Safety Alerts have relevance to aviation,
don't you?

He posted that to make a counterpoint to my assertions
regarding the future of electric flight. Your point is mute.

So now you are a mind reader?

Yes.

Lunatic.

It could be that he posted it because a FAA Safety Alert is of general
interest to the aviation community.

No.

Paranoid lunatic.

--
Jim Pennino

Guess you're needing another spanking. Ok then.

By you're calling me a lunatic on the basis that I
assert that I know what was in his mind in
the original post ( by simple conjecture which
escaped you) then the only way that your
statement that I'm wrong can be true is if you think
you read his mind and knew different, in which case...
you're calling yourself a lunatic.

Eadem aequationum.

---
Mark

Mark wrote:

Guess you're needing another spanking. Ok then.

Others have said you have a thing for men's butts.

I guess it is true.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Oct 16, 5:52*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
Guess you're needing another spanking. Ok then.

Others have said you have a thing for men's butts.

I guess it is true.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Shouldn't you be attending a T party meeting?

---
Mark

Mark wrote:
On Oct 16, 5:52Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
Guess you're needing another spanking. Ok then.

Others have said you have a thing for men's butts.

I guess it is true.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Shouldn't you be attending a T party meeting?

What's a "T party", code for a tranny party or are you referring to the
writer's group in London?

Or were you trying to refer to something else and as usual got all the
details wrong?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:37:08 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

By you're calling me a lunatic on the basis that

You're a self-admitted bi-polar highly depressed nutcase? OK, works
for me.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!