Lithium Batteries

On Oct 13, 10:39*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:
In article
,





*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.

You do understand that this is rec.aviation.piloting and not
marks.sales.pitch.for.electric.cars don't you?

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

* You do understand that nano-lithium titanate batteries have a lower
capacity than conventional lithium-ion battery technologies don't you
and their claim to fame is charge time?

Wrong.
http://www.technologyreview.com/read...17&ch=nanotech

* You do understand that all lithium batteries are flamable don't
you?

Yes and No. *So are coffee tables, but they aren't
disallowed. *The new batteries are safe.

The future of electric aviation won't involve
lithium. It will revolve around nanoengineered carbon
or a new crystal technology I've not mentioned here
until now.

Its generic name is "balonium."

Hello Mr. Fairburn.

Thanks for not saying dilithium crystals, because
it only exists as a gas.

Ok, now give this a peruse and see that it's not another
"magnet motor" or anything else with violates the 2nd
law of thermodynamics.

Best wishes,

---
Mark

On Oct 14, 9:16*am, Mark wrote:
On Oct 13, 10:39*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:





In article
,

*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.

You do understand that this is rec.aviation.piloting and not
marks.sales.pitch.for.electric.cars don't you?

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

* You do understand that nano-lithium titanate batteries have a lower
capacity than conventional lithium-ion battery technologies don't you
and their claim to fame is charge time?

Wrong.
http://www.technologyreview.com/read...17&ch=nanotech

* You do understand that all lithium batteries are flamable don't
you?

Yes and No. *So are coffee tables, but they aren't
disallowed. *The new batteries are safe.

The future of electric aviation won't involve
lithium. It will revolve around nanoengineered carbon
or a new crystal technology I've not mentioned here
until now.

Its generic name is "balonium."

Hello Mr. Fairburn.

* *Thanks for not saying dilithium crystals, because
it only exists as a gas.

Ok, now give this a peruse and see that it's not another
"magnet motor" or anything else with violates the 2nd
law of thermodynamics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcCLIwlbhLc&NR=1

Best wishes,

---
Mark- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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.

In article
,
Mark wrote:

On Oct 14, 9:16*am, Mark wrote:
On Oct 13, 10:39*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:





In article
,

*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.

You do understand that this is rec.aviation.piloting and not
marks.sales.pitch.for.electric.cars don't you?

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

* You do understand that nano-lithium titanate batteries have a lower
capacity than conventional lithium-ion battery technologies don't you
and their claim to fame is charge time?

Wrong.
http://www.technologyreview.com/read...17&ch=nanotech

* You do understand that all lithium batteries are flamable don't
you?

Yes and No. *So are coffee tables, but they aren't
disallowed. *The new batteries are safe.

The future of electric aviation won't involve
lithium. It will revolve around nanoengineered carbon
or a new crystal technology I've not mentioned here
until now.

Its generic name is "balonium."

Hello Mr. Fairburn.

* *Thanks for not saying dilithium crystals, because
it only exists as a gas.

Ok, now give this a peruse and see that it's not another
"magnet motor" or anything else with violates the 2nd
law of thermodynamics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcCLIwlbhLc&NR=1

It doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics, but it DOES suffer from
energy density! How many watts/m**2 will it pull?

IMHO, the thing would have to be HUGE to acquire usable power.

On Oct 14, 1:56*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:
In article
,





*Mark wrote:
On Oct 14, 9:16*am, Mark wrote:
On Oct 13, 10:39*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

In article
,

*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.

You do understand that this is rec.aviation.piloting and not
marks.sales.pitch.for.electric.cars don't you?

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

* You do understand that nano-lithium titanate batteries have a lower
capacity than conventional lithium-ion battery technologies don't you
and their claim to fame is charge time?

Wrong.
http://www.technologyreview.com/read...17&ch=nanotech

* You do understand that all lithium batteries are flamable don't
you?

Yes and No. *So are coffee tables, but they aren't
disallowed. *The new batteries are safe.

The future of electric aviation won't involve
lithium. It will revolve around nanoengineered carbon
or a new crystal technology I've not mentioned here
until now.

Its generic name is "balonium."

Hello Mr. Fairburn.

* *Thanks for not saying dilithium crystals, because
it only exists as a gas.

Ok, now give this a peruse and see that it's not another
"magnet motor" or anything else with violates the 2nd
law of thermodynamics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcCLIwlbhLc&NR=1

It doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics, but it DOES suffer from
energy density! How many watts/m**2 will it pull?

IMHO, the thing would have to be HUGE to acquire usable power.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let me explain it this way. The fellow in this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=369h-SEBXd8

sets world records with his electric car. THEN, in the
video, he replaces the heavy lead batteries with lithium
ion batteries which *still are not nano engineered*,
therefore the density is nowhere near optimum, but
when you combine a few hundred in series it smokes
the competetion even easier.

Now, with nano engineered crystals, or carbon nanotubes
filling a battery, you effectively increase the electron surface
density and ion exchange by 10 fold. Then when run them in
series the power will be tremendous, and even more than you
see in that electric racecar.

I'm thinking airplanes now, with droptanks or wingtanks
filled with electric energy. Carbon nanotube batteries aren't
heavy like lead batteries.

"With 8 times the Reserve Capacity (RC) of typical lead/acid
batteries, CNT Battery technology allows cars to travel hundreds of
miles between charges, up to an estimated 380 miles per charge. Even
more impressive, CNT Batteries recharge in ten minutes from a regular
electrical outlet, about the time it takes for a highway road trip pit
stop. An hour's worth of recharging could add up to a pollution-free,
coast-to-coast trip through Capitol Hill. The battery can be modified
to the specifications of existing batteries".

http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=21540

Ok, so this is already better than AV gas. But I'm
still looking beyond the carbon nanotube battery to
something even more powerful...and electric. It's on
the way.

We will be running out of coal and gas in 20 years.
There's no time like the present to convert technologies.

---
Mark

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

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!

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.