Lithium Batteries

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

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.

[Mark]

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=KCkXwwEC2p8&NR=1&feature=fvwp
http://www.hobbypartz.com/life.html
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/index.php
http://www.metaefficient.com/rechargeable-batteries/lithiumion-battery-recharges-90-capacity-5-minutes.html

Also, that crash was pilot error.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

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=KCkXwwEC2p8&NR=1&feature=fvwp
> http://www.hobbypartz.com/life.html
> http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/index.php
> http://www.metaefficient.com/rechargeable-batteries/lithiumion-battery-recharges-90-capacity-5-minutes.html

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

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

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?

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


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ari Silverstein]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:34:00 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Mark

Aren't you supposed to be working?

*LOLOLOLLOOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOOOL*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Mark]

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=KCkXwwEC2p8&NR=1&feature=fvwp
> >http://www.hobbypartz.com/life.html
> >http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/index.php
> >http://www.metaefficient.com/rechargeable-batteries/lithiumion-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_article.aspx?id=17017&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.

---
Mark

> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mark]

On Oct 12, 1:47*pm, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:34:00 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
> > Mark
>
> Aren't you supposed to be working?
>
> *LOLOLOLLOOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOOOL*
> --
> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
> Motto: Live To Spooge It!

you poor, poor idiot.

[[email protected]]

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=KCkXwwEC2p8&NR=1&feature=fvwp
>> >http://www.hobbypartz.com/life.html
>> >http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/index.php
>> >http://www.metaefficient.com/rechargeable-batteries/lithiumion-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.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

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=KCkXwwEC2p8&NR=1&feature=fvwp
> > >http://www.hobbypartz.com/life.html
> > >http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/index.php
> > >http://www.metaefficient.com/rechargeable-batteries/lithiumion-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_article.aspx?id=17017&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."

[Tiger Would]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:30:42 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> i'm a mute. Which is not why I got
> my ass kicked off my job in less than a week.

The truth is out.
--
tiger

[Mark]

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=KCkXwwEC2p8&NR=1&feature=fvwp
> >> >http://www.hobbypartz.com/life.html
> >> >http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/index.php
> >> >http://www.metaefficient.com/rechargeable-batteries/lithiumion-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]

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=KCkXwwEC2p8&NR=1&feature=fvwp
> > > >http://www.hobbypartz.com/life.html
> > > >http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/index.php
> > > >http://www.metaefficient.com/rechargeable-batteries/lithiumion-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_article.aspx?id=17017&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

[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=KCkXwwEC2p8&NR=1&feature=fvwp
> > > > >http://www.hobbypartz.com/life.html
> > > > >http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/index.php
> > > > >http://www.metaefficient.com/rechargeable-batteries/lithiumion-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_article.aspx?id=17017&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 -

[[email protected]]

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=KCkXwwEC2p8&NR=1&feature=fvwp
>> >> >http://www.hobbypartz.com/life.html
>> >> >http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/index.php
>> >> >http://www.metaefficient.com/rechargeable-batteries/lithiumion-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.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

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=KCkXwwEC2p8&NR=1&feature=fvwp
> > > > > >http://www.hobbypartz.com/life.html
> > > > > >http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/index.php
> > > > > >http://www.metaefficient.com/rechargeable-batteries/lithiumion-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_article.aspx?id=17017&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.

[Mark]

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=KCkXwwEC2p8&NR=1&feature=fvwp
> > > > > > >http://www.hobbypartz.com/life.html
> > > > > > >http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/index.php
> > > > > > >http://www.metaefficient.com/rechargeable-batteries/lithiumion-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_article.aspx?id=17017&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

[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=KCkXwwEC2p8&NR=1&feature=fvwp
> >> >> >http://www.hobbypartz.com/life.html
> >> >> >http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/index.php
> >> >> >http://www.metaefficient.com/rechargeable-batteries/lithiumion-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

[[email protected]]

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.

[Mark]

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

[Ari Silverstein]

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!

[[email protected]]

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.

[Mark]

On Oct 16, 6:49*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > 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?
>
> 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.

Whatever.

I'm smarter than you.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Oct 16, 6:49Â*pm, wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Whatever.
>
> I'm smarter than you.

Keep telling yourself that least your fragile ego explode.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.