Lithium Batteries

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.

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...5-minutes.html

Also, that crash was pilot error.

---
Mark

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...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.

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.

---
Mark

--
Jim Pennino

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

- Show quoted text -

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

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."

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 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

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!