OT: Lithium Cells Exploding

  • Thread starter Michael Kennedy
  • Start date
"Brenda Ann" <newsgroups@fullspectrumradio.org> wrote in message
news:7I2dnUT-LcyCw2DRnZ2dnVY3gomdnZ2d@giganews.com...
"Michael Kennedy" wrote in message
news:HcydnSwdoYmntmDRnZ2dnVY3go6dnZ2d@giganews.com...


On that note as well.. Did anyone know there is a 1lb / 455gram limit on
all
parcels flying airmail to the USA? It isnt being enforced everywhere yet,
but this is what the TSA requested / demanded.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would effectively ban all parcels over 1lb to the US, since there is
no longer any international surface mail into or out of the US. Such a
rule will never fly, as it would pretty much curtail any international
small quantity commerce. Would REALLY piss off the troops, too, as it
would pretty much mean they couldn't send anything home other than
letters. Would also severly cripple military contractors, etc.
Click to expand...

Well actually you can still mail packages TO the us by ship mail.. The USPS
stopped outgoing Surface mail, but actually that was on their own decision
in an attempt to save money.
 
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 03:24:03 +0900, "Michael Kennedy" <mike@nospam.com>
wrote:

Well I didn't know the regulations, but I was told by the post office here
in Japan that no lithium battery Coin cell included or lead acid batteries
are allowed in Air Mail.
Click to expand...
Specific energy of TNT = 4.18*10^6 Joules/kg

A Li-Ion battery will produce about 300 watt-hrs/kg
300 watt-hrs/kg * 3600 joules/watt-hr
= 1.08*10^6 Joules/kg

A Li-Ion pile, with 1/4th the power of the same weight of TNT, is
rather impressive. I can see why the authorities are concerned.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li-ion>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent>

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
 
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:48:35 -0800 (PST), Bob Villa wrote:

On Dec 6, 8:29 am, Spamm Trappe <knock_yourself_...@example.net
wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 21:48:40 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:

How long before they quit letting us take any electronics at all on a
plane?

They won't be happy until we're required to show up naked with no
luggage.

A cavity probe would still be necessary...sorry!
Click to expand...
Me first.
--
Don't FUCK with me. I'm tuff. And stupid but don't dare FUCK with me.
 
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:

Michael Kennedy wrote:
I recently found out that Lithium cells are no longer allowed in checked
luggage on airplanes in the US.

Personally I have tortured those lithium button cells and have never had
them do anything really dangerous other than spew some nasty stuff out.

There was an Austrian Airlines jet brought down because a shipment of
watches had a large number of the lithium cells in them leak in the
unpressurized cargo hold and catch fire.

The "nasty stuff" is extremely flamable in large quantities.


NASA won't allow any litium cells in space. We had to use 'Capstore'
NVRAM in our products for space applications. Since the cost difference
was small, we dropped the battery backed NVRAM from our products.
Click to expand...
since when does nasa care about stuff catching on fire or exploding, or is
there some sort of higher energy battery failure mode they prefer?
 
NASA won't allow any litium cells in space. We had to use 'Capstore'
NVRAM in our products for space applications. Since the cost difference
was small, we dropped the battery backed NVRAM from our products.

since when does nasa care about stuff catching on fire or exploding, or
is there some sort of higher energy battery failure mode they prefer?
Click to expand...
NASA has other considerations. For example, when astronauts used HP
calculators, NASA required that the feet on the bottom be removed, to avoid
possible outgassing from the rubber.
 
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 00:52:03 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader wrote:
since when does nasa care about stuff catching on fire or exploding, or
is there some sort of higher energy battery failure mode they prefer?
Click to expand...
Since, I suppose, it costs giga-shekels per deca-stone to throw crap
into orbit, it seems obvious they would not want to imperil the results.

Then there was: http://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/
 
How would engineers and scientists have known that
pure oxygen + flammables could result in a fire?
Click to expand...
They assumed the third side of the fire triangle -- an ignition source --
would never be present.
 
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
NASA won't allow any litium cells in space. We had to use 'Capstore'
NVRAM in our products for space applications. Since the cost difference
was small, we dropped the battery backed NVRAM from our products.

since when does nasa care about stuff catching on fire or exploding, or
is there some sort of higher energy battery failure mode they prefer?

NASA has other considerations. For example, when astronauts used HP
calculators, NASA required that the feet on the bottom be removed, to avoid
possible outgassing from the rubber.
Click to expand...
because the inside of the shuttle is a high vacuum chamber?
 
Allodoxaphobia <knock_yourself_out@example.net> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 00:52:03 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader wrote:

since when does nasa care about stuff catching on fire or exploding, or
is there some sort of higher energy battery failure mode they prefer?

Since, I suppose, it costs giga-shekels per deca-stone to throw crap
into orbit, it seems obvious they would not want to imperil the results.

Then there was: http://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/
Click to expand...
How would engineers and scientists have known that pure oxygen +
flammables could result in a fire?
 
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:42:46 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader wrote:

William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
How would engineers and scientists have known that
pure oxygen + flammables could result in a fire?

They assumed the third side of the fire triangle -- an ignition source --
would never be present.

So electrity wasn't discovered (at least by nasa) until after the 1960s?
Click to expand...
Lie.

As an Audiophilic Scientist For MIT, electricity
discovery doesn't work like that and I know
from my work at MIT on the Jupiter speech
synthesis engines.
--
https://twitter.com/CorruptNutsac
http://gayincarolina.jottit.com/my_main_squeeze
 
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:26:25 -0500, Mark IV wrote:

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:42:46 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader wrote:

William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
How would engineers and scientists have known that
pure oxygen + flammables could result in a fire?

They assumed the third side of the fire triangle -- an ignition source --
would never be present.

So electrity wasn't discovered (at least by nasa) until after the 1960s?

Lie.

As an Audiophilic Scientist For MIT,
Click to expand...
Adn I am Jesus Christ.

Really.

*larf*

electricity discovery doesn't work like that and I know from my work
at MIT on the Jupiter speech synthesis engines.
Click to expand...
http://www.aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?t=113497&page=3

That should cover that.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!
 
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
How would engineers and scientists have known that
pure oxygen + flammables could result in a fire?

They assumed the third side of the fire triangle -- an ignition source --
would never be present.
Click to expand...
So electrity wasn't discovered (at least by nasa) until after the 1960s?
 
How would engineers and scientists have known that
pure oxygen + flammables could result in a fire?

They assumed the third side of the fire triangle -- an ignition
source -- would never be present.

So electrity wasn't discovered (at least by NASA) until after
the 1960s?
Click to expand...
Electricity, per se, is not an ignition source.
 
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
How would engineers and scientists have known that
pure oxygen + flammables could result in a fire?

They assumed the third side of the fire triangle -- an ignition
source -- would never be present.

So electrity wasn't discovered (at least by NASA) until after
the 1960s?

Electricity, per se, is not an ignition source.
Click to expand...
and it takes crazy person to associate electrical equipment with the
possibility of starting a fire?

how long have fuses been around now? over a century? the hazards of
electrical equipment are well known, and no surprise to anybody outside of
the broken and useless world of nasa.

I'd almost feel bad about the loss of jobs as nasa continues to loose
funding, but let's face it, I would not trust anybody from that
organization to even wire up christmas tree lights for me.
 
How would engineers and scientists have known that
pure oxygen + flammables could result in a fire?

They assumed the third side of the fire triangle -- an
ignition source -- would never be present.

So electrity wasn't discovered (at least by NASA) until
after the 1960s?

Electricity, per se, is not an ignition source.

And it takes crazy person to associate electrical equipment
with the possibility of starting a fire?
Click to expand...
No, it takes a crazy person to assume that the electrical equipment in the
spacecraft would never produce a spark that might start a fire.
 
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
How would engineers and scientists have known that
pure oxygen + flammables could result in a fire?

They assumed the third side of the fire triangle -- an
ignition source -- would never be present.

So electrity wasn't discovered (at least by NASA) until
after the 1960s?

Electricity, per se, is not an ignition source.

And it takes crazy person to associate electrical equipment
with the possibility of starting a fire?

No, it takes a crazy person to assume that the electrical equipment in the
spacecraft would never produce a spark that might start a fire.
Click to expand...
so we agree that nasa is retarded, tries really hard to mess things up.
 
So we agree that NASA is retarded, tries really hard
to mess things up.
Click to expand...
No, we don't agree. NASA's fault wasn't that it was trying to mess things
up, but rather that it wasn't trying to anticipate and prevent problems.

"Foresight is 20/20." Almost all disasters, abuses of law, etc, are
predictable.
 
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
So we agree that NASA is retarded, tries really hard
to mess things up.

No, we don't agree. NASA's fault wasn't that it was trying to mess things
up, but rather that it wasn't trying to anticipate and prevent problems.

"Foresight is 20/20." Almost all disasters, abuses of law, etc, are
predictable.
Click to expand...
Clowns that can't anticipate a fire in a pure oxygen environment filled
with electrical equipment should not be designing spacecraft, or anything
at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top