So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

--
*Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

En el artículo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...787_batteries/

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...0__374392c.jpg

Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On 18/01/2013 08:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

Not really surprising. Li-ion is volatile chemistry and if it gets
slightly maltreated can go into thermal runaway self heating. That is
the price for the energy density vs weight trade-off.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...787_batteries/

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...0__374392c.jpg

Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

The big worry is that on the Dreamliner the electrical systems are
absolutely essential for control of the flight surfaces. There is no
independent hydraulic system although presumable there must be some
manual way of lowering the undercarriage for landing in extremis.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 18/01/2013 09:28, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/01/2013 08:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

Not really surprising. Li-ion is volatile chemistry and if it gets
slightly maltreated can go into thermal runaway self heating. That is
the price for the energy density vs weight trade-off.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...787_batteries/

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...0__374392c.jpg


Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

The big worry is that on the Dreamliner the electrical systems are
absolutely essential for control of the flight surfaces. There is no
independent hydraulic system although presumable there must be some
manual way of lowering the undercarriage for landing in extremis.

Possibly not. The undercarriage is only really essential if you want to
be able to take off again after the landing.

Colin Bignell

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:17:37 +0000
Nightjar wrote:

On 18/01/2013 09:28, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/01/2013 08:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Dave Plowman
(News) escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

Not really surprising. Li-ion is volatile chemistry and if it gets
slightly maltreated can go into thermal runaway self heating. That
is the price for the energy density vs weight trade-off.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...787_batteries/

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...0__374392c.jpg


Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

The big worry is that on the Dreamliner the electrical systems are
absolutely essential for control of the flight surfaces. There is no
independent hydraulic system although presumable there must be some
manual way of lowering the undercarriage for landing in extremis.

Possibly not. The undercarriage is only really essential if you want
to be able to take off again after the landing.

Colin Bignell


From a report of the earlier incident:
"In todays problem, the automated landing gear did not operate, but
the pilot was able to lower the landing gear manually €“ using gravity €“
and landed on the plane's second approach to the runway."

http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/...-japan-flight/

So, kind-of, sort-of, maybe. As long as the undercarriage doors open.
--
Davey.

On 18/01/2013 11:28, Davey wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:17:37 +0000
Nightjar wrote:

On 18/01/2013 09:28, Martin Brown wrote:
....
The big worry is that on the Dreamliner the electrical systems are
absolutely essential for control of the flight surfaces. There is no
independent hydraulic system although presumable there must be some
manual way of lowering the undercarriage for landing in extremis.

Possibly not. The undercarriage is only really essential if you want
to be able to take off again after the landing.

Colin Bignell


From a report of the earlier incident:
"In todays problem, the automated landing gear did not operate, but
the pilot was able to lower the landing gear manually €“ using gravity €“
and landed on the plane's second approach to the runway."

http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/...-japan-flight/

So, kind-of, sort-of, maybe. As long as the undercarriage doors open.

There is also the possibility when relying upon gravity that the gear
might drop but fail to lock in position, which could result in it
collapsing after landing.

Colin Bignell

On 18/01/2013 11:17, Nightjar wrote:


Possibly not. The undercarriage is only really essential if you want to
be able to take off again after the landing.

Colin Bignell

Or the passengers want their luggage not strewn across the, I was going
to say "runway", but maybe "wherever they happen to land".

--
Rod

On 18/01/2013 11:55, polygonum wrote:
On 18/01/2013 11:17, Nightjar wrote:


Possibly not. The undercarriage is only really essential if you want to
be able to take off again after the landing.

Colin Bignell

Or the passengers want their luggage not strewn across the, I was going
to say "runway", but maybe "wherever they happen to land".

The damage to the aircraft is usually quite minimal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXWaBrE9_qo

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2013 09:28, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/01/2013 08:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

Not really surprising. Li-ion is volatile chemistry and if it gets
slightly maltreated can go into thermal runaway self heating. That is
the price for the energy density vs weight trade-off.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...787_batteries/

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...0__374392c.jpg


Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

The big worry is that on the Dreamliner the electrical systems are
absolutely essential for control of the flight surfaces. There is no
independent hydraulic system although presumable there must be some
manual way of lowering the undercarriage for landing in extremis.

The landing gear system isnt entirely electrical.

Possibly not.

Bet they do.

Corse they do
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-...108-1n4fm.html

The undercarriage is only really essential if you want to be able to take
off again after the landing.

They usually want to be able to do that rather than just write it off.

On 18/01/2013 16:14, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
....
The undercarriage is only really essential if you want to be able to
take off again after the landing.

They usually want to be able to do that rather than just write it off.

Very few aircraft are irreparable after a belly landing.

Colin Bignell

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2013 08:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

Not really surprising. Li-ion is volatile chemistry and if it gets
slightly maltreated can go into thermal runaway self heating. That is the
price for the energy density vs weight trade-off.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...787_batteries/

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...0__374392c.jpg

Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

The big worry is that on the Dreamliner the electrical systems are
absolutely essential for control of the flight surfaces. There is no
independent hydraulic system although presumable there must be some manual
way of lowering the undercarriage for landing in extremis.

Apparently, these batteries are not used to "fly" the plane (presumably that
is done using electricity generated by the engines somehow)

They are only used for power when the plane is on the ground

On 18/01/2013 13:11, tim..... wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2013 08:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

Not really surprising. Li-ion is volatile chemistry and if it gets
slightly maltreated can go into thermal runaway self heating. That is
the price for the energy density vs weight trade-off.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...787_batteries/


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...0__374392c.jpg


Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

The big worry is that on the Dreamliner the electrical systems are
absolutely essential for control of the flight surfaces. There is no
independent hydraulic system although presumable there must be some
manual way of lowering the undercarriage for landing in extremis.

Apparently, these batteries are not used to "fly" the plane (presumably
that is done using electricity generated by the engines somehow)

They are only used for power when the plane is on the ground



Suspect that they get recharged (if needed) in flight. So they might not
need to provide power in the air but, one imagines, could as easily take
up smoking in flight as on the ground.

--
Rod

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2013 13:11, tim..... wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2013 08:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

Not really surprising. Li-ion is volatile chemistry and if it gets
slightly maltreated can go into thermal runaway self heating. That is
the price for the energy density vs weight trade-off.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...787_batteries/


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...0__374392c.jpg


Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

The big worry is that on the Dreamliner the electrical systems are
absolutely essential for control of the flight surfaces. There is no
independent hydraulic system although presumable there must be some
manual way of lowering the undercarriage for landing in extremis.

Apparently, these batteries are not used to "fly" the plane (presumably
that is done using electricity generated by the engines somehow)

They are only used for power when the plane is on the ground



Suspect that they get recharged (if needed) in flight. So they might not
need to provide power in the air but, one imagines, could as easily take
up smoking in flight as on the ground.

Oh I agree,

the point is such an event is not going to make the plane fall out of the
sky because the controls no longer work

tim

In article ,
tim..... wrote:
The big worry is that on the Dreamliner the electrical systems are
absolutely essential for control of the flight surfaces. There is no
independent hydraulic system although presumable there must be some
manual way of lowering the undercarriage for landing in extremis.

Apparently, these batteries are not used to "fly" the plane (presumably
that is done using electricity generated by the engines somehow)

They are only used for power when the plane is on the ground

The battery in your car doesn't do much when the car is running - but that
doesn't make it unimportant.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
The big worry is that on the Dreamliner the electrical systems are
absolutely essential for control of the flight surfaces. There is no
independent hydraulic system although presumable there must be some
manual way of lowering the undercarriage for landing in extremis.

Apparently, these batteries are not used to "fly" the plane (presumably
that is done using electricity generated by the engines somehow)

They are only used for power when the plane is on the ground

The battery in your car doesn't do much when the car is running - but that
doesn't make it unimportant.

No, but in this case, they are (when in the air)

tim

In message , tim.....
writes

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2013 08:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

Not really surprising. Li-ion is volatile chemistry and if it gets
slightly maltreated can go into thermal runaway self heating. That is
the price for the energy density vs weight trade-off.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...787_batteries/


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...19910330__3743
92c.jpg

Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

The big worry is that on the Dreamliner the electrical systems are
absolutely essential for control of the flight surfaces. There is no
independent hydraulic system although presumable there must be some
manual way of lowering the undercarriage for landing in extremis.

Apparently, these batteries are not used to "fly" the plane (presumably
that is done using electricity generated by the engines somehow)

They are only used for power when the plane is on the ground


They used to have an emergency generator with a propellor strung
underneath but don't know if that is still the case.
--
bert

On 18/01/2013 13:59, bert wrote:
In message , tim.....
writes

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2013 08:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

Not really surprising. Li-ion is volatile chemistry and if it gets
slightly maltreated can go into thermal runaway self heating. That is
the price for the energy density vs weight trade-off.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...787_batteries/



http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...19910330__3743
92c.jpg

Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

The big worry is that on the Dreamliner the electrical systems are
absolutely essential for control of the flight surfaces. There is no
independent hydraulic system although presumable there must be some
manual way of lowering the undercarriage for landing in extremis.

Apparently, these batteries are not used to "fly" the plane
(presumably that is done using electricity generated by the engines
somehow)

They are only used for power when the plane is on the ground


They used to have an emergency generator with a propellor strung
underneath but don't know if that is still the case.

Most have an auxiliary engine / generator in the tail. I guess the idea
of a battery was to dispense with this, making the aircraft cheaper and
possibly more aerodynamic.

Not sure what use a propeller is for generating power whilst on the ground.

In article ,
"tim....." writes:
Apparently, these batteries are not used to "fly" the plane (presumably that
is done using electricity generated by the engines somehow)

They are only used for power when the plane is on the ground

I heard that comment too, but I find it very hard to believe.
Why would you add that sort of weight to a plane, which it
doesn't use when flying, when planes on the ground are powered
by umbilicals anyway when the engines are off?

Sounds like a bit of technology whose only real purpose in life
is to fail...

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
"tim....." writes:
Apparently, these batteries are not used to "fly" the plane (presumably that
is done using electricity generated by the engines somehow)

They are only used for power when the plane is on the ground

I heard that comment too, but I find it very hard to believe.
Why would you add that sort of weight to a plane, which it
doesn't use when flying, when planes on the ground are powered
by umbilicals anyway when the engines are off?

I'm guessing someone missed out the "normally". These batteries form an
"uninterruptible" supply in the air, and a guaranteed clean supply on
the ground, charged by the aircraft system in flight, and the ground
supply at the airport.

Hmmm... "The 787 battery is from Japanese manufacturer GS Yuasa and
relies on cobalt oxide (CoO2), which has the highest energy density, but
is also susceptible to “thermal events” (read: fires). And the cells
release oxygen in a fire, meaning it is easy for them to continue
burning." Oops.

Extracted from:-

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/01...ire-grounding/



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Andrew Gabriel wrote
tim..... wrote

Apparently, these batteries are not used to "fly" the plane (presumably
that is done using electricity generated by the engines somehow)

They are only used for power when the plane is on the ground

I heard that comment too, but I find it very hard to believe.
Why would you add that sort of weight to a plane, which it
doesn't use when flying, when planes on the ground are
powered by umbilicals anyway when the engines are off?

They arent powered by umbilicals exclusively.

Sounds like a bit of technology whose only real purpose in life is to
fail...

They arent actually that stupid. It would never have got regulatory
approval if that's all they were there for given the risk with that
technology.

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:11:22 +0000, tim..... wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2013 08:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

Not really surprising. Li-ion is volatile chemistry and if it gets
slightly maltreated can go into thermal runaway self heating. That is
the price for the energy density vs weight trade-off.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/17/
faa_grounds_boeing_787_batteries/

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/
archive/00374/119910330__374392c.jpg

Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

The big worry is that on the Dreamliner the electrical systems are
absolutely essential for control of the flight surfaces. There is no
independent hydraulic system although presumable there must be some
manual way of lowering the undercarriage for landing in extremis.

Apparently, these batteries are not used to "fly" the plane (presumably
that is done using electricity generated by the engines somehow)

They are only used for power when the plane is on the ground

And in the case where all the engines fail at once. Yes, it does happen:

- the 747 around Indonesia and the volcanic ash
- the Gimli Glider

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 18/01/2013 19:10, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:11:22 +0000, tim..... wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2013 08:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

Not really surprising. Li-ion is volatile chemistry and if it gets
slightly maltreated can go into thermal runaway self heating. That is
the price for the energy density vs weight trade-off.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/17/
faa_grounds_boeing_787_batteries/

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/
archive/00374/119910330__374392c.jpg

Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

The big worry is that on the Dreamliner the electrical systems are
absolutely essential for control of the flight surfaces. There is no
independent hydraulic system although presumable there must be some
manual way of lowering the undercarriage for landing in extremis.

Apparently, these batteries are not used to "fly" the plane (presumably
that is done using electricity generated by the engines somehow)

They are only used for power when the plane is on the ground

And in the case where all the engines fail at once. Yes, it does happen:

- the 747 around Indonesia and the volcanic ash
- the Gimli Glider

I see Speedbird 9 (747 around Indonesia) actually had a working
generator despite all four thrust engines being out.

--
Rod

In message , tim.....
writes

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2013 08:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

Not really surprising. Li-ion is volatile chemistry and if it gets
slightly maltreated can go into thermal runaway self heating. That is
the price for the energy density vs weight trade-off.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...787_batteries/


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...19910330__3743
92c.jpg

Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

The big worry is that on the Dreamliner the electrical systems are
absolutely essential for control of the flight surfaces. There is no
independent hydraulic system although presumable there must be some
manual way of lowering the undercarriage for landing in extremis.

Apparently, these batteries are not used to "fly" the plane (presumably
that is done using electricity generated by the engines somehow)

They are only used for power when the plane is on the ground

I would doubt it, that's what the APU is for - the thing normally placed
in the tailplane that makes that high pitched whine while you are
boarding

--
geoff

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 22:47:33 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , tim.....
writes

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2013 08:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

Not really surprising. Li-ion is volatile chemistry and if it gets
slightly maltreated can go into thermal runaway self heating. That is
the price for the energy density vs weight trade-off.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/17/
faa_grounds_boeing_787_batteries/


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...19910330__3743
92c.jpg

Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

The big worry is that on the Dreamliner the electrical systems are
absolutely essential for control of the flight surfaces. There is no
independent hydraulic system although presumable there must be some
manual way of lowering the undercarriage for landing in extremis.

Apparently, these batteries are not used to "fly" the plane (presumably
that is done using electricity generated by the engines somehow)

They are only used for power when the plane is on the ground

I would doubt it, that's what the APU is for - the thing normally placed
in the tailplane that makes that high pitched whine while you are
boarding

I recall a book called 'Star-Raker' by somebody Gordon. The APU whined
too much in that one.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

In message , Martin Brown
writes
On 18/01/2013 08:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

Not really surprising. Li-ion is volatile chemistry and if it gets
slightly maltreated can go into thermal runaway self heating. That is
the price for the energy density vs weight trade-off.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...787_batteries/

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...0__374392c.jpg

Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

The big worry is that on the Dreamliner the electrical systems are
absolutely essential for control of the flight surfaces. There is no
independent hydraulic system although presumable there must be some
manual way of lowering the undercarriage for landing in extremis.



" ... and one chicken korma for the monkey"


--
geoff

On 18.01.2013 09:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...787_batteries/

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...0__374392c.jpg

Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

I would be quite happy with that.
The chance of dying in a plane is
far less likely then dying in your home:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter8.html
LOSS OF LIFE EXPECTANCY (LLE) DUE TO VARIOUS RISKS
TABLE 1
Activity or risk* LLE (days)
Living in poverty 3500
Being male (vs. female) 2800
Cigarettes (male) 2300
Heart disease* 2100
Being unmarried 2000
....
Occupational accidents 74
....
Airline crashes* 1
Dam failures* 1
Living near nuclear plant 0.4
All electricity nuclear (NRC)* 0.04
--
jo
"We should never so entirely avoid danger as to appear
irresolute and cowardly. But, at the same time, we should
avoid unnecessarily exposing ourselves to danger, than
which nothing can be more foolish. [Cicero]"

On 18/01/2013 10:51, Jo Stein wrote:
On 18.01.2013 09:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...787_batteries/

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...0__374392c.jpg


Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

I would be quite happy with that.
The chance of dying in a plane is
far less likely then dying in your home:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter8.html
LOSS OF LIFE EXPECTANCY (LLE) DUE TO VARIOUS RISKS
TABLE 1
Activity or risk* LLE (days)
Living in poverty 3500
Being male (vs. female) 2800
Cigarettes (male) 2300
Heart disease* 2100
Being unmarried 2000
....
Occupational accidents 74
....
Airline crashes* 1
Dam failures* 1
Living near nuclear plant 0.4
All electricity nuclear (NRC)* 0.04

Whilst we have reasonable statistics to reassure re the general safety
of flying, I feel that we do not yet have sufficient knowledge of the
safety of Dreamliner 787s. Only in service since October 2011. So
anything that takes a couple of years to surface...

BTW, how long do lappie batteries typically last? Seem to remember they
start failing in their second year and often get worse over the next two
or three years.

--
Rod

polygonum wrote:
On 18/01/2013 10:51, Jo Stein wrote:
On 18.01.2013 09:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...787_batteries/

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...0__374392c.jpg


Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

I would be quite happy with that.
The chance of dying in a plane is
far less likely then dying in your home:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter8.html
LOSS OF LIFE EXPECTANCY (LLE) DUE TO VARIOUS RISKS
TABLE 1
Activity or risk* LLE (days)
Living in poverty 3500
Being male (vs. female) 2800
Cigarettes (male) 2300
Heart disease* 2100
Being unmarried 2000
....
Occupational accidents 74
....
Airline crashes* 1
Dam failures* 1
Living near nuclear plant 0.4
All electricity nuclear (NRC)* 0.04

Whilst we have reasonable statistics to reassure re the general safety of
flying, I feel that we do not yet have sufficient knowledge of the safety
of Dreamliner 787s. Only in service since October 2011. So anything that
takes a couple of years to surface...

BTW, how long do lappie batteries typically last? Seem to remember they
start failing in their second year and often get worse over the next two or three years.


More relevant though is how often do they burst into flames? Yes, it has
happened but when you consider the millions of batteries that must have
been produced it seems as if they've "tamed the beast" and made them
acceptably safe.

Tim

In article ,
polygonum wrote:
BTW, how long do lappie batteries typically last? Seem to remember they
start failing in their second year and often get worse over the next two
or three years.

Mine was hardly ever used since it was plugged into mains most of the
time, and did about 2 years. Seems they don't like being kept fully float
charged.

The replacement is kept out of the laptop, and only fitted when needed.

--
*Ah, I see the f**k-up fairy has visited us again

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:24:54 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

BTW, how long do lappie batteries typically last? Seem to remember they
start failing in their second year and often get worse over the next two
or three years.

I've been stripping lappie batteries for the good cells within and
found that in nearly all cases, it's one cell has gone west but the
charge controller has binned the entire battery as a precaution. Most
of the dates on the cells are late 2010.

Mine was hardly ever used since it was plugged into mains most of the
time, and did about 2 years. Seems they don't like being kept fully float
charged.

Oh, they don't. I found the same, after keeping my laptop on standby
for months and losing a good battery to that.

The replacement is kept out of the laptop, and only fitted when needed.

If in good condition, the cells should keep charge for several months,
but a top-up every two months is adequate.

On Jan 18, 1:24*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
* *polygonum wrote:

BTW, how long do lappie batteries typically last? Seem to remember they
start failing in their second year and often get worse over the next two
or three years.

Mine was hardly ever used since it was plugged into mains most of the
time, and did about 2 years. Seems they don't like being kept fully float
charged.

They also don't like the heat apparently.

MBQ

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2013 10:51, Jo Stein wrote:
On 18.01.2013 09:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...787_batteries/

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...0__374392c.jpg


Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

I would be quite happy with that.
The chance of dying in a plane is
far less likely then dying in your home:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter8.html
LOSS OF LIFE EXPECTANCY (LLE) DUE TO VARIOUS RISKS
TABLE 1
Activity or risk* LLE (days)
Living in poverty 3500
Being male (vs. female) 2800
Cigarettes (male) 2300
Heart disease* 2100
Being unmarried 2000
....
Occupational accidents 74
....
Airline crashes* 1
Dam failures* 1
Living near nuclear plant 0.4
All electricity nuclear (NRC)* 0.04

Whilst we have reasonable statistics to reassure re the general safety of
flying, I feel that we do not yet have sufficient knowledge of the safety
of Dreamliner 787s. Only in service since October 2011. So anything that
takes a couple of years to surface...

BTW, how long do lappie batteries typically last?

Varys with how they are used.

Seem to remember they start failing in their second year

Thats bull****.

and often get worse over the next two or three years.

The better batterys dont get that bad that quickly.

On 18/01/2013 10:51, Jo Stein wrote:
On 18.01.2013 09:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...787_batteries/

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...0__374392c.jpg


Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

I would be quite happy with that.
The chance of dying in a plane is
far less likely then dying in your home:

That does rather depend upon the aircraft.

Colin Bignell

On 18.01.2013 12:30, Nightjar wrote:
On 18/01/2013 10:51, Jo Stein wrote:
On 18.01.2013 09:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...787_batteries/


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...0__374392c.jpg



Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

I would be quite happy with that.
The chance of dying in a plane is
far less likely then dying in your home:

That does rather depend upon the aircraft.

Why do people clap their hands after a landing?
Because we are afraid of heights.
Why are we afraid of heights?
Because of evolution, which also explains why
goats are not at all afraid of heights.

I will prefer an Airbus A350 when flying long distance,
and my choice is not based on irrational fear:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_...and_deliveries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_...and_deliveries
--
jo
"We should never so entirely avoid danger as to appear
irresolute and cowardly. But, at the same time, we should
avoid unnecessarily exposing ourselves to danger, than
which nothing can be more foolish. [Cicero]"

En el artículo , Jo Stein
escribió:

Why do people clap their hands after a landing?

Because they're idiots?

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On 18/01/2013 11:50, Jo Stein wrote:
On 18.01.2013 12:30, Nightjar wrote:
On 18/01/2013 10:51, Jo Stein wrote:
On 18.01.2013 09:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

So they've just discovered Li-ion can be a fire risk?

Seen the photos of the batteries?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01...787_batteries/



http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...0__374392c.jpg




Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

I would be quite happy with that.
The chance of dying in a plane is
far less likely then dying in your home:

That does rather depend upon the aircraft.

Why do people clap their hands after a landing?

I've never been on a flight where anybody did that.

Because we are afraid of heights.

If they do it through fear, it is more probably a fear of flying.

Why are we afraid of heights?

Not everybody is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lu...aper-c1932.jpg

Because of evolution,

The fact that entire groups of peoples do not fear heights suggests it
is nurture, rather than nature.

which also explains why
goats are not at all afraid of heights.

Have you ever asked a goat whether it is unafraid or simply confronting
its fear?

Colin Bignell

In message , Jo Stein
writes
The chance of dying in a plane is
far less likely then dying in your home:
Generally yes, but if a particular plane has a specific safety problem
then the generalisation no longer applies to that plane - e.g. Comet.
That is why when such an issue is identified the fleet is grounded.
--
bert

On Friday, January 18, 2013 10:51:59 AM UTC, Jo Stein wrote:
On 18.01.2013 09:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

The chance of dying in a plane is
far less likely then dying in your home.
LOSS OF LIFE EXPECTANCY (LLE) DUE TO VARIOUS RISKS
TABLE 1 ....


People can misread that as saying "you are much less likely to die in an airflight than if you stayed at home instead" but that's not what it says.

You could equally well say that the reduction in life expectancy from swallowing nails is much less than from hammering nails. That's because most people don't swallow nails. It doesn't tell you that swallowing a nail is safer than hammering it.

Robert

On 18.01.2013 17:31, RobertL wrote:
On Friday, January 18, 2013 10:51:59 AM UTC, Jo Stein wrote:
On 18.01.2013 09:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

The chance of dying in a plane is far less likely then dying in
your home. LOSS OF LIFE EXPECTANCY (LLE) DUE TO VARIOUS RISKS TABLE
1 ....


People can misread that as saying "you are much less likely to die in
an airflight than if you stayed at home instead" but that's not what
it says.

You could equally well say that the reduction in life expectancy from
swallowing nails is much less than from hammering nails. That's
because most people don't swallow nails. It doesn't tell you that
swallowing a nail is safer than hammering it.

A plane and your home are both safe places to be. I failed to tell that
the main reason why more accidents happen at home than in a plane, is
because you spend more time at home that in a plane. Thus also more
nails are swallowed at home than in a plane.

If you want to compare the risk between the two ways of handling nails
you have do do it in a proper way. Risk from swallowing nails is
computed for those that do it, and then you get a high LLE for that action.
--
jo
"The power of science comes not from scientists but from its method.
The power, and the beauty too, of the scientific method is its
simplicity.€� -- E. O. Wilson

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:51:59 +0100, Jo Stein
wrote:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...0__374392c.jpg

Wouldn't be too happy flying with that happening under my feet.

I would be quite happy with that.
The chance of dying in a plane is
far less likely then dying in your home:

You are an idiot.