Reply by Greegor April 1, 20132013-04-01
fredbloggs wrote
> Don't worry yourself to death over it, > and let Boeing take care of it. I'm sure > whatever they come up with will be > tested to the extreme....
Yeah, Boeing would never rush it to delivery to Japan Airlines unless it was working perfectly! (sarcasm) G > Leon pointed out a SNAFU with the G > BCU schematics. G > Securaplane acknowledged the SNAFU G > with the schematics. G > A schematic SNAFU up would halt a G > military aviation contract wouldn't it? G > Isn't that enough to be a fail in aviation G > electronics going on a 300 to 400 seat airliner? fred bloggs wrote
> That's something else about that freak. > He is the first and one and only person > to find the crazy "error" , a dead short, > on the schematic, that somehow and > mysteriously was absent from board > and assembly drawings.
Later revisions, after he was gone, sure! But they admitted that the revisions he was talking about had the short. fred bloggs wrote
> How much plainer does it have to be > before anyone realizes the freak was > responsible for it!
You've got to be really obsessed with hating Leon to use such pretzel logic to badmouth him. Have you looked at any of the Youtube videos of Lipo fires? Even the little RC ones go up like magnesium flares! One of the fixes proposed isolating individual cells, but that idea seems to backfire in that once a thermal runaway begins in even one cell, the exothermic reaction, light and heat resemble a magnesium flare so containment is close to impossible. Long story short, somebody at Boeing truly and royally screwed up big time by specifying Lithium-Ion battery chemistry. They should have known better back in 2005 when they specified it. They should have reconsidered after the big fire in 2007. But it actually made it onto runways! Was that you, Fred Bloggs?
Reply by March 31, 20132013-03-31
On Sunday, March 31, 2013 2:12:32 AM UTC-4, Greegor wrote:

Don't worry yourself to death over it, and let Boeing take care of it. I'm sure  whatever they come up with will be tested to the extreme....
Reply by March 31, 20132013-03-31
On Sunday, March 31, 2013 2:32:55 AM UTC-4, Greegor wrote:

> Leon pointed out a SNAFU with the >=20 > BCU schematics. > Securaplane acknowledged the SNAFU >=20 > with the schematics. > A schematic SNAFU up would halt a >=20 > military aviation contract wouldn't it? > Isn't that enough to be a fail in aviation >=20 > electronics going on a 300 to 400 seat airliner?
That's something else about that freak. He is the first and one and only pe= rson to find the crazy "error" , a dead short, on the schematic, that someh= ow and mysteriously was absent from board and assembly drawings. How much p= lainer does it have to be before anyone realizes the freak was responsible = for it!
Reply by Greegor March 31, 20132013-03-31
On Mar 27, 1:10=A0am, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I found it particularly interesting that Securaplane and > > > the Labor Department blew off Leon, but to a huge > > extent, history has vindicated his claim that the > > charging systems were unsafe on aircraft.
> Really? Show us where any investigation > has found anything at all wrong the > charging system.
Leon pointed out a SNAFU with the BCU schematics. Securaplane acknowledged the SNAFU with the schematics. A schematic SNAFU up would halt a military aviation contract wouldn't it? Isn't that enough to be a fail in aviation electronics going on a 300 to 400 seat airliner?
Reply by Greegor March 31, 20132013-03-31
fred bloggs wrote
> That's just a bunch of hysteria.
Not when it comes to Lithium-Ion. Have you seen footage of Li-Ion or Lipo fires? Even the tiny little ones used by RC model fans make some pretty amazing fires!
> Boeing is > adapting a containment enclosure > Eagle-Picher developed to enable Cessna > to get their business jets sporting a > LiFePO4 back into the air with FAA > approval. They have a demo video of a > 30AH battery explosion and it is a > non-event with their container.
Are you changing goalposts here or is Boeing? How much heavier per Amp-Hour is the less volatile LiFePO4 chemistry? "EaglePicher Technologies, of Joplin, Missouri, passed tests modeled on DO-311, but used a less volatile chemistry than Boeing, known as lithium-iron phosphate. "To successfully pass the containment (test), we needed iron phosphate," Ron Nowlin, general manager of aerospace systems for EaglePicher, said in an interview earlier this year."
Reply by March 30, 20132013-03-30
On Friday, March 29, 2013 9:40:38 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

>=20 > The managers were selected by sex and race over competences, leading >=20 > to a ma$$ive money bleed. =20
That's pervasive throughout U.S. government, but, although managers were NE= VER selected on the basis of competence or real achievement in the past, to= day it is no exaggeration to say the level of intelligence and capability a= re subhuman. The Republicans in Congress must push the government into defa= ult if necessary to put this atrocity out of business.
Reply by josephkk March 30, 20132013-03-30
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:08:57 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:30:35 -0700, the renowned josephkk ><joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:49:07 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >><mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>tm wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> NASA's failures makes for a long list and a very high cost to =
taxpayers.
>>>>=20 >>>> Any business run the same way would have long failed. >>> >>> >>> Name one comparable business. >> >>Union Carbide? Jones-Manvillle? The assholes responsible for Love =
Canal
>>(and eleventy-seventeen more superfund sites). All got away =
essentially
>>scot-free. >> >>?-) > >Love Canal was Hooker Chemical, not UC, and what they did was legal at >the time, and their sale of the property contained proper notification >and liability clauses.=20 > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal > >The government incompetents got off scott free.=20 > >There was government incompetence involved in the UC Bhopal disaster >as well.=20 > > >Best regards,=20 >Spehro Pefhany
Thanks for the lookup on Love Canal. It was obviously easy enough to get that additional specific one right. I also wanted to make the point = about all the superfund sites which you helped with a bit. ?-)
Reply by Spehro Pefhany March 29, 20132013-03-29
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:30:35 -0700, the renowned josephkk
<joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:49:07 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" ><mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> >>tm wrote: >>> >>> NASA's failures makes for a long list and a very high cost to taxpayers. >>> >>> Any business run the same way would have long failed. >> >> >> Name one comparable business. > >Union Carbide? Jones-Manvillle? The assholes responsible for Love Canal >(and eleventy-seventeen more superfund sites). All got away essentially >scot-free. > >?-)
Love Canal was Hooker Chemical, not UC, and what they did was legal at the time, and their sale of the property contained proper notification and liability clauses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal The government incompetents got off scott free. There was government incompetence involved in the UC Bhopal disaster as well. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Reply by March 29, 20132013-03-29
On Mar 28, 11:42=A0pm, MrTallyman <MrTally...@BananaCountersRUs.org>
wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:51:27 -0400, "tm" <No_one_h...@white-house.gov> > wrote:
> >NASA's failures makes for a long list and a very high cost to taxpayers. > > =A0 You are both absolute retards. =A0Their contributions outweigh any cl=
aim
> of failure by several orders of magnitude. =A0Especially the perceived > failure(s) dumbfucks like you dream up. > > >Any business run the same way would have long failed. > > =A0 Yeah, and you hang out with Branson. =A0Sure. > > =A0 If things there were the same way, your mother would have had the sen=
se
> to flush you, right after she plopped you into the toilet bowl. > > =A0 I doubt you know the first thing about how "things" are run at NASA.
I have a buddy who worked there. He identified a mission-critical race condition in a spacecraft's computer and refused to sign off on a subsystem. He explained the circuit in detail--dreadful engineering. It a) was absolutely unreliable under prime conditions, and b) created a catastrophic non-recoverable single-point failure that defeated the craft's redundant safety systems. But, correcting the problem would've upset the schedule. Something about budget heat and not wanting to get cut. They couldn't fire him outright without a scandal over the design, so they re-assigned him to make-work in no-man's land and tried to get him to quit. But, since he had nothing to do, the other engineers kept bringing him broken stuff on the sly, and that made him impossible to fire--they needed him. The managers were selected by sex and race over competences, leading to a ma$$ive money bleed. Big projects + dumb architectures based on NIH, politics. All sorts of stories. If n(NASA)>10%, I'd be amazed. -- Cheers, James Arthur
Reply by March 29, 20132013-03-29
On Thursday, March 28, 2013 11:30:35 PM UTC-4, josephkk wrote:

> > Union Carbide? Jones-Manvillle? The assholes responsible for Love Canal > > (and eleventy-seventeen more superfund sites). All got away essentially > > scot-free. >
Do you mean Johns Manville? They're still going strong and part of Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway empire.