On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 8:48:17 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:24:02 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 1:59:46 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:33:27 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 10:02:32 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 2:09:28 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 8:57:45 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 10:35:06 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 8:32:11 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 1:11:40 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 7:22:03 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 4:44:37 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:35:13 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 2:06:26 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 1:08:09 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > > > Flyguy's efforts are pathetic, but he doesn't seem to appreciate quite how obviously pathetic they are. It would be sad, if he wasn't such an unpleasant creep.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What is pathetic is someone who believes that turning civilian aircraft into bombers is a GOOD IDEA and that LIBs CAN'T BURN!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Neither of which is what I actually said, but Flyguy does like to misunderstand what I did post in ways that let him post the lies that he likes. Precisely how much of his idiocy is malicious isn't clear.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Go back and reread your posts Sloman - you said it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's what your imperfect understanding has lead you to claim I was saying. In fact I suspect that it is closer to malicious misinterpretation. I have spelled out exactly why what I said can't reasonably be described as advocating turning a civilian aircraft into a bomber - for a start the individual cells from a battery that dismantled itself aren't any kind of bomb. Once they are spread apart they can't get all that hot and probably wouldn't even split, let alone burst.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But your head is far too far up your backside for any of this to register.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Sloman, multiple flaming objects intentionally dropped from aircraft starting ground fires, or worse, ARE bombs that authorities will not look kindly on.
> > > > >
> > > > > Except that if you dump the battery when it starts to overheat, most of the cells wont get hot enough to start self-discharging, and the one's that are self-discharging might not get hot enough to split. Until they do that they won't expose their contests to the air, and wouldn't be able to catch on fire, even if there was an ignition source around.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's clearly not a bomb, and a whole less dangerous than a whole aircraft on fire, which is what you seem to want.
> > > >
> > > > > > Just look at the uproar caused by the UNINTENTIONAL dropping of objects from airliners.
> > > > >
> > > > > <snipped the usual irrelevances>
> > > > >
> > > > > That's big objects. Intentional jettison can break them up and make them a lot less dangerous.
> > > >
> > > > Hey SL0WMAN, you just keep digging the hole DEEPER AND DEEPER. Under your RIDICULOUS scenario the battery has ALREADY gone into thermal runaway - why else discard your only energy (fuel) source? Once thermal runaway starts there IS NO way of stopping it.
> > >
> > > Actually there is, and I spelled it out. Thermal runaway is going to start with one individual cell. If you jettisoned the battery and broke it up at that point, the rogue cell wouldn't heat up any other cells and start them self-discharging. That kills the run-away in it's tracks.
> > >
> > And what happens if the battery DOESN'T break up (which a properly constructed battery won't)?
> If it was properly constructed so that it would break up if it were dumped, it will. Your idea of "proper construction" seems stupidly restricted, as we'd expect.
> > > Killing the process a little later is less effective, but a whole lot better than not breaking up the battery at all.
> > >
> > > > Pilots certainly would not take such drastic action if there wasn't CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence of this problem - after all it could just be a sensor problem.
> > >
> > > Temperature sensor are remarkably simple and very reliable. You'd need at least five of them (four arranged as a tetrahedron around a central sensor) to pick up an individual cell going rogue. Nine in a cube around a central sensor might be better with a rectangular battery pack.
> >
> > Sensors lie and connections fail, so, no, if I saw a temperature rising I would monitor it.
> Like I said there would be quite a few sensors. Temperature sensors don't lie - they are very simple. Connections can be tested by continuously monitoring the current through them, which isn't difficult or expensive. This is an electronics design group and you are clearly clueless about electronic design. I haven't published many academic papers, but pretty much all of them have gone into instrumentation and measurement journals.
> > Again, it will only tell you that the battery is already in thermal runaway.
> Sure you would. Up to a point. Thermal runaway only runs away if you don't do anything to stop the process early on, and you seem remarkably resistant to the idea that this might be possible. You are a simple-minded twit, and you do have an enthusiasm for fatuous over-simplification.
> > > It wouldn't take a lot of processing power to keep track of what was going on. and you'd probably get a reliable early warning long before things got all that nasty.
> >
> > You need to spend some time reading accident reports as I have done. Things go south in a big hurry.
> Thermal time constants are quite a lot slower than electronic time constants. You are being as ill-informed and silly as ever.
> > > > The entire point is to NOT go down a path that will send flaming debris raining down onto an unsuspecting populous.
> > >
> > > Having a whole aircraft that has caught fire and is coming down out of control is a better option? This has been mentioned before, and you don't seem to have answered that question. Lots of little bits might not be nice, but the whole structure has to be worse.
> >
> > Having an aircraft that doesn't have a built-in reliability problem is the better solution. In any case having a burning high-energy battery dropped onto populated areas is an UNACCEPTABLE design.
> You wouldn't drop it into a populated area - as has been pointed out
> > Notice you didn't call CASA as I recommended.
> Of course I didn't. Why would I waste their time trying to clarify the obvious for an ignorant idiot on the internet? It's not as if you'd bother to try to make sense of their answer if I got it for you.
>
> --
> SL0WMAN, Sydney
Hey SL0WMAN, to SHOW ME WRONG, of course! But you are TOO SCARED to talk to them, probably fearing the LAUGHTER at the other end of the line.
COME ON, you piece of trash - get the skinny from the authorities or SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH!