On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 9:57:41 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 2:29:27 PM UTC+10, Corvid wrote: > > On 9/5/21 7:49 PM, Flyguy wrote: > > > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 6:01:50 PM UTC-7, Corvid wrote: > > >> On 9/5/21 5:21 PM, Flyguy wrote: > > >>> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 3:22:06 PM UTC-7, Corvid wrote: > > >>>> On 9/5/21 10:34 AM, Flyguy wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>>>> ... "Cutting it loose?" It is clear that SL0WMAN is not a > > >>>>>>> pilot and knows NOTHING about aircraft! The battery pack is > > >>>>>>> often placed in the wings, so "cutting it loose" means > > >>>>>>> cutting the WINGS OFF! > > >>>> WOW! > > >>>>>> There are other options. Landing wheels have been known to > > >>>>>> retract into the wings. > > >>>>>>> And if it is in the fuselage it is even worse. > > >>>>>> Bombers seem to be designed to jettison large lump of explosive > > >>>>>> when in flight. It does seem to be a soluble problem, though > > >>>>>> perhaps a little beyond Flyguy's expertise. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> LOL! SL0WMAN wants to turn civilian aircraft into BOMBERS!! UN > > >>>>> FUCKING BELIEVABLE!!! > > >>>> Fuel is also carried in the wings. In an emergency, the pilot may > > >>>> circle around, and around, to burn most of it off. Or dump it. > > >>>> When they dump fuel, they never cut the wings off. > > >>> > > >>> I have never heard of fuel being dumped because it is on fire, > > >> I didn't say anything about fuel being on fire. You're trying to squirm > > >> away. > > > > > > Then go back and read the first posts. > > Back on track now, you alleged that a battery placed in the wings can't > > be cut loose without cutting the WINGS OFF! > > >>> only to reduce landing weight. > > >> Or to reduce the fireball when the plane goes cartwheeling down the runway. > > > > > > They wouldn't be planning to "cartwheel down the runway." > > You're right. So why has it happened? > > >>> Most people don't know that heavy aircraft can't land at the same > > >>> weight they can launch. > > >> So what? Get back to "cutting it loose means cutting the WINGS OFF!" > > > > > > So it points to the ignorance shown on SED > > > > > >>> But just imagine, for a moment, that an electric aircraft could drop > > >>> its burning battery on an unsuspecting public what - is it going to > > >>> do with no energy source? > > >> Coast to a stop? No, it will glide. > > > > > > Okay, now tell us how far it will glide? > Most aircraft have a respectable glide ratio - they can glide more than ten times their height above ground at the time when they started gliding. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliding_flight > > Three airliners are listed (at the bottom of the page) at roughly 12, 15 and 17. Gliders can do rather better - the figure given is 70 for one example. > > > I can't. > > Since you don't know the height above ground at the start of the glide. > > But I know that if you lose an engine, the one remaining will always get you to the crash site. > Not always, they can frequently get you to an emergency landing field, where you can do an emergency landing which won't end up looking anything like a crash. > > (That's a joke, Flyguy. If you haven't heard it, maybe it's because it > > isn't included in Microsoft Flight Simulator.) > -- > SL0WMAN, SydneyThat was a test to see how much you know about electric aircraft. You FLUNKED. Most electric aircraft fly at low altitude and for good reason: it takes too much battery capacity to climb to and fly at higher altitudes (SL0WMAN can calculate how many WHr it take to climb to altitude). This means that in the event of a battery fire they won't have much altitude to convert into distance. They won't need it anyhow, the battery fire goes VERY FAST and will take down the aircraft before it gets very far. Again, READ the accident report.
How to fight a lithium battery fire
Started by ●September 5, 2021
Reply by ●September 6, 20212021-09-06
Reply by ●September 6, 20212021-09-06
On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 12:39:25 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 8:12:12 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 3:34:50 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote: > > > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 1:08:47 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 5:16:17 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 9:59:29 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 1:51:38 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > > So you own an electric car with a sizeable lithium-based battery, how do you fight a battery fire? Experience with fighting electric car fires is not encouraging because you can't cut off the supply of oxygen to the fire like you can with a carbon fuel such as gasoline - the chemistry of all lithium battery variants supplies its own oxygen. > > > > > > Not just lithium. Any battery chemistry depends on having both of the energy generating components built in. When they react to produce electricity, this is fine, but if you disrupt the battery structure they can also react to produce heat. > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a very large (mega) battery fire in OZ that took three days to extinguish. The fire really wasn't extinguished, just all of the lithium was consumed. Firefighters were given advice on how to fight the fire by Tesla, the batterie's designer, and UGL, the installer (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/aug/02/tesla-big-battery-fire-in-victoria-burns-into-day-three): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > “They are difficult to fight because you can’t put water on the mega packs … all that does is extend the length of time that the fire burns for.” > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Firefighters have taken advice from experts including Tesla, the battery’s creators, and UGL, who are installing the battery packs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > “The recommended process is you cool everything around it so the fire can’t spread and you let it burn out,” Beswicke said. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is somewhat like fighting large forest fires: you wait for Nature to put it out naturally with rain and/or snow, except worse. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not exactly. In a forest fire the oxidant is the oxygen in the air, and it worth dumping water on them - aerial tankers are definitely useful in fighting forest fires, though you can't usually deliver enough water to put them out, > > > > > > > A fire in aircraft lithium battery pack will likely result in the complete destruction of the plane, even if it is on the ground when the fire started. > > > > > > It shouldn't, if the battery pack is rationally designed, which would include some provision for cutting it loose if it caught on fire. > > > > > > > If the fire starts while airborne your only option is to bail out (if you are not incapacitated by smoke first like the Taurus Electro glider fatal accident in NZ https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/publications/fatal-accident-reports/ZK-GEL-Final-Report-7-December-2020.pdf). > > > > > > Or dump the battery, if that option was designed in. > > > > > > > > > > "Cutting it loose?" It is clear that SL0WMAN is not a pilot and knows NOTHING about aircraft! The battery pack is often placed in the wings, so "cutting it loose" means cutting the WINGS OFF! > > > > There are other options. Landing wheels have been known to retract into the wings. > > > > > And if it is in the fuselage it is even worse. > > > > Bombers seem to be designed to jettison large lump of explosive when in flight. It does seem to be a soluble problem, though perhaps a little beyond Flyguy's expertise. > > > > > > LOL! SL0WMAN wants to turn civilian aircraft into BOMBERS!! UN FUCKING BELIEVABLE!!! Hey SL0WMAN, this is about the inherent unreliability of a technology that Left sees as the savior of the planet. You just simply can't rain firebombs down onto populated areas, or start forest fires in unpopulated areas. > > > > Flyguy is remarkably stupid, as I seem to have mentioned before. The problem of getting something out of the fuselage of an aircraft in flight is a problem that has been solved. The fact that it can be done for bombs doesn't make what you throw out a bomb - I did point out that you probably ought to design a jettisonable battery pack so that it broke up into smaller elements with low terminal velocities. They'd cool off as they fell and small elements with relatively high surface areas would probably cool off to safe temperature before they eventually hit the ground. > > > > > > > But, for the sake of argument, if you could do this you would be dropping a very dangerous firebomb down onto the unsuspecting population. > > > > > > > There's a lot of land under most flight paths, and not a lot of population. If you got enthusiastic you might design the battery pack to break up into small fragments - each of which would have a low terminal velocity - after it had been ejected, and none of which was big enough to do much damage. > > > > > > Ditto. > > > > > > > > But Flyguy couldn't be expected to imagine anything that complicated. > > > > Or understand when somebody has spelled it out for him. > > > > > Try reading the accident report of a REAL accident. > > > > > > > They are voluminous, and not widely available. > > > I posted a link to an actual accident that IS available to anyone with an internet connection, which we know SL0WMAN has. > > > Here it is AGAIN: https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/publications/fatal-accident-reports/ZK-GEL-Final-Report-7-December-2020.pdf > > > > Which says that pilot abused his battery pack by over-charging them, which can lead to dendrites forming inside the cells, which can short circuits, rapid heat generation and the cells catching on fire. Flyguy probably ought not to buy anything with rechaergeable batteries - he's silly enough to be likely to make the same kind of mistake. > > > > > > > I said it was SOMETHING liking fighting a forest fire, not EXACTLY the same thing - reread it. The similarity is you CAN'T STOP THE FIRE. > > > > > > But you can stop small forest fires, with the right tools, and enough of them. Forests aren't designed. Battery packs ought to be. > > > > > > So, we are going to make wide spread use of a technology that will randomly start forest fires. > > > > Except that it probably wouldn't. For one thing, forests aren't usually dry enough to burn. > > > > > You better look at how well this is working right now in California where they had to evacuate South Lake Tahoe. Better start hiring a lot more firefighters. > > > > At the peak of an uniquely bad fire season. > > > > > > > The bottom line for me is that I will NEVER own an electric aircraft using any foreseeable battery technology. And electric cars have the same problem - take the issue of the Chevy Bolt which now has a full recall. At least with them you can pull over to the side of the road if it catches fire. > > > > > > > Tesla still seems to be doing okay. One bad apple isn't a good reason to reject the rest of the crop. > > > > > > Oh, REALLY? Check this out you uneducated moron: > > > https://abc7news.com/tesla-elon-musk-7-on-your-side-fire/10957497/ > > > Do you want to die in your sleep as your electric car burns down your house? > > The cars certainly caught fire. This doesn't happen often. Blaming the batteries is easy, but if the wrong bit of insulation had fretted through the consequences would have looked exactly the same. > > > > > Stay tuned for more issues on this subject. > > > > > > > Don't bother. > > > > > > Fuck you Sloman - I WILL bother! > > > > Of course you will - you are an idiot with passion for advertising the fact wherever you can. > > Hey SL0WMAN, you are so FUCKING STUPID that I am having trouble typing because I am LAUGHING HYSTERICALLY!!! A firebomb that breaks up into BOMBLETS!!! OMG!!!!! You ought to patent that, but the idea has already been taken (i.e. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4638736). So, instead of having ONE firebomb you have an ENTIRE CLUSTER of firebombs!! Are you sure you aren't putting out this trash to make me DIE OF LAUGHTER?????The battery wouldn't be designed to be a firebomb, and - as I pointed out - if it fragmented into lots of small parts with lots of surface area and a low terminal velocity, the fragments could have cooled off enough by the time they reached the ground that they couldn't start a fire.> BTW, lithium battery fires take HOURS to burn out - terminal velocity is 120 mph.If the battery isn't dismanted, both these claims may be true. The terminal velocity of an object depends on it's mass and it's surface area, so making the fragments small enough makes your comment one more of you stupid misapprehensions. Your terminal velocity might well be 120 mph - though I'd like to see that tested. For a cat it's about 60 mph. For a mouse about 36 mph. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●September 7, 20212021-09-07
On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 12:45:45 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 9:57:41 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 2:29:27 PM UTC+10, Corvid wrote: > > > On 9/5/21 7:49 PM, Flyguy wrote: > > > > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 6:01:50 PM UTC-7, Corvid wrote: > > > >> On 9/5/21 5:21 PM, Flyguy wrote: > > > >>> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 3:22:06 PM UTC-7, Corvid wrote: > > > >>>> On 9/5/21 10:34 AM, Flyguy wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>> ... "Cutting it loose?" It is clear that SL0WMAN is not a > > > >>>>>>> pilot and knows NOTHING about aircraft! The battery pack is > > > >>>>>>> often placed in the wings, so "cutting it loose" means > > > >>>>>>> cutting the WINGS OFF! > > > >>>> WOW! > > > >>>>>> There are other options. Landing wheels have been known to > > > >>>>>> retract into the wings. > > > >>>>>>> And if it is in the fuselage it is even worse. > > > >>>>>> Bombers seem to be designed to jettison large lump of explosive > > > >>>>>> when in flight. It does seem to be a soluble problem, though > > > >>>>>> perhaps a little beyond Flyguy's expertise. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> LOL! SL0WMAN wants to turn civilian aircraft into BOMBERS!! UN > > > >>>>> FUCKING BELIEVABLE!!! > > > >>>> Fuel is also carried in the wings. In an emergency, the pilot may > > > >>>> circle around, and around, to burn most of it off. Or dump it. > > > >>>> When they dump fuel, they never cut the wings off. > > > >>> > > > >>> I have never heard of fuel being dumped because it is on fire, > > > >> I didn't say anything about fuel being on fire. You're trying to squirm > > > >> away. > > > > > > > > Then go back and read the first posts. > > > Back on track now, you alleged that a battery placed in the wings can't > > > be cut loose without cutting the WINGS OFF! > > > >>> only to reduce landing weight. > > > >> Or to reduce the fireball when the plane goes cartwheeling down the runway. > > > > > > > > They wouldn't be planning to "cartwheel down the runway." > > > You're right. So why has it happened? > > > >>> Most people don't know that heavy aircraft can't land at the same > > > >>> weight they can launch. > > > >> So what? Get back to "cutting it loose means cutting the WINGS OFF!" > > > > > > > > So it points to the ignorance shown on SED > > > > > > > >>> But just imagine, for a moment, that an electric aircraft could drop > > > >>> its burning battery on an unsuspecting public what - is it going to > > > >>> do with no energy source? > > > >> Coast to a stop? No, it will glide. > > > > > > > > Okay, now tell us how far it will glide? > > Most aircraft have a respectable glide ratio - they can glide more than ten times their height above ground at the time when they started gliding. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliding_flight > > > > Three airliners are listed (at the bottom of the page) at roughly 12, 15 and 17. Gliders can do rather better - the figure given is 70 for one example. > > > > > I can't. > > > > Since you don't know the height above ground at the start of the glide. > > > > > But I know that if you lose an engine, the one remaining will always get you to the crash site. > > Not always, they can frequently get you to an emergency landing field, where you can do an emergency landing which won't end up looking anything like a crash. > > > (That's a joke, Flyguy. If you haven't heard it, maybe it's because it > > > isn't included in Microsoft Flight Simulator.) > > That was a test to see how much you know about electric aircraft. You FLUNKED. Most electric aircraft fly at low altitude and for good reason: it takes too much battery capacity to climb to and fly at higher altitudes (Sloman can calculate how many WHr it take to climb to altitude).This is an over-simplication, and mostly wrong. There's an advantage in flying at higher altitude. You do have to fly faster to generate enough lift to keep you up there, but you don't generate any more drag, so you get where you want to go with less expenditure of energy. Variable pitch propellers help you do this. > This means that in the event of a battery fire they won't have much altitude to convert into distance. They won't need it anyhow, the battery fire goes VERY FAST and will take down the aircraft before it gets very far. Again, READ the accident report. Which says that the pilot abused the battery by grossly overcharging it. You seem to have been too stupid to notice this, or perhaps you realised that you were stupid enough to make the same kind of mistake. If you fly aircraft, being stupid can be a capital crime. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●September 7, 20212021-09-07
On 9/6/21 7:57 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 12:39:25 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote: > >> BTW, lithium battery fires take HOURS to burn out - terminal >> velocity is 120 mph. > > > Your terminal velocity might well be 120 mph - though I'd like to see > that tested. For a cat it's about 60 mph. For a mouse about 36 mph.Felix Baumgartner did 840 mph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Baumgartner
Reply by ●September 7, 20212021-09-07
On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 2:04:30 PM UTC+10, Corvid wrote:> On 9/6/21 7:57 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 12:39:25 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote: > > > >> BTW, lithium battery fires take HOURS to burn out - terminal > >> velocity is 120 mph. > > > > > > Your terminal velocity might well be 120 mph - though I'd like to see > > that tested. For a cat it's about 60 mph. For a mouse about 36 mph. > > Felix Baumgartner did 840 mph. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_BaumgartnerAt high altitude. Where the air is less dense, aerodynamic drag at any given velocity is reduced as function of air-density.This is why long distance flights get as far up into the stratosphere as they can. Terminal velocity is your speed when you hit the ground, notionally close to sea-level. Baumgartner had opened his parachute before then. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●September 7, 20212021-09-07
On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 7:57:48 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 12:39:25 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote: > > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 8:12:12 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 3:34:50 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote: > > > > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 1:08:47 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 5:16:17 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 9:59:29 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 1:51:38 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > > > So you own an electric car with a sizeable lithium-based battery, how do you fight a battery fire? Experience with fighting electric car fires is not encouraging because you can't cut off the supply of oxygen to the fire like you can with a carbon fuel such as gasoline - the chemistry of all lithium battery variants supplies its own oxygen. > > > > > > > Not just lithium. Any battery chemistry depends on having both of the energy generating components built in. When they react to produce electricity, this is fine, but if you disrupt the battery structure they can also react to produce heat. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a very large (mega) battery fire in OZ that took three days to extinguish. The fire really wasn't extinguished, just all of the lithium was consumed. Firefighters were given advice on how to fight the fire by Tesla, the batterie's designer, and UGL, the installer (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/aug/02/tesla-big-battery-fire-in-victoria-burns-into-day-three): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > “They are difficult to fight because you can’t put water on the mega packs … all that does is extend the length of time that the fire burns for.” > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Firefighters have taken advice from experts including Tesla, the battery’s creators, and UGL, who are installing the battery packs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > “The recommended process is you cool everything around it so the fire can’t spread and you let it burn out,” Beswicke said. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is somewhat like fighting large forest fires: you wait for Nature to put it out naturally with rain and/or snow, except worse. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not exactly. In a forest fire the oxidant is the oxygen in the air, and it worth dumping water on them - aerial tankers are definitely useful in fighting forest fires, though you can't usually deliver enough water to put them out, > > > > > > > > A fire in aircraft lithium battery pack will likely result in the complete destruction of the plane, even if it is on the ground when the fire started. > > > > > > > It shouldn't, if the battery pack is rationally designed, which would include some provision for cutting it loose if it caught on fire. > > > > > > > > If the fire starts while airborne your only option is to bail out (if you are not incapacitated by smoke first like the Taurus Electro glider fatal accident in NZ https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/publications/fatal-accident-reports/ZK-GEL-Final-Report-7-December-2020.pdf). > > > > > > > Or dump the battery, if that option was designed in. > > > > > > > > > > > > "Cutting it loose?" It is clear that SL0WMAN is not a pilot and knows NOTHING about aircraft! The battery pack is often placed in the wings, so "cutting it loose" means cutting the WINGS OFF! > > > > > There are other options. Landing wheels have been known to retract into the wings. > > > > > > And if it is in the fuselage it is even worse. > > > > > Bombers seem to be designed to jettison large lump of explosive when in flight. It does seem to be a soluble problem, though perhaps a little beyond Flyguy's expertise. > > > > > > > > LOL! SL0WMAN wants to turn civilian aircraft into BOMBERS!! UN FUCKING BELIEVABLE!!! Hey SL0WMAN, this is about the inherent unreliability of a technology that Left sees as the savior of the planet. You just simply can't rain firebombs down onto populated areas, or start forest fires in unpopulated areas. > > > > > > Flyguy is remarkably stupid, as I seem to have mentioned before. The problem of getting something out of the fuselage of an aircraft in flight is a problem that has been solved. The fact that it can be done for bombs doesn't make what you throw out a bomb - I did point out that you probably ought to design a jettisonable battery pack so that it broke up into smaller elements with low terminal velocities. They'd cool off as they fell and small elements with relatively high surface areas would probably cool off to safe temperature before they eventually hit the ground. > > > > > > > > > But, for the sake of argument, if you could do this you would be dropping a very dangerous firebomb down onto the unsuspecting population. > > > > > > > > > There's a lot of land under most flight paths, and not a lot of population. If you got enthusiastic you might design the battery pack to break up into small fragments - each of which would have a low terminal velocity - after it had been ejected, and none of which was big enough to do much damage. > > > > > > > > Ditto. > > > > > > > > > > But Flyguy couldn't be expected to imagine anything that complicated. > > > > > > Or understand when somebody has spelled it out for him. > > > > > > Try reading the accident report of a REAL accident. > > > > > > > > > They are voluminous, and not widely available. > > > > I posted a link to an actual accident that IS available to anyone with an internet connection, which we know SL0WMAN has. > > > > Here it is AGAIN: https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/publications/fatal-accident-reports/ZK-GEL-Final-Report-7-December-2020.pdf > > > > > > Which says that pilot abused his battery pack by over-charging them, which can lead to dendrites forming inside the cells, which can short circuits, rapid heat generation and the cells catching on fire. Flyguy probably ought not to buy anything with rechaergeable batteries - he's silly enough to be likely to make the same kind of mistake. > > > > > > > > > I said it was SOMETHING liking fighting a forest fire, not EXACTLY the same thing - reread it. The similarity is you CAN'T STOP THE FIRE. > > > > > > > > But you can stop small forest fires, with the right tools, and enough of them. Forests aren't designed. Battery packs ought to be. > > > > > > > > So, we are going to make wide spread use of a technology that will randomly start forest fires. > > > > > > Except that it probably wouldn't. For one thing, forests aren't usually dry enough to burn. > > > > > > > You better look at how well this is working right now in California where they had to evacuate South Lake Tahoe. Better start hiring a lot more firefighters. > > > > > > At the peak of an uniquely bad fire season. > > > > > > > > > The bottom line for me is that I will NEVER own an electric aircraft using any foreseeable battery technology. And electric cars have the same problem - take the issue of the Chevy Bolt which now has a full recall. At least with them you can pull over to the side of the road if it catches fire. > > > > > > > > > Tesla still seems to be doing okay. One bad apple isn't a good reason to reject the rest of the crop. > > > > > > > > Oh, REALLY? Check this out you uneducated moron: > > > > https://abc7news.com/tesla-elon-musk-7-on-your-side-fire/10957497/ > > > > Do you want to die in your sleep as your electric car burns down your house? > > > The cars certainly caught fire. This doesn't happen often. Blaming the batteries is easy, but if the wrong bit of insulation had fretted through the consequences would have looked exactly the same. > > > > > > Stay tuned for more issues on this subject. > > > > > > > > > Don't bother. > > > > > > > > Fuck you Sloman - I WILL bother! > > > > > > Of course you will - you are an idiot with passion for advertising the fact wherever you can. > > > > Hey SL0WMAN, you are so FUCKING STUPID that I am having trouble typing because I am LAUGHING HYSTERICALLY!!! A firebomb that breaks up into BOMBLETS!!! OMG!!!!! You ought to patent that, but the idea has already been taken (i.e. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4638736). So, instead of having ONE firebomb you have an ENTIRE CLUSTER of firebombs!! Are you sure you aren't putting out this trash to make me DIE OF LAUGHTER????? > The battery wouldn't be designed to be a firebomb, and - as I pointed out - if it fragmented into lots of small parts with lots of surface area and a low terminal velocity, the fragments could have cooled off enough by the time they reached the ground that they couldn't start a fire. > > > BTW, lithium battery fires take HOURS to burn out - terminal velocity is 120 mph. > > If the battery isn't dismanted, both these claims may be true. The terminal velocity of an object depends on it's mass and it's surface area, so making the fragments small enough makes your comment one more of you stupid misapprehensions. > > Your terminal velocity might well be 120 mph - though I'd like to see that tested. For a cat it's about 60 mph. For a mouse about 36 mph. > > -- > SL0WMAN, SydneyLOL! Hey SL0WMAN if you want to TEST terminal velocity why don't you climb up to the highest point in Sydney and JUMP THE FUCK OFF OF IT!!!! You would do ALL OF US a BIG, FUCKING FAVOR!!!!!!!!!!! Be sure to have someone video your FALL - it will be FUN TO WATCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply by ●September 7, 20212021-09-07
On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 4:26:48 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 7:57:48 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 12:39:25 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote: > > > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 8:12:12 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 3:34:50 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 1:08:47 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 5:16:17 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 9:59:29 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 1:51:38 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > > > > So you own an electric car with a sizeable lithium-based battery, how do you fight a battery fire? Experience with fighting electric car fires is not encouraging because you can't cut off the supply of oxygen to the fire like you can with a carbon fuel such as gasoline - the chemistry of all lithium battery variants supplies its own oxygen. > > > > > > > > Not just lithium. Any battery chemistry depends on having both of the energy generating components built in. When they react to produce electricity, this is fine, but if you disrupt the battery structure they can also react to produce heat. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a very large (mega) battery fire in OZ that took three days to extinguish. The fire really wasn't extinguished, just all of the lithium was consumed. Firefighters were given advice on how to fight the fire by Tesla, the batterie's designer, and UGL, the installer (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/aug/02/tesla-big-battery-fire-in-victoria-burns-into-day-three): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > “They are difficult to fight because you can’t put water on the mega packs … all that does is extend the length of time that the fire burns for.” > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Firefighters have taken advice from experts including Tesla, the battery’s creators, and UGL, who are installing the battery packs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > “The recommended process is you cool everything around it so the fire can’t spread and you let it burn out,” Beswicke said. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is somewhat like fighting large forest fires: you wait for Nature to put it out naturally with rain and/or snow, except worse. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not exactly. In a forest fire the oxidant is the oxygen in the air, and it worth dumping water on them - aerial tankers are definitely useful in fighting forest fires, though you can't usually deliver enough water to put them out, > > > > > > > > > A fire in aircraft lithium battery pack will likely result in the complete destruction of the plane, even if it is on the ground when the fire started. > > > > > > > > It shouldn't, if the battery pack is rationally designed, which would include some provision for cutting it loose if it caught on fire. > > > > > > > > > If the fire starts while airborne your only option is to bail out (if you are not incapacitated by smoke first like the Taurus Electro glider fatal accident in NZ https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/publications/fatal-accident-reports/ZK-GEL-Final-Report-7-December-2020.pdf). > > > > > > > > Or dump the battery, if that option was designed in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Cutting it loose?" It is clear that SL0WMAN is not a pilot and knows NOTHING about aircraft! The battery pack is often placed in the wings, so "cutting it loose" means cutting the WINGS OFF! > > > > > > There are other options. Landing wheels have been known to retract into the wings. > > > > > > > And if it is in the fuselage it is even worse. > > > > > > Bombers seem to be designed to jettison large lump of explosive when in flight. It does seem to be a soluble problem, though perhaps a little beyond Flyguy's expertise. > > > > > > > > > > LOL! SL0WMAN wants to turn civilian aircraft into BOMBERS!! UN FUCKING BELIEVABLE!!! Hey SL0WMAN, this is about the inherent unreliability of a technology that Left sees as the savior of the planet. You just simply can't rain firebombs down onto populated areas, or start forest fires in unpopulated areas. > > > > > > > > Flyguy is remarkably stupid, as I seem to have mentioned before. The problem of getting something out of the fuselage of an aircraft in flight is a problem that has been solved. The fact that it can be done for bombs doesn't make what you throw out a bomb - I did point out that you probably ought to design a jettisonable battery pack so that it broke up into smaller elements with low terminal velocities. They'd cool off as they fell and small elements with relatively high surface areas would probably cool off to safe temperature before they eventually hit the ground. > > > > > > > > > > > But, for the sake of argument, if you could do this you would be dropping a very dangerous firebomb down onto the unsuspecting population. > > > > > > > > > > > There's a lot of land under most flight paths, and not a lot of population. If you got enthusiastic you might design the battery pack to break up into small fragments - each of which would have a low terminal velocity - after it had been ejected, and none of which was big enough to do much damage. > > > > > > > > > > Ditto. > > > > > > > > > > > > But Flyguy couldn't be expected to imagine anything that complicated. > > > > > > > > Or understand when somebody has spelled it out for him. > > > > > > > Try reading the accident report of a REAL accident. > > > > > > > > > > > They are voluminous, and not widely available. > > > > > I posted a link to an actual accident that IS available to anyone with an internet connection, which we know SL0WMAN has. > > > > > Here it is AGAIN: https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/publications/fatal-accident-reports/ZK-GEL-Final-Report-7-December-2020.pdf > > > > > > > > Which says that pilot abused his battery pack by over-charging them, which can lead to dendrites forming inside the cells, which can short circuits, rapid heat generation and the cells catching on fire. Flyguy probably ought not to buy anything with rechaergeable batteries - he's silly enough to be likely to make the same kind of mistake. > > > > > > > > > > > I said it was SOMETHING liking fighting a forest fire, not EXACTLY the same thing - reread it. The similarity is you CAN'T STOP THE FIRE. > > > > > > > > > > But you can stop small forest fires, with the right tools, and enough of them. Forests aren't designed. Battery packs ought to be. > > > > > > > > > > So, we are going to make wide spread use of a technology that will randomly start forest fires. > > > > > > > > Except that it probably wouldn't. For one thing, forests aren't usually dry enough to burn. > > > > > > > > > You better look at how well this is working right now in California where they had to evacuate South Lake Tahoe. Better start hiring a lot more firefighters. > > > > > > > > At the peak of an uniquely bad fire season. > > > > > > > > > > > The bottom line for me is that I will NEVER own an electric aircraft using any foreseeable battery technology. And electric cars have the same problem - take the issue of the Chevy Bolt which now has a full recall. At least with them you can pull over to the side of the road if it catches fire. > > > > > > > > > > > Tesla still seems to be doing okay. One bad apple isn't a good reason to reject the rest of the crop. > > > > > > > > > > Oh, REALLY? Check this out you uneducated moron: > > > > > https://abc7news.com/tesla-elon-musk-7-on-your-side-fire/10957497/ > > > > > Do you want to die in your sleep as your electric car burns down your house? > > > > The cars certainly caught fire. This doesn't happen often. Blaming the batteries is easy, but if the wrong bit of insulation had fretted through the consequences would have looked exactly the same. > > > > > > > Stay tuned for more issues on this subject. > > > > > > > > > > > Don't bother. > > > > > > > > > > Fuck you Sloman - I WILL bother! > > > > > > > > Of course you will - you are an idiot with passion for advertising the fact wherever you can. > > > > > > Hey SL0WMAN, you are so FUCKING STUPID that I am having trouble typing because I am LAUGHING HYSTERICALLY!!! A firebomb that breaks up into BOMBLETS!!! OMG!!!!! You ought to patent that, but the idea has already been taken (i.e. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4638736). So, instead of having ONE firebomb you have an ENTIRE CLUSTER of firebombs!! Are you sure you aren't putting out this trash to make me DIE OF LAUGHTER????? > > The battery wouldn't be designed to be a firebomb, and - as I pointed out - if it fragmented into lots of small parts with lots of surface area and a low terminal velocity, the fragments could have cooled off enough by the time they reached the ground that they couldn't start a fire. > > > > > BTW, lithium battery fires take HOURS to burn out - terminal velocity is 120 mph. > > > > If the battery isn't dismanted, both these claims may be true. The terminal velocity of an object depends on it's mass and it's surface area, so making the fragments small enough makes your comment one more of you stupid misapprehensions. > > > > Your terminal velocity might well be 120 mph - though I'd like to see that tested. For a cat it's about 60 mph. For a mouse about 36 mph. > > LOL! Hey Sloman if you want to TEST terminal velocity why don't you climb up to the highest point in Sydney and JUMP THE FUCK OFF OF IT!!!! You would do ALL OF US a BIG, FUCKING FAVOR!!!!!!!!!!! Be sure to have someone video your FALL - it will be FUN TO WATCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I'm perfectly happy with the published figure. I'd be happy to see you used as test object, as I did mention - though if you were a little brighter you'd realise that it could be done perfectly safely in a vertical wind tunnel. Do try to avoid recycling other peoples jokes - it does make you look dumb. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●September 7, 20212021-09-07
On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 7:57:48 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 12:39:25 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote: > > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 8:12:12 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 3:34:50 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote: > > > > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 1:08:47 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 5:16:17 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 9:59:29 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 1:51:38 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > > > So you own an electric car with a sizeable lithium-based battery, how do you fight a battery fire? Experience with fighting electric car fires is not encouraging because you can't cut off the supply of oxygen to the fire like you can with a carbon fuel such as gasoline - the chemistry of all lithium battery variants supplies its own oxygen. > > > > > > > Not just lithium. Any battery chemistry depends on having both of the energy generating components built in. When they react to produce electricity, this is fine, but if you disrupt the battery structure they can also react to produce heat. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a very large (mega) battery fire in OZ that took three days to extinguish. The fire really wasn't extinguished, just all of the lithium was consumed. Firefighters were given advice on how to fight the fire by Tesla, the batterie's designer, and UGL, the installer (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/aug/02/tesla-big-battery-fire-in-victoria-burns-into-day-three): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > “They are difficult to fight because you can’t put water on the mega packs … all that does is extend the length of time that the fire burns for.” > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Firefighters have taken advice from experts including Tesla, the battery’s creators, and UGL, who are installing the battery packs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > “The recommended process is you cool everything around it so the fire can’t spread and you let it burn out,” Beswicke said. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is somewhat like fighting large forest fires: you wait for Nature to put it out naturally with rain and/or snow, except worse. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not exactly. In a forest fire the oxidant is the oxygen in the air, and it worth dumping water on them - aerial tankers are definitely useful in fighting forest fires, though you can't usually deliver enough water to put them out, > > > > > > > > A fire in aircraft lithium battery pack will likely result in the complete destruction of the plane, even if it is on the ground when the fire started. > > > > > > > It shouldn't, if the battery pack is rationally designed, which would include some provision for cutting it loose if it caught on fire. > > > > > > > > If the fire starts while airborne your only option is to bail out (if you are not incapacitated by smoke first like the Taurus Electro glider fatal accident in NZ https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/publications/fatal-accident-reports/ZK-GEL-Final-Report-7-December-2020.pdf). > > > > > > > Or dump the battery, if that option was designed in. > > > > > > > > > > > > "Cutting it loose?" It is clear that SL0WMAN is not a pilot and knows NOTHING about aircraft! The battery pack is often placed in the wings, so "cutting it loose" means cutting the WINGS OFF! > > > > > There are other options. Landing wheels have been known to retract into the wings. > > > > > > And if it is in the fuselage it is even worse. > > > > > Bombers seem to be designed to jettison large lump of explosive when in flight. It does seem to be a soluble problem, though perhaps a little beyond Flyguy's expertise. > > > > > > > > LOL! SL0WMAN wants to turn civilian aircraft into BOMBERS!! UN FUCKING BELIEVABLE!!! Hey SL0WMAN, this is about the inherent unreliability of a technology that Left sees as the savior of the planet. You just simply can't rain firebombs down onto populated areas, or start forest fires in unpopulated areas. > > > > > > Flyguy is remarkably stupid, as I seem to have mentioned before. The problem of getting something out of the fuselage of an aircraft in flight is a problem that has been solved. The fact that it can be done for bombs doesn't make what you throw out a bomb - I did point out that you probably ought to design a jettisonable battery pack so that it broke up into smaller elements with low terminal velocities. They'd cool off as they fell and small elements with relatively high surface areas would probably cool off to safe temperature before they eventually hit the ground. > > > > > > > > > But, for the sake of argument, if you could do this you would be dropping a very dangerous firebomb down onto the unsuspecting population. > > > > > > > > > There's a lot of land under most flight paths, and not a lot of population. If you got enthusiastic you might design the battery pack to break up into small fragments - each of which would have a low terminal velocity - after it had been ejected, and none of which was big enough to do much damage. > > > > > > > > Ditto. > > > > > > > > > > But Flyguy couldn't be expected to imagine anything that complicated. > > > > > > Or understand when somebody has spelled it out for him. > > > > > > Try reading the accident report of a REAL accident. > > > > > > > > > They are voluminous, and not widely available. > > > > I posted a link to an actual accident that IS available to anyone with an internet connection, which we know SL0WMAN has. > > > > Here it is AGAIN: https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/publications/fatal-accident-reports/ZK-GEL-Final-Report-7-December-2020.pdf > > > > > > Which says that pilot abused his battery pack by over-charging them, which can lead to dendrites forming inside the cells, which can short circuits, rapid heat generation and the cells catching on fire. Flyguy probably ought not to buy anything with rechaergeable batteries - he's silly enough to be likely to make the same kind of mistake. > > > > > > > > > I said it was SOMETHING liking fighting a forest fire, not EXACTLY the same thing - reread it. The similarity is you CAN'T STOP THE FIRE. > > > > > > > > But you can stop small forest fires, with the right tools, and enough of them. Forests aren't designed. Battery packs ought to be. > > > > > > > > So, we are going to make wide spread use of a technology that will randomly start forest fires. > > > > > > Except that it probably wouldn't. For one thing, forests aren't usually dry enough to burn. > > > > > > > You better look at how well this is working right now in California where they had to evacuate South Lake Tahoe. Better start hiring a lot more firefighters. > > > > > > At the peak of an uniquely bad fire season. > > > > > > > > > The bottom line for me is that I will NEVER own an electric aircraft using any foreseeable battery technology. And electric cars have the same problem - take the issue of the Chevy Bolt which now has a full recall. At least with them you can pull over to the side of the road if it catches fire. > > > > > > > > > Tesla still seems to be doing okay. One bad apple isn't a good reason to reject the rest of the crop. > > > > > > > > Oh, REALLY? Check this out you uneducated moron: > > > > https://abc7news.com/tesla-elon-musk-7-on-your-side-fire/10957497/ > > > > Do you want to die in your sleep as your electric car burns down your house? > > > The cars certainly caught fire. This doesn't happen often. Blaming the batteries is easy, but if the wrong bit of insulation had fretted through the consequences would have looked exactly the same. > > > > > > Stay tuned for more issues on this subject. > > > > > > > > > Don't bother. > > > > > > > > Fuck you Sloman - I WILL bother! > > > > > > Of course you will - you are an idiot with passion for advertising the fact wherever you can. > > > > Hey SL0WMAN, you are so FUCKING STUPID that I am having trouble typing because I am LAUGHING HYSTERICALLY!!! A firebomb that breaks up into BOMBLETS!!! OMG!!!!! You ought to patent that, but the idea has already been taken (i.e. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4638736). So, instead of having ONE firebomb you have an ENTIRE CLUSTER of firebombs!! Are you sure you aren't putting out this trash to make me DIE OF LAUGHTER????? > The battery wouldn't be designed to be a firebomb, and - as I pointed out - if it fragmented into lots of small parts with lots of surface area and a low terminal velocity, the fragments could have cooled off enough by the time they reached the ground that they couldn't start a fire. > > > BTW, lithium battery fires take HOURS to burn out - terminal velocity is 120 mph. > > If the battery isn't dismanted, both these claims may be true. The terminal velocity of an object depends on it's mass and it's surface area, so making the fragments small enough makes your comment one more of you stupid misapprehensions. > > Your terminal velocity might well be 120 mph - though I'd like to see that tested. For a cat it's about 60 mph. For a mouse about 36 mph.Most of the time, EV fires are at stationary. System shutdown long before the serious fire. However, battery cells don't disintegrate, they burn in complete module. So, it's safer to have lower capacities main battery modules, with more Fe to Li ratio. Fe cool down Li. Assuming CalTran can keep the remote rest area chargers running, there is no reason to keep more than 20kWhr main battery in California (30 miles btween 20% to 80%). And i have 5 kWhr spare in each of the rear door frames, instead of window motors. In case of fire, i can just open up the doors and let it burn out, without causing too much damages to the rest of the car. The spare batteries are wired as 12V charging and 16V discharging. 16V dumping into 12V can effectively replace and minimize the main 400V drain. I get around 4.2 miles per kWhr, ins tead of around 3.7, with the spare dumping. The window batteries also cool down faster than the main.
Reply by ●September 7, 20212021-09-07
In article <sh6oc6$1hm9$1@gioia.aioe.org>, bl@ckbirds.net says...> > > Your terminal velocity might well be 120 mph - though I'd like to see > > that tested. For a cat it's about 60 mph. For a mouse about 36 mph. > > Felix Baumgartner did 840 mph. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Baumgartner > >But that was from about 127,000 feet where the air is thiner. He probably had a special suit that provided less resistance than just a body with normal street cloths on.
Reply by ●September 7, 20212021-09-07
On 9/6/21 11:51 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 4:26:48 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:>> LOL! Hey Sloman if you want to TEST terminal velocity why don't you >> climb up to the highest point in Sydney and JUMP THE FUCK OFF OF > ... > > I'm perfectly happy with the published figure. I'd be happy to see > you used as test object, as I did mention -> though if you were a little brighter He'd get very bright if he were shoved out of the ISS. And beat Felix's Mach 1.25 speed record too.
