Maxamillion

Minneapolis, MN

#43 Feb 4, 2013
Equally stunning is that AirBus planes ALSO use Lithium Ion batteries.

Think about it the next time you are flying on one of those socialist made planes.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#44 Feb 4, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>Since Boeing started the re-work January 16th, and before that really, your month ends Feb. 15th, by the wording of your own post "the battery rework will take a month or less". I didn't see anywhere in your post where you said a month or less from today.
Gee, I had to tell you my post was starting the day I wrote it ?? LMAOROTFU~! Come on, I wrote it would take a month,. either wimp out or take it !! Funny, I moved my timeline FROM THE BS 2 YEARS and you won't give me 30 days ?? COME ON LOSER ~!

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#45 Feb 4, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>Since Boeing started the re-work January 16th, and before that really, your month ends Feb. 15th, by the wording of your own post "the battery rework will take a month or less". I didn't see anywhere in your post where you said a month or less from today.
Pretty cute, YOU need me to tell you my starting time, when it's implied by what day I wrote it, but in your "logic", another entire sentence or phrase is needed ??? Man, you're simply fruit cake, who can't defend the 2 years, so you're under another moniker being a moron....

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#46 Feb 4, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
<quoted text>Gee, I had to tell you my post was starting the day I wrote it ?? LMAOROTFU~! Come on, I wrote it would take a month,. either wimp out or take it !! Funny, I moved my timeline FROM THE BS 2 YEARS and you won't give me 30 days ?? COME ON LOSER ~!
First of all, you wouldn't come up with $50k for someone else to hold, and neither would I. Second, you haven't paid off on bets made on this forum in the past. Third, I would give you until March 4th, but they aren't going to be flying again by then.

Lithium burns really hot with a nice pinkish purple flame. I have seen it many times in the lab. Lithium is alloyed with aluminum to make aluminum foil easier to handle among other things. The lithium batteries are great at energy density(amount of power able to be produced per kilogram of weight), but in a large, high draw situation, they can overheat and start to melt, then ignite. Lithium ion batteries should never have been approved for this application, and the FAA is more likely to mandate Boeing use a different battery technology. Nickel metal hydride like Toyota uses in the Prius, or something similar would be a much safer system.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#47 Feb 4, 2013
Throw out your cells and pacemakers, moron says lithium batteries are bad....

Judged:

10

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#48 Feb 4, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>First of all, you wouldn't come up with $50k for someone else to hold, and neither would I. Second, you haven't paid off on bets made on this forum in the past. Third, I would give you until March 4th, but they aren't going to be flying again by then.
Lithium burns really hot with a nice pinkish purple flame. I have seen it many times in the lab. Lithium is alloyed with aluminum to make aluminum foil easier to handle among other things. The lithium batteries are great at energy density(amount of power able to be produced per kilogram of weight), but in a large, high draw situation, they can overheat and start to melt, then ignite. Lithium ion batteries should never have been approved for this application, and the FAA is more likely to mandate Boeing use a different battery technology. Nickel metal hydride like Toyota uses in the Prius, or something similar would be a much safer system.
I see you're dodging the actual bets I've offered twice...

Pretty manly, to tell me what bet I offered and refuse to stand behind anything, other than a poor interpretation of how long a month is...

Oddly,I see no comments on the 2 year comment...

As for any wager I offer, I stand behind it fully.

Only a true POS, would disparage character, rather than prove your "made up" point, by ACCEPTING !!!

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Maxamillion

Saint Paul, MN

#49 Feb 4, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>First of all, you wouldn't come up with $50k for someone else to hold, and neither would I. Second, you haven't paid off on bets made on this forum in the past. Third, I would give you until March 4th, but they aren't going to be flying again by then.
Lithium burns really hot with a nice pinkish purple flame. I have seen it many times in the lab. Lithium is alloyed with aluminum to make aluminum foil easier to handle among other things. The lithium batteries are great at energy density(amount of power able to be produced per kilogram of weight), but in a large, high draw situation, they can overheat and start to melt, then ignite. Lithium ion batteries should never have been approved for this application, and the FAA is more likely to mandate Boeing use a different battery technology. Nickel metal hydride like Toyota uses in the Prius, or something similar would be a much safer system.
In your informed opinion when will the 787 fly and carry passengers?

I have read a number of blogs and if a different battery technology is used wouldn't that require a complete redesign of management systems, storage, power delivery, etc? NOT a quick fix by any means.

Judged:

10

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#50 Feb 4, 2013
Multiple moniker teabagger "reality" ??

CANNOT MATCH THE IRONY !!!

"Boeing will never fly the 787..."

"All this rework may take 2+ years."

"NOT a quick fix by any means."

TAKE THE MONTH BET, LIAR !!!
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#51 Feb 4, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
Throw out your cells and pacemakers, moron says lithium batteries are bad....
Depends on the application. Large lithium ion cell sizes at high rates of discharge/charge rates can be problematic. Lots of heat, and thermal runaway potentially resulting in fire.

The lithium thionyl chloride system tested by the government for missile silo emergency power was a great, powerful system. After discharge was a different story altogether, became a powerful explosive that could be set off by a small jarring impact.

A lithium thionyl chloride system was used by Itron in their automatic utility reading product, but the little "A" cell sized batteries became miniature bombs after they were in the field for 10 - 20 years.

How many battery and fuel cell patents do you have again? Glad you are an expert in this field as in so many others.

Additionally, lithium ion performs badly in cold weather, limits discharge of the cells, but since the jet turbines are providing the electricity in flight, they don't have to do much cold discharge, except in the case of turbine shut down. Nickel metal hydride would be a much safer move for Boeing.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#52 Feb 4, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
Multiple moniker teabagger "reality" ??
CANNOT MATCH THE IRONY !!!
"Boeing will never fly the 787..."
"All this rework may take 2+ years."
"NOT a quick fix by any means."
TAKE THE MONTH BET, LIAR !!!
I have only posted under this moniker, mr low integrity poster.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#53 Feb 4, 2013
Maxamillion wrote:
<quoted text>
In your informed opinion when will the 787 fly and carry passengers?
I have read a number of blogs and if a different battery technology is used wouldn't that require a complete redesign of management systems, storage, power delivery, etc? NOT a quick fix by any means.
I don't think it should fly with the current battery technology, and I am unsure how they got a lithium ion system approved in 2007 for use. Toyota determined that the lithium ion system at that time was too high of a risk and used Nickel metal hydride in their Prius.

While there is no free lithium metal in the lithium ion system Boeing is using, they can still catch fire. There are some alternative lower energy density lithium ion systems out there that may be an ok short term substitute, but not sure you can just plug them in in place of the system Yuasa is manufacturing for Boeing. If they can substitute one type for another and have the same footprint, the FAA may let them back in the air with heavy monitoring and testing in a month or two. If the system needs to be re-worked because of different cell voltages or energy densities(need more cells to provide the same amount of back-up power) could easily be 6 months to a year. Government contracts I have worked on easily would take 6 months to prove a concept.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#54 Feb 4, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>I have only posted under this moniker, mr low integrity poster.
You wreck your POS car, the shop tells you it will take a month, to fix it... You happily exclaim, I wrecked it a month ago, THANKS !

Yeah, YOU'RE a moron, who already admitted you used another moniker, before....

Poor no-sense, no integrity poster, who didn't say an intelligent thing, to the guy who said NEVER, 2 years, and a long time... LMAOROTFu~!

Hard to imagine, NO MAN, has snapped you up....???

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#55 Feb 4, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>First of all, you wouldn't come up with $50k for someone else to hold, and neither would I. Second, you haven't paid off on bets made on this forum in the past. Third, I would give you until March 4th, but they aren't going to be flying again by then.
Lithium burns really hot with a nice pinkish purple flame. I have seen it many times in the lab. Lithium is alloyed with aluminum to make aluminum foil easier to handle among other things. The lithium batteries are great at energy density(amount of power able to be produced per kilogram of weight), but in a large, high draw situation, they can overheat and start to melt, then ignite. Lithium ion batteries should never have been approved for this application, and the FAA is more likely to mandate Boeing use a different battery technology. Nickel metal hydride like Toyota uses in the Prius, or something similar would be a much safer system.
You really should never respond directly to a low-information, low-integrity, irrational poster such as this. Especially one who tries to make $50,000 "bets" (which we all seriously doubt he/she/it has) with anonymous on line posters.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#56 Feb 4, 2013
Sure, it's always manly, to pretend to know someone and their financial situation, when you don't.

Pretty sad, I gave you morons a freebie stock tip up >20% this year...

Of course, I have no money, since you're losers....

I can come up with the 50k in a day's time, are you a mouth breather or a bettor ???
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#57 Feb 4, 2013
cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
You really should never respond directly to a low-information, low-integrity, irrational poster such as this. Especially one who tries to make $50,000 "bets" (which we all seriously doubt he/she/it has) with anonymous on line posters.
BTW- I like you anonymously slurring the better man, but I'd like to meet you sometime.
Maxamillion

Saint Paul, MN

#58 Feb 4, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think it should fly with the current battery technology, and I am unsure how they got a lithium ion system approved in 2007 for use. Toyota determined that the lithium ion system at that time was too high of a risk and used Nickel metal hydride in their Prius.
While there is no free lithium metal in the lithium ion system Boeing is using, they can still catch fire. There are some alternative lower energy density lithium ion systems out there that may be an ok short term substitute, but not sure you can just plug them in in place of the system Yuasa is manufacturing for Boeing. If they can substitute one type for another and have the same footprint, the FAA may let them back in the air with heavy monitoring and testing in a month or two. If the system needs to be re-worked because of different cell voltages or energy densities(need more cells to provide the same amount of back-up power) could easily be 6 months to a year. Government contracts I have worked on easily would take 6 months to prove a concept.
Thanks for the good info.

Reading blogs only provides the info Boeing and the FAA want the public to read. Seems like the FAA won't let it fly until it's 100% certian it won't burn again. IF they let it fly and another fire occurs it would seem that would be very serious. So I can't imagine the FAA allowing a quick and dirty "rework" to occur.

These heavy jets obviously do a lot of damage when they go down. If one crashed into a sports stadium there could be as many deaths as all of the VietNam war. Obama likes disasters but that would be unacceptable even to "bump in the road" Obama.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#59 Feb 4, 2013
Maxamillion wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the good info.


"Boeing will never fly the 787..."
"All this rework may take 2+ years."
"NOT a quick fix by any means."
Multiple moniker teabagger "reality" ??
CANNOT MATCH THE IRONY !!! TAKE THE MONTH BET, LIAR !!!
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#60 Feb 4, 2013
Maxamillion DA MORON wrote:
<quoted text>


"Boeing will never fly the 787..."
"All this rework may take 2+ years."
"NOT a quick fix by any means."
Maxamillion

Saint Paul, MN

#61 Feb 4, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
<quoted text>Multiple moniker teabagger "reality" ??
CANNOT MATCH THE IRONY !!! TAKE THE MONTH BET, LIAR !!!
Sucker.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#62 Feb 4, 2013
Stupid....Maxamillion DA MORON wrote:
<quoted text>

"Boeing will never fly the 787..."
"All this rework may take 2+ years."
"NOT a quick fix by any means."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Eye Tunes 4 hr space ace 2
Hillary Camp Threatens Journalists 5 hr TAAM 4
What sucks about the affordable care act? (Oct '13) 5 hr TAAM 21
After co-pilot's deliberate act, families ask why? 12 hr Crassus 11
The United States is Pathetic 12 hr Crassus 42
Can't manage the gov & NOT honest or trustworthy (Nov '13) 13 hr Billionaire Dayton 329
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 13 hr Earthling-1 34,110
Minneapolis Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Minneapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]