Re: Lithium battery fires

On Jan 5, 4:15 pm, krw <k...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <fcfa502c-ba39-419e-95f8-e4f377210093
@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, sci.electronics.design,
quiettechb...@xxxxxxxxx says...



On Jan 2, 6:55 pm, krw <k...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <72e27b35-0ea6-4ce6-92fa-
55cb9c3e4...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sci.electronics.design,
quiettechb...@xxxxxxxxx says...

On Dec 31 2007, 8:11 pm, krw <k...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <VPbej.8040$cq5.5994@trndny06>, sci.electronics.design,
eh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...

krw wrote:
In article <5JVdj.1617$Ko6.1031@trndny02>, sci.electronics.design,
eh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...

Richard Henry wrote:

"Martin Griffith" <mart_in_medina@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:rvdfn3t34qkn75eq8q8udie2bks3f08sdv@xxxxxxxxxx

Found this
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_29_18/ai_n6280925/print

That's a pretty old report (2004).

Do you have a later report in mind?

If not, what do you have in mind?

A lot of these batteries have been recalled and replaced. Perhaps
something more recent would show that it's still a problem worth
worrying about?

Perhaps. Is that what Richard had in mind? We'll
never know, unless he replies.

But regarding needing a new report to confirm the
previous one, that seems like backwards logic. In
the absence of evidence that a solution to the
problem has been implemented and verified to be
effective, assuming the problem no longer exists
is not a logical conclusion.

I wouldn't expect a "non-report". If it were still a serious
problem I'd expect to see it on the "nightly news" with the
headlines "Sony Kills Three Hundred In AirBus 380 Crash!".

And unless there has been a change since 2004, the FAA
still treats it as a problem worth worrying about:
http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/systems/Lithium-ion_battery_04112006.pdf

You *are* talking about a government bureaucracy.

Personally, I have no inside information onlithiumbattery
fires. Whatever information I have is just what I've read.
But I find the information in the url in Martin Griffith's post
far more compelling than the rebuttal, if that's what it was,
that Richard Henry posted: "That's a pretty old report (2004)."

The only information I have was the recall notice that said I had
nothing to worry about since mine (though Sony batteries) weren't
affected. The problem was well known and fixed by a manufacturing
process change (crimps of the Li foil applied incorrectly, IIRC).

Thus the questions does Richard have a later report or
something else in mind.

Again, I wouldn't expect a report of an event that doesn't happen.

--
Keith

Seecomp.risksfor more information.

Got a number?

--
Keith

I hauled off and did some more checking, try:
24.40, 18.44, 17.36, and 11.95

Thanks. I did a search on the ones my server has but they only go
back to 24.67, so no hits.

--
Keith

Well you can use google groups or try the archive, See the standard
trailer:

Date: 17 Oct 2007 (LAST-MODIFIED)
From: RISKS-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Abridged info on RISKS (comp.risks)

The ACM RISKS Forum is a MODERATED digest, with Usenet equivalent
comp.risks.
=> SUBSCRIPTIONS: PLEASE read RISKS as a newsgroup (comp.risks or
equivalent)
if possible and convenient for you. The mailman web interface can
be used directly to subscribe and unsubscribe:
http://lists.csl.sri.com/mailman/listinfo/risks
Alternatively, to subscribe or unsubscribe via e-mail to mailman
your FROM: address, send a message to
risks-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
containing only the one-word text subscribe or unsubscribe. You may
also specify a different receiving address: subscribe address= ... .
You may short-circuit that process by sending directly to either
risks-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx or risks-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx
depending on which action is to be taken.

Subscription and unsubscription requests require that you reply to a
confirmation message sent to the subscribing mail address.
Instructions
are included in the confirmation message. Each issue of RISKS that
you
receive contains information on how to post, unsubscribe, etc.

=> The complete INFO file (submissions, default disclaimers, archive
sites,
copyright policy, etc.) is online.
<http://www.CSL.sri.com/risksinfo.html>
The full info file may appear now and then in RISKS issues.
*** Contributors are assumed to have read the full info file for
guidelines.

=> .UK users should contact <Lindsay.Marshall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>.
=> SPAM challenge-responses will not be honored. Instead, use an
alternative
address from which you NEVER send mail!
=> SUBMISSIONS: to risks@xxxxxxxxxxx with meaningful SUBJECT: line.
*** NOTE: Including the string "notsp" at the beginning or end of the
subject
*** line will be very helpful in separating real contributions from
spam.
*** This attention-string may change, so watch this space now and
then.
=> ARCHIVES: ftp://ftp.sri.com/risks for current volume
or ftp://ftp.sri.com/VL/risks for previous VoLume
<http://www.risks.org> redirects you to Lindsay Marshall's Newcastle
archive
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/VL.IS.html gets you VoLume, ISsue.
Lindsay has also added to the Newcastle catless site a palmtop
version
of the most recent RISKS issue and a WAP version that works for
many but
not all telephones: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/w/r
<http://the.wiretapped.net/security/info/textfiles/risks-digest/> .
==> PGN's comprehensive historical Illustrative Risks summary of one
liners:
<http://www.csl.sri.com/illustrative.html> for browsing,
<http://www.csl.sri.com/illustrative.pdf> or .ps for printing
==> Special Offer to Join ACM for readers of the ACM RISKS Forum:
<http://www.acm.org/joinacm1>

------------------------------

End of RISKS-FORUM Digest 24.93
************************
.

Quantcast