Li-ion & Nimh

[Jerry Budd]

Mike,

I have a question.  What manufacturers battery pack was in the 
airplane that was sitting on the workbench in the photos in this URL?

<http://www.angelfire.com/ga4/ladylysa/>http://www.angelfire.com/ga4/ladylysa/

Please note that I am not asking if the batteries were the source of 
the fire, nor if there was a failure of a "protective charging 
circuit", nor am I asking what the failure modes of the different 
types of batteries are.  Just simply what brand of battery pack was 
in the Typhoon 2002 shown in the center of the first two photos when 
the fire occured.  That should be a matter of "fact" not "opinion", 
and I would hope that you are not being held hostage by some pending 
legal process from stating a "fact".

If you can tell me that one simple fact you will have done more 
(IMHO) for peoples safety than everything you have written to date.

BTW - I am sincere about this, and I DO appreciate your efforts to 
warn people about what happened.

Thx, Jerry


>Nope, that wasn't safety talk in that particular snippet. That was a 
>rational comparison, and I stand by it...I don't see the advantage.
>
>As for my "vendetta", hmm. Well I just reread ALL of the posts I 
>have made on this subject....all 4 of them before tonight...and I 
>fail to see a vendetta against any particular battery reseller. 
>Could you point it out if you see it?
>
>I do however have a LEGITIMATE gripe about certain configurations of 
>this "new" technology, more specifically in regards to it being 
>marketed to R/Cers as "SAFE". That is a relative term, and I do 
>believe I have illustrated it well.
>
>If you read that I have stepped beyond any "protection", I strongly 
>disagree. You simply put 2 paragraphs together out of context, and 
>formed YOUR own opinion. I am in no need of protection of any kind 
>whatsoever. This is a discussion list, for DISCUSSION, which is 
>exactly what I'm doing.
>
>I'm not sure what other approach you would prefer, besides just 
>saying nothing at all, which I can't do and sleep at night. It's up 
>to you whether or not you take heed.
>
>I have done nothing but offered warnings, told a true story, offered 
>a comparison, and asked a question: what's the advantage and is it 
>worth the risk? I still fail to see your problem with it.
>
>-Mike
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:adam.g at sasktel.net>Adam Glatt
>To: <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>discussion at nsrca.org
>Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 7:36 PM
>Subject: Re: Li-ion & Nimh
>
>"Now let's look at what benefit they really give you. Let's take, 
>oh, lemme see....Duralite Plus is a good example for this analogy. 
>For a typical pattern application, the pack to use is the 1900 mah 
>pack. With regulator, it weighs between 4.5-5 ounces. How many 
>flights do you get before recharge? 10 maybe?
>Now let's look at good ole archaic nicads. I have an SR 1100 pack in 
>my plane. Weighs about 4 ounces (LIGHTER than the Duralites). I can 
>get about 8-10 flights out of it, depending on what I'm doing. After 
>that I'm baked anyway. Now this plane has 6 digital servos. And I 
>have a 1600 pack here that weighs about 4 ounces as well.
>So let me see. They are more expensive, they are heavier, and they 
>are a REAL hazard at burning you to the ground. Hmmm.....I fail to 
>see the advantage. Is it because they are the latest and the 
>greatest?
>Someone enlighten me."
>
>
>That isn't safety talk, Mike.
>
>You stepped beyond the protection of constructive opinion and 
>journalism.  Your personal vendetta against these technologies, and 
>more specifically certain battery resellers, became clear in the 
>email I responded to.
>
>I can't make you drop it, Mike, and I can't be in charge of 
>declaring whether or not your continued 'activism' is effectually 
>useful, but I thought it was time for you to reivew your own posts 
>on this discussion group and perhaps develop a new approach.
>
>You did review, so my self-appointed task - which I thought would be 
>in _your_ best interests - was successful, and I can be content with 
>that.  My intrusion is complete.
>
>(It says my name in the 'From:' field)
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:kerlock at attbi.com>Mike Hester
>To: <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>discussion at nsrca.org
>Sent: December 13, 2002 11:03 PM
>Subject: Re: Li-ion & Nimh
>
>Nahh,
>
>On second thought, it's not aiight. Not one bit.
>
>I haven't stepped beyond the protection of anything. And if I had, 
>WHO CARES????
>
>Did I say something you didn't like? Or are you just "tired of it"? 
>If you are, nobody is forcing you to read it. You'd be better served 
>by keeping your comments to yourself, unless you have something of 
>substance to add.
>
>Obviously, there's an issue to be discussed. A safety issue, among 
>other things. Is there some reason you have for not wanting us to 
>discuss it?
>
>I'm sure there's plenty of others who feel the same way you do. 
>That's fine with me, discuss whatever you want to and I can 
>garauntee I won't be telling you to "drop it" in a roundabout way.
>
>But maybe, just MAYBE one person out there might read this and say 
>"oh dang maybe I should be careful". And just MAYBE he will keep 
>from losing his life. Would that be ok with you?
>
>Your attitude about this astounds me, it really does.
>
>Mike Hester
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:kerlock at attbi.com>Mike Hester
>To: <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>discussion at nsrca.org
>Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 8:03 PM
>Subject: Re: Li-ion & Nimh
>
>Aiight.
>
>-M


-- 
___________
Jerry Budd
mailto:jbudd at qnet.com
=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#