Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FAA Urges Passengers to Not Use Samsung Galaxy Note 7 on Planes

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 138 posts

Re: FAA Urges Passengers to Not Use Samsung Galaxy Note 7 on Planes

#61

Post by tyho »

blkhawk wrote: post #55
wfunction wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. I thought trying to put out lithium fires with water was an awful idea?

Rechargable Lithium batteries contain surprisingly limited amounts of it. And its not in there in its elemental form anyway. Lithium batteries burn because of the potential energy they have after charging. You can drive nails through discharged Lithium Ion batteries without much happening.

Please don't do this, when rechargable lithium batteries are "discharged", they are not discharged fully, doing so would damage the battery. Charging circuits have a "cutoff" voltage where they report the battery to be empty, but there is still plenty of stored energy in the cells.

Re: FAA Urges Passengers to Not Use Samsung Galaxy Note 7 on Planes

#62

Post by joosters »

pkaeding wrote: post #13
leetrout wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually my #1 fear in flying in 2016. Some rough baggage packing under the plane that damages a laptop battery in the gate checked bag. Every time I fly I watch people gate check bags with laptops and more even after the announcement to "remove all lithium batteries & electronics". I wish more people understood how dangerous this could be and would take 3 minutes to take electronics out and carry them on boa…

It seems unwise to gate-check a bag with a laptop anyway, given the way the luggage handlers throw bags around. Gate-checking a roller board suitcase with clothing is one thing, but I wouldn't check anything fragile or particularly expensive.

I flew out of Beijing recently, and there all check-in baggage was immediately scanned for batteries. If they found what they thought were batteries, you had to remove them from the bag and take it on carry-on.

Re: FAA Urges Passengers to Not Use Samsung Galaxy Note 7 on Planes

#63

Post by wfunction »

antocv wrote: post #60
wfunction wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying there are laptops with batteries that don't fall in this dangerous category, or are you saying people don't know that all laptop batteries fall in this category?

There are people who think their laptops do not have a battery at all and run on their own power like a human does.

...well, I didn't see that one coming!

Re: FAA Urges Passengers to Not Use Samsung Galaxy Note 7 on Planes

#64

Post by sschueller »

Now I hope samsung will bring back the removable battery. The only reason I can still use my note 3 is because I was able to easily replace the battery with a new one.

In fact all phones should have accessible batteries as the battery is in my opinion a consumable which will need replacing at some point.

Re: FAA Urges Passengers to Not Use Samsung Galaxy Note 7 on Planes

#65

Post by coldtea »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #59
madaxe_again wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I've always scratched my head slightly at the fact that one is allowed to travel with an explosive device, so long as it also functions as a battery - yet bottled water is way out . It's trivially easy to make a lithium fire at 45,000 feet. Stamp on/bend an IMR 18450, and you have a torch which will burn through a window. Hell, you could probably just fold your phone in half - most batteries run the full he…

Sure. But what is the maximum possible damage from a burning battery? Even if you managed to burn through a window, that'd be highly unlikely to down a modern airliner.

>* But what is the maximum possible damage from a burning battery?*

As opposed to the one from bottled water?

Re: FAA Urges Passengers to Not Use Samsung Galaxy Note 7 on Planes

#66

Post by coldtea »

leetrout wrote: post #10
bwang29 wrote: post #3

If I understood this correctly, this is based on a higher (but unknown to consumers?) chance that the Galaxy Note 7 's battery could explode during flight and catch fire. Then, what would be considered a chance high enough that a laptop battery's explosion would not be a concern? Would it be safer to lock these phones into an explosion-proof box before they onboard the flight?

This is actually my #1 fear in flying in 2016. Some rough baggage packing under the plane that damages a laptop battery in the gate checked bag. Every time I fly I watch people gate check bags with laptops and more even after the announcement to "remove all lithium batteries & electronics". I wish more people understood how dangerous this could be and would take 3 minutes to take electronics out and carry them on boa…

>I wish more people understood how dangerous this could be and would take 3 minutes to take electronics out and carry them on board with them.

All kinds of electronics are in the cargo, including tons of packages of electronics mailed to users in another city/country.

Why would it be any more dangerous to have them in cargo than on board the passenger seats? Obviously cargo has better wall protection, and automatic fire extinguish systems...

Re: FAA Urges Passengers to Not Use Samsung Galaxy Note 7 on Planes

#67

Post by CannisterFlux »

coldtea wrote: post #65
duncan_bayne wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But what is the maximum possible damage from a burning battery? Even if you managed to burn through a window, that'd be highly unlikely to down a modern airliner.

>* But what is the maximum possible damage from a burning battery?* As opposed to the one from bottled water?

Airports around the world must make a fortune selling bottled water. That rule is never going away no matter how stupid it is :-(

Re: FAA Urges Passengers to Not Use Samsung Galaxy Note 7 on Planes

#68

Post by ddalex »

sschueller wrote: post #64

Now I hope samsung will bring back the removable battery. The only reason I can still use my note 3 is because I was able to easily replace the battery with a new one. In fact all phones should have accessible batteries as the battery is in my opinion a consumable which will need replacing at some point.

> The only reason I can still use my note 3 is because I was able to easily replace the battery with a new one.

that is exactly why you won't see removable batteries in new phones; how else do you drive the new buy cycle every 2 years? as speed and features, phones are pretty much 2010-desktops; good enough for what they do so they don't need replacement on the new hardware generation

Re: FAA Urges Passengers to Not Use Samsung Galaxy Note 7 on Planes

#69

Post by Tepix »

ddalex wrote: post #68
sschueller wrote: post #64

Now I hope samsung will bring back the removable battery. The only reason I can still use my note 3 is because I was able to easily replace the battery with a new one. In fact all phones should have accessible batteries as the battery is in my opinion a consumable which will need replacing at some point.

> The only reason I can still use my note 3 is because I was able to easily replace the battery with a new one. that is exactly why you won't see removable batteries in new phones; how else do you drive the new buy cycle every 2 years? as speed and features, phones are pretty much 2010-desktops; good enough for what they do so they don't need replacement on the new hardware generation

I don't think that's the reason. If your battery is dead, it's easy and cheap to get it replaced nowadays. Not a good enough reason to buy a new phone.

Re: FAA Urges Passengers to Not Use Samsung Galaxy Note 7 on Planes

#70

Post by jbb555 »

coldtea wrote: post #65
duncan_bayne wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But what is the maximum possible damage from a burning battery? Even if you managed to burn through a window, that'd be highly unlikely to down a modern airliner.

>* But what is the maximum possible damage from a burning battery?* As opposed to the one from bottled water?

I think the point is that it might not water...
Post reply on HN