DUDE you must hear Tim Bedore and his "Vague but True" segment this week from the Bob and Tom show, a brilliant and hillarious disssortation on why we need to fly nude...I have the show MP3; I will see what I can do as far as getting it cut and posted here.
I agree with you completely. We're one, maybe two, scares away from this happening. They'll realize that the only way TSA can afford (financially) to guarantee that no dangerous things get onto planes is to simply ban everything except wallets, cell phones, and keys (and even those will be scrutinized). This will undoubtedly suck, but I think I'd prefer safety to risk if more terror plots arise, with more ingenious ways to sneak things on. The past few times I flew, the security screeners barely glanced at the x-ray screen while checking bags. Last time, they didn't even look at it.
The airlines would love a total carry-on ban too, and not just for safety reasons -- they'd have a complete monopoly all forms of in-flight entertainment, food, and comfort.
the airlines? in the recent words of lex luthor, "you're not seeing the big picture here." my own tinfoil hat theory sees every airline going belly up in the face of terrorist scares save for one (even the scares we THWART -- remember, this threat didn't even succeed, and we're still freaking out... probably because we're all wondering why the airlines didn't see this possibility before someone actually TRIED IT). Then, the only way to keep people in the air is for the government to grant major tax subsidies to keep the last airline afloat, and they will assist the airline with approving all designs, you will only be able to buy government issue luggage, and you'll probably have to disrobe at some point before getting on your airplane, have all of your clothing searched while you wait in a holding area (in a government issue bathrobe... if you're lucky), then reclothe and get on the plane. fun, fun, fun..
but, on the bright side, this should REALLY ramp up adoption of the online video conference. "hey hank! sorry i couldn't be out there in person, but tickets were $7000 a piece, i would have had to submit my packed goods 10 business days before leaving for proper screening/packing, and they told me i had to arrive 14 hours before my flight took off to allow any ingested materials to 'pass' before boarding. so ichat will just have to do. how're the kids?"
Hydrogen is a lot safer than people think. Yeah, it burns. It burns very well. It really doesn't explode though.... in an enclosed environment such as the artificial atmosphere in an airplain, a slow leak of a large source of hydrogen would likely go more or less unnoticed (does hydrogen make your voice squeek like helium? I think it should... Some one go find out) and could build up to a dangerous amount. Same goes for Carbond Dioxide though.
From what I've read, one of the major goals in fuel cell research is to solidify hydrogen in its storage device. When this is acomplished in a marketable fashion, I think hydrogen will become very attractive, and would end up being less hazardous than a litium battery on a charger.
By the way, an example of why hydrogen isn't really that dangerous:
Say you have a high pressure gas storage cylinder. Now fill that cylinder completely with Hydrogen, making sure to exclude all (or as close to all as possible) oxygen.
Suddenly, there is a spark inside the cylinder! (god must have done it. )
What happens?
Answer: Nothing.
Without oxygen, or temperatures high enough to produce nuclear fusion (talkin Sun hot here) no reaction will occur.
fun with science!
*EDIT* holy crap, did I just spell airplane 'airplain'????
Actually, hydrogen will explode with oxygen. Note that the slow leak in the airplane will put it in an oxegen enviroment (remember most people will need to breathe while on the airplane.) And the comparison to carbon dioxide is worthless. CO2 is almost inert, very unreactive (thats why it is used in welding as a shielding agent to keep oxygen away from the metal base which is at critical (ie highly reactive) temperature.)
How about we just don't fly if we don't have to? (Hopefully) it's as easy as that.
That is a pretty dumb comment to make. Most people who fly have a good reason for it. Even if it is vacation travel, I don't see how one would consider such great experiences unnecessary.
All of these extra security precautions do little to prevent terrorism and just cause aggravation. Every time I am in an airport, they spend most of their time searching 14 year old girls travelling with their families. You can profile without being racially motivated. If there is a 20 something non-US citizen with no luggage, he should receive more scrutiny. In fact, anyone who is not a US citizen should receive more scrutiny and especially if they come from a country which is unfriendly to us (anywhere there is widespread burning of the US flag on the streets).
Come on, anything can explode, this is so damn stupid. Honestly, they allow diabetes syringes for anyone without even making sure they have the condition but now they don't allow consumer electronics, let alone a Mac! Idiots...
No. Not idiots. When I'm flying, I'd rather know that any devices that are known to have a possible problm are NOT on the plane. That goes for Dells, Macs, etc.
Not all of the decisions of Homeland Security make sense. But the airlines are right to be safe on this one.
Heh. Hydrogen fuel cells would probably be the last thing airlines would let you board with.
Or were you joking?
No, they're pretty safe. Besides, they don't use pure Hydrogen. they use an alcohol such as Methanol. That may not seem to be safe either, but it is, and it's a small amount.
Hydrogen is a lot safer than people think. Yeah, it burns. It burns very well. It really doesn't explode though.... in an enclosed environment such as the artificial atmosphere in an airplain, a slow leak of a large source of hydrogen would likely go more or less unnoticed (does hydrogen make your voice squeek like helium? I think it should... Some one go find out) and could build up to a dangerous amount. Same goes for Carbond Dioxide though.
From what I've read, one of the major goals in fuel cell research is to solidify hydrogen in its storage device. When this is acomplished in a marketable fashion, I think hydrogen will become very attractive, and would end up being less hazardous than a litium battery on a charger.
By the way, an example of why hydrogen isn't really that dangerous:
Say you have a high pressure gas storage cylinder. Now fill that cylinder completely with Hydrogen, making sure to exclude all (or as close to all as possible) oxygen.
Suddenly, there is a spark inside the cylinder! (god must have done it. )
What happens?
Answer: Nothing.
Without oxygen, or temperatures high enough to produce nuclear fusion (talkin Sun hot here) no reaction will occur.
fun with science!
*EDIT* holy crap, did I just spell airplane 'airplain'????
This is slightly offtopic, but hydrogen keeps showing up, and I have (a little) experience with hydrogen as a hydrogenating agent in used oil recycling, and it's not a nice gas to work with. I've also got a great deal of experience with different forms of battery technology, as I participated in both Sunrayce 97 and 99.
Hydrogen forms metal hydrides on exposure to many common metals, and these hydrides are quite weak (structurally) in comparison to the parent metal. This is, obviously, not a good thing when working with high-pressure gases, or even low pressures over long periods of time. In addition, if a high enough pressure is present, pinhole leaks can autoignite, due to localized heating as the gas escapes.
There are ways around these problems, one being the use of metal hydrides as a gas "trap", meaning that you have hydrogen bound up in metal hydrides, from which it can be subsequently released through heating or other means. Current technologies are rather lacking to make this a viable source, as capacities remain quite low.
Also available are the aforementioned "reformer" units, which use ethanol or methanol as hydrogen atom sources. Unfortunately, this process isn't very clean, due to the fact you still have carbon atoms, generally released as CO2, and because the process of removing hydrogen atoms from MeOH or EtOH relies on some potentially nasty chemistry.
Lithium polymer batteries are really cool (no pun intended!), when you think about it. You're packing an incredible amount of energy into a small package, and with all of that chemical potential energy there, bad things will happen in a statistically-relevant portion of total cases. Battery research is a mature, yet growing field, and current fuel cell tech has a long way to catch up, both in terms of safety, energy density, and portability.
The bigwigs at Qantas are apparently not top guns when it comes to brainpower. Expert after expert has said that the fire suppression systems on commercial aircraft are more than adequate to extinguish a battery fire in the cabin.
Yes because all passengers will love it when those laptops catch fire, smoke fills the cabin and fire suppression systems kick in. Great for the image and customer satisfaction (its a freakin' amusement park ride all by itself!).
Of course, it makes the assumption the systems will kick in before the laptop sets other parts of the plane on fire.
"Yesterday, Qantas said that Dell notebook users could only use their laptop on a plane on battery power, or with the battery removed and the unit plugged into the power outlet."
That makes no sense. Since the batteries are suspect, why would they be able to use battery power?
"Yesterday, Qantas said that Dell notebook users could only use their laptop on a plane on battery power, or with the battery removed and the unit plugged into the power outlet."
That makes no sense. Since the batteries are suspect, why would they be able to use battery power?
I could be wrong since I never actually follow the stories of batteries exploding but I think they only explode/ignite when they're charging. So using laptops on battery power is ok...and using them plugged in but with the battery removed is ok too. But the battery+plugged in combination is bad.
But that would mean Qantas is putting a lot of trust in their customers. Who's going to enforce this while in-flight?
This just in, people with appendixes that are still intact will no longer be allowed to board aircrafts. The appendix may explode in-flight with little warning.
Comments
New Airport Security Procedures
DUDE you must hear Tim Bedore and his "Vague but True" segment this week from the Bob and Tom show, a brilliant and hillarious disssortation on why we need to fly nude...I have the show MP3; I will see what I can do as far as getting it cut and posted here.
heck, let's just put passengers in small 3x3 cages with a small bottle of water.
You want water? That'll be $5 please.
I agree with you completely. We're one, maybe two, scares away from this happening. They'll realize that the only way TSA can afford (financially) to guarantee that no dangerous things get onto planes is to simply ban everything except wallets, cell phones, and keys (and even those will be scrutinized). This will undoubtedly suck, but I think I'd prefer safety to risk if more terror plots arise, with more ingenious ways to sneak things on. The past few times I flew, the security screeners barely glanced at the x-ray screen while checking bags. Last time, they didn't even look at it.
The airlines would love a total carry-on ban too, and not just for safety reasons -- they'd have a complete monopoly all forms of in-flight entertainment, food, and comfort.
the airlines? in the recent words of lex luthor, "you're not seeing the big picture here." my own tinfoil hat theory sees every airline going belly up in the face of terrorist scares save for one (even the scares we THWART -- remember, this threat didn't even succeed, and we're still freaking out... probably because we're all wondering why the airlines didn't see this possibility before someone actually TRIED IT). Then, the only way to keep people in the air is for the government to grant major tax subsidies to keep the last airline afloat, and they will assist the airline with approving all designs, you will only be able to buy government issue luggage, and you'll probably have to disrobe at some point before getting on your airplane, have all of your clothing searched while you wait in a holding area (in a government issue bathrobe... if you're lucky), then reclothe and get on the plane. fun, fun, fun..
but, on the bright side, this should REALLY ramp up adoption of the online video conference. "hey hank! sorry i couldn't be out there in person, but tickets were $7000 a piece, i would have had to submit my packed goods 10 business days before leaving for proper screening/packing, and they told me i had to arrive 14 hours before my flight took off to allow any ingested materials to 'pass' before boarding. so ichat will just have to do. how're the kids?"
Mmmm.... sorta.
Hydrogen is a lot safer than people think. Yeah, it burns. It burns very well. It really doesn't explode though.... in an enclosed environment such as the artificial atmosphere in an airplain, a slow leak of a large source of hydrogen would likely go more or less unnoticed (does hydrogen make your voice squeek like helium? I think it should... Some one go find out) and could build up to a dangerous amount. Same goes for Carbond Dioxide though.
From what I've read, one of the major goals in fuel cell research is to solidify hydrogen in its storage device. When this is acomplished in a marketable fashion, I think hydrogen will become very attractive, and would end up being less hazardous than a litium battery on a charger.
By the way, an example of why hydrogen isn't really that dangerous:
Say you have a high pressure gas storage cylinder. Now fill that cylinder completely with Hydrogen, making sure to exclude all (or as close to all as possible) oxygen.
Suddenly, there is a spark inside the cylinder! (god must have done it.
What happens?
Answer: Nothing.
Without oxygen, or temperatures high enough to produce nuclear fusion (talkin Sun hot here) no reaction will occur.
fun with science!
*EDIT* holy crap, did I just spell airplane 'airplain'????
Actually, hydrogen will explode with oxygen. Note that the slow leak in the airplane will put it in an oxegen enviroment (remember most people will need to breathe while on the airplane.) And the comparison to carbon dioxide is worthless. CO2 is almost inert, very unreactive (thats why it is used in welding as a shielding agent to keep oxygen away from the metal base which is at critical (ie highly reactive) temperature.)
How about we just don't fly if we don't have to? (Hopefully) it's as easy as that.
That is a pretty dumb comment to make. Most people who fly have a good reason for it. Even if it is vacation travel, I don't see how one would consider such great experiences unnecessary.
All of these extra security precautions do little to prevent terrorism and just cause aggravation. Every time I am in an airport, they spend most of their time searching 14 year old girls travelling with their families. You can profile without being racially motivated. If there is a 20 something non-US citizen with no luggage, he should receive more scrutiny. In fact, anyone who is not a US citizen should receive more scrutiny and especially if they come from a country which is unfriendly to us (anywhere there is widespread burning of the US flag on the streets).
Come on, anything can explode, this is so damn stupid.
No. Not idiots. When I'm flying, I'd rather know that any devices that are known to have a possible problm are NOT on the plane. That goes for Dells, Macs, etc.
Not all of the decisions of Homeland Security make sense. But the airlines are right to be safe on this one.
Heh. Hydrogen fuel cells would probably be the last thing airlines would let you board with.
Or were you joking?
No, they're pretty safe. Besides, they don't use pure Hydrogen. they use an alcohol such as Methanol. That may not seem to be safe either, but it is, and it's a small amount.
hahaha, I was just thinking that.... they'd probably throw in something about how Cupertino is on the "Left Coast"
So then how does Dell fit in?
I wouldn't be surprised to see private airlines REALLY start taking off... no pun intended. really.
The airlines ARE private, remember?
Mmmm.... sorta.
Hydrogen is a lot safer than people think. Yeah, it burns. It burns very well. It really doesn't explode though.... in an enclosed environment such as the artificial atmosphere in an airplain, a slow leak of a large source of hydrogen would likely go more or less unnoticed (does hydrogen make your voice squeek like helium? I think it should... Some one go find out) and could build up to a dangerous amount. Same goes for Carbond Dioxide though.
From what I've read, one of the major goals in fuel cell research is to solidify hydrogen in its storage device. When this is acomplished in a marketable fashion, I think hydrogen will become very attractive, and would end up being less hazardous than a litium battery on a charger.
By the way, an example of why hydrogen isn't really that dangerous:
Say you have a high pressure gas storage cylinder. Now fill that cylinder completely with Hydrogen, making sure to exclude all (or as close to all as possible) oxygen.
Suddenly, there is a spark inside the cylinder! (god must have done it.
What happens?
Answer: Nothing.
Without oxygen, or temperatures high enough to produce nuclear fusion (talkin Sun hot here) no reaction will occur.
fun with science!
*EDIT* holy crap, did I just spell airplane 'airplain'????
Yeah, and you spelled carbon, carbond.
You also forgot about the Hindenberg.
Hydrogen forms metal hydrides on exposure to many common metals, and these hydrides are quite weak (structurally) in comparison to the parent metal. This is, obviously, not a good thing when working with high-pressure gases, or even low pressures over long periods of time. In addition, if a high enough pressure is present, pinhole leaks can autoignite, due to localized heating as the gas escapes.
There are ways around these problems, one being the use of metal hydrides as a gas "trap", meaning that you have hydrogen bound up in metal hydrides, from which it can be subsequently released through heating or other means. Current technologies are rather lacking to make this a viable source, as capacities remain quite low.
Also available are the aforementioned "reformer" units, which use ethanol or methanol as hydrogen atom sources. Unfortunately, this process isn't very clean, due to the fact you still have carbon atoms, generally released as CO2, and because the process of removing hydrogen atoms from MeOH or EtOH relies on some potentially nasty chemistry.
Lithium polymer batteries are really cool (no pun intended!), when you think about it. You're packing an incredible amount of energy into a small package, and with all of that chemical potential energy there, bad things will happen in a statistically-relevant portion of total cases. Battery research is a mature, yet growing field, and current fuel cell tech has a long way to catch up, both in terms of safety, energy density, and portability.
The bigwigs at Qantas are apparently not top guns when it comes to brainpower. Expert after expert has said that the fire suppression systems on commercial aircraft are more than adequate to extinguish a battery fire in the cabin.
Yes because all passengers will love it when those laptops catch fire, smoke fills the cabin and fire suppression systems kick in. Great for the image and customer satisfaction (its a freakin' amusement park ride all by itself!).
Of course, it makes the assumption the systems will kick in before the laptop sets other parts of the plane on fire.
I'll bet nobody gets that at all.
In my best Koala Bear imitation... I hate Qantas!
I'll bet nobody gets that at all.
It doesn't have the same impact without the leaves in your mouth.
That makes no sense. Since the batteries are suspect, why would they be able to use battery power?
"Yesterday, Qantas said that Dell notebook users could only use their laptop on a plane on battery power, or with the battery removed and the unit plugged into the power outlet."
That makes no sense. Since the batteries are suspect, why would they be able to use battery power?
I could be wrong since I never actually follow the stories of batteries exploding but I think they only explode/ignite when they're charging. So using laptops on battery power is ok...and using them plugged in but with the battery removed is ok too. But the battery+plugged in combination is bad.
But that would mean Qantas is putting a lot of trust in their customers. Who's going to enforce this while in-flight?
Yeah, and you spelled carbon, carbond.
You also forgot about the Hindenburg.
Not to be picky, but: t,ftfy.
This just in, people with appendixes that are still intact will no longer be allowed to board aircrafts. The appendix may explode in-flight with little warning.
No kidding - once, one exploded in my face.