I suppose there are many people who don't worry too much about their house burning down until after it has burned down?With so many places banning them, it's amazing they are still even being sold, if they're that dangerous.
OTOH you pretty much can't smoke a cigarette anywhere in public,they're a known carcinogen, yet every convenience store on the planet sells them. Maybe it's time for a Surgeon General's warning on hoverboards.
Actually this sort of arbitrary banning makes no sense to me whatsoever. If these devices are really this dangerous then why are they legal to buy/sell/own in the first place?Seems to make sense.
I suppose this is what happens in a society that blindly prefers impractical patchwork rules over anything resembling an enforceable federal regulation. Maybe it's time for UL listing and similar safety underwriting to be a requirement instead of a largely forgotten afterthought. We've been through this sort of thing before; we're just a bit too forgetful to remember it.I suppose there are many people who don't worry too much about their house burning down until after it has burned down?With so many places banning them, it's amazing they are still even being sold, if they're that dangerous. OTOH you pretty much can't smoke a cigarette anywhere in public,they're a known carcinogen, yet every convenience store on the planet sells them. Maybe it's time for a Surgeon General's warning on hoverboards.
For an outfit like Amtrak to ban something to protect itself from something it considers dangerous? Of course it makes a helluva lot of sense, at least to me and a few others I bet. You control what you can control. You cannot control the legality of buying/selling/owning. Controlling that is a much more convoluted and time consuming process, and there is absolutely no reason for an individual outfit not to act on mitigating its own risks in the meantime.Actually this sort of arbitrary banning makes no sense to me whatsoever. If these devices are really this dangerous then why are they legal to buy/sell/own in the first place?Seems to make sense.
That's only true in a system where the burden of proof lies with the consumer because everything is presumed safe until proven otherwise. Unfortunately consumers don't generally have the time, money, or expertise to reliably make such determinations. Other cultures have seen the folly of such systems and have instead implemented regulatory structures where new products are presumed unsafe until proven otherwise. This increases the cost of selling unsafe products in those countries but also has the benefit of reducing human harm, loss of life, healthcare costs, legal costs and insurance claims.As far a banning it takes time for regulators and pols to catch up to new products.
How is Amtrak going to enforce this ban? So far as I can tell Amtrak has no practical method for preventing these devices from being brought on board and they still don't list these as being banned from commercial express shipments. Even if we ignore the root cause and focus exclusively on Amtrak this change looks more like feel good safety bluster than actual safety.For an outfit like Amtrak to ban something to protect itself from something it considers dangerous? Of course it makes a helluva lot of sense, at least to me and a few others I bet. You control what you can control. You cannot control the legality of buying/selling/owning. Controlling that is a much more convoluted and time consuming process, and there is absolutely no reason for an individual outfit not to act on mitigating its own risks in the meantime. Now is this the best way to run a society, maybe not. But that is a separate issue from immediate risk mitigation.Actually this sort of arbitrary banning makes no sense to me whatsoever. If these devices are really this dangerous then why are they legal to buy/sell/own in the first place?Seems to make sense.
Sure that could be done. How much is it going to cost and how does the added weight affect the performance? I mean - it's no like a Pentagon standard for a toilet seat.And you can't just put a stainless steel explosion proof case around it to vent the product of a burn safely out of the way, which essentially was the solution applied to the massive batteries in the Boeing 78s.
Must have a pretty long cord on it......My hoverboard doesn't use batteries...it's a plug-in model. Is it still banned?
I'm guessing that's probably why whenever I get a camera battery it's at 20% or lowerThere are already restrictions on lithium batteries for air travel. Apparently rechargeable that aren't in devices should be at a 30% state of charge. I heard loose lithium primary batteries weren't supposed to be allowed, including coin cells.
Assuming that you are not being pointlessly argumentative to live upto your handle and are having a serious discussion....How is Amtrak going to enforce this ban? So far as I can tell Amtrak has no practical method for preventing these devices from being brought on board and they still don't list these as being banned from commercial express shipments. Even if we ignore the root cause and focus exclusively on Amtrak this change looks more like feel good safety bluster than actual safety.
The problem would be with safely venting in an enclosed environment. The 787 solution works because the venting is being done out of the body of the aircraft to be dissipated in the free air outside. Even if there were a way to enclose the battery in an enclosure, the vent from it would be venting the fireworks into the car or house or whatever, which does not really make it a heck of a lot safer, without placing further constraints on the environment within the house where it must be operated or kept.Sure that could be done. How much is it going to cost and how does the added weight affect the performance? I mean - it's no like a Pentagon standard for a toilet seat.And you can't just put a stainless steel explosion proof case around it to vent the product of a burn safely out of the way, which essentially was the solution applied to the massive batteries in the Boeing 78s.
The only instructions given at checkin and boarding point that I have come across is that no Li Ion battery should be placed in the baggage that is going into the belly of the plane. I have not heard of any restrictions on regular batteries used in consumer goods that are taken on board. I have specifically asked about charged camera batteries in their own plastic safety case, and have been told it is OK to take them on board in hand baggage.There are already restrictions on lithium batteries for air travel. Apparently rechargeable that aren't in devices should be at a 30% state of charge. I heard loose lithium primary batteries weren't supposed to be allowed, including coin cells.
Safety of bulk shipment is the issue there. When you are taking a battery or two in your baggage even if one decides to go off it can be easily put out with standard fire equipment. It is a completely different matter when there is a hundred of them setting each other off.Jis, real quick digression: could you explain why camera batteries are barely charged when bought?
One of the primary characteristics of the coin cell is a large but puncture resistant and thermally conductive surface area acting as a built-in heatsink. Their physical design, lack of complicated recharging circuitry, and long history of use contribute to coin cells being some of the safest lithium batteries around.There are already restrictions on lithium batteries for air travel. Apparently rechargeable that aren't in devices should be at a 30% state of charge. I heard loose lithium primary batteries weren't supposed to be allowed, including coin cells.
As currently written I can't transport or even possess a hollow hover board toy with batteries removed anywhere on Amtrak property, including open air pavement. Nevertheless it would appear that I can transport the batteries themselves and even some charger circuitry if I so chose, just so long as it wasn't attached to a hover board. Looking back over events that have actually harmed and even killed people on Amtrak trains, and/or are at least somewhat likely to do so in the future, hover boards are so far down the list that it’s hard to see this as any sort of critical safety issue. Meanwhile the primary areas that are statistically at greatest risk of hover board disasters and would benefit from some enforceable regulation (consumer homes and wallets) remain completely unprotected. Amtrak's luggage rules already state "Amtrak personnel may determine if an item not mentioned in this list is prohibited." so it's not like they needed a brand new rule with its own special category for a single fleeting toy fad. In my view this new rule is every bit as absurd and gimmicky as the device which spawned it.Clearly Amtrak will not be able to catch someone who is hell bent on bringing one on board, and indeed it will be difficult to enforce in checked baggage or even packed in hand baggage since Amtrak does not have the luxury of an X-Ray scan of such. However, that does not mean that it should not arm itself with a rule to help it mitigate the risk to the best extent possible. Two of the more common modes in which these burns happen is when they are being charged or being discharged. Both of those requires the device to be quite visible. The rule arms an Amtrak staff to do something about it when it is seen by them or someone who reports it to them. So it is more than just a feel good rule. In balance therefore, it is better to have this rule than to not have it.
Modern lithium ion batteries are most resilient to physical deterioration and permanent capacity loss when charged between 40% and 50% before being stored or shipped. This is to avoid increased chemical stress experienced at nearly full and nearly empty charge states. That being said, lithium batteries remain chemically volatile regardless of their charge level and there's no given percentage that renders them completely safe and inert.Safety of bulk shipment is the issue there. When you are taking a battery or two in your baggage even if one decides to go off it can be easily put out with standard fire equipment. It is a completely different matter when there is a hundred of them setting each other off.Jis, real quick digression: could you explain why camera batteries are barely charged when bought?
I've seen stuff like this:Assuming that you are not being pointlessly argumentative to live upto your handle and are having a serious discussion....How is Amtrak going to enforce this ban? So far as I can tell Amtrak has no practical method for preventing these devices from being brought on board and they still don't list these as being banned from commercial express shipments. Even if we ignore the root cause and focus exclusively on Amtrak this change looks more like feel good safety bluster than actual safety.
Clearly Amtrak will not be able to catch someone who is hell bent on bringing one on board, and indeed it will be difficult to enforce in checked baggage or even packed in hand baggage since Amtrak does not have the luxury of an X-Ray scan of such. However, that does not mean that it should not arm itself with a rule to help it mitigate the risk to the best extent possible.
Two of the more common modes in which these burns happen is when they are being charged or being discharged. Both of those requires the device to be quite visible. The rule arms an Amtrak staff to do something about it when it is seen by them or someone who reports it to them. So it is more than just a feel good rule.
In balance therefore, it is better to have this rule than to not have it.
The problem would be with safely venting in an enclosed environment. The 787 solution works because the venting is being done out of the body of the aircraft to be dissipated in the free air outside. Even if there were a way to enclose the battery in an enclosure, the vent from it would be venting the fireworks into the car or house or whatever, which does not really make it a heck of a lot safer, without placing further constraints on the environment within the house where it must be operated or kept.Sure that could be done. How much is it going to cost and how does the added weight affect the performance? I mean - it's no like a Pentagon standard for a toilet seat.And you can't just put a stainless steel explosion proof case around it to vent the product of a burn safely out of the way, which essentially was the solution applied to the massive batteries in the Boeing 78s.
The only instructions given at checkin and boarding point that I have come across is that no Li Ion battery should be placed in the baggage that is going into the belly of the plane. I have not heard of any restrictions on regular batteries used in consumer goods that are taken on board. I have specifically asked about charged camera batteries in their own plastic safety case, and have been told it is OK to take them on board in hand baggage.There are already restrictions on lithium batteries for air travel. Apparently rechargeable that aren't in devices should be at a 30% state of charge. I heard loose lithium primary batteries weren't supposed to be allowed, including coin cells.
I've seen stuff like this:Assuming that you are not being pointlessly argumentative to live upto your handle and are having a serious discussion....How is Amtrak going to enforce this ban? So far as I can tell Amtrak has no practical method for preventing these devices from being brought on board and they still don't list these as being banned from commercial express shipments. Even if we ignore the root cause and focus exclusively on Amtrak this change looks more like feel good safety bluster than actual safety.
Clearly Amtrak will not be able to catch someone who is hell bent on bringing one on board, and indeed it will be difficult to enforce in checked baggage or even packed in hand baggage since Amtrak does not have the luxury of an X-Ray scan of such. However, that does not mean that it should not arm itself with a rule to help it mitigate the risk to the best extent possible.
Two of the more common modes in which these burns happen is when they are being charged or being discharged. Both of those requires the device to be quite visible. The rule arms an Amtrak staff to do something about it when it is seen by them or someone who reports it to them. So it is more than just a feel good rule.
In balance therefore, it is better to have this rule than to not have it.
The problem would be with safely venting in an enclosed environment. The 787 solution works because the venting is being done out of the body of the aircraft to be dissipated in the free air outside. Even if there were a way to enclose the battery in an enclosure, the vent from it would be venting the fireworks into the car or house or whatever, which does not really make it a heck of a lot safer, without placing further constraints on the environment within the house where it must be operated or kept.Sure that could be done. How much is it going to cost and how does the added weight affect the performance? I mean - it's no like a Pentagon standard for a toilet seat.And you can't just put a stainless steel explosion proof case around it to vent the product of a burn safely out of the way, which essentially was the solution applied to the massive batteries in the Boeing 78s.
The only instructions given at checkin and boarding point that I have come across is that no Li Ion battery should be placed in the baggage that is going into the belly of the plane. I have not heard of any restrictions on regular batteries used in consumer goods that are taken on board. I have specifically asked about charged camera batteries in their own plastic safety case, and have been told it is OK to take them on board in hand baggage.There are already restrictions on lithium batteries for air travel. Apparently rechargeable that aren't in devices should be at a 30% state of charge. I heard loose lithium primary batteries weren't supposed to be allowed, including coin cells.
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents/6e/0900688a8088d86e/us_dot_ban.pdf
On August 9, 2007, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a final rule banning or restricting the transport of non-rechargeable lithium batteries and devices shipped with these batteries aboard passenger aircraft. These new rules become effective on January 1, 2008 and can be found in their entirety in the August 9, 2007 edition of the Federal Register, which is accessible via the internet through http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. These new rules supplant emergency interim rules issued in December 2004. This summary applies to non-rechargeable lithium batteries shipped from, into or within the United States.
NON-RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERIES
The transport of any amount of non-rechargeable lithium batteries is prohibited aboard passenger aircraft except for personal use as noted in the DOT Safe Travel website. In addition, the outer shipping container of all packages containing non-rechargeable lithium batteries must be marked as stated below.
I don't have the time to read all of this:
http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/lishipmentpolicy.PDF
They have labels for boxes.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTg-j89yEjJFja87uPm2_C6g9oO3f37g4hMcQC8aZwTmdE374Il
Enter your email address to join: