Hot Topics | |
---|---|
gaijinpunch wrote:Perhaps a better entry for the TIJ thread, but I'm continually fucked off by the Lithium Battery policies of JP Post. I need to send a couple of Nintendo 3DS units to the America. Other than 1) opening them up and removing the batteries, does any one have a cost-effective method? Using a Takkyubin service, or foreign service like UPS or DHL seems brutally expensive unless you have one of their accounts (which I don't).
I've rolled the dice a few times but my hit ratio sucks. Sucks enough that I'm not trying it again.
:jawdrop:Japan Post Staff wrote:(paraphrased)If a FedEx or DHL plane goes down, then it is not so much of a drama than if a commercial jet goes down.
GomiGirl wrote:Last week I had to send a Galaxy Tab back to the US - it was a demo unit. Japan Post refused to take it. They said that they don't use their own planes and so can't take lithium batteries as they blow up.
Sent by FedEx andit was a real PITA. Had to fill out a bunch of forms etc but fortunately the box had all of the codes needed for the hazardous materials form etc.
Haven't got the bill yet so not sure how much it will be. But you can just go to a Kinko's/FedEx office and get a quote I am sure.
just be vague about the contents description and make sure you insure it.
I recently tried to ship an old MacBook Pro and iPhone to my sister in the U.S. We took them to the post office, paid 8,000 yen, and went on our merry way. A postal worker called us later to say that they couldn't ship the items as they contain lithium ion batteries, which fall under the "dangerous goods" category. We asked about shipping by sea, but were told this was not an option.
This then led to researching various other options for shipping these items abroad, although in the end, the cheapest option is to ship just the laptop without the battery in it (it's dead, anyway).
A pallet of the things overheats, and reaches a critical point where the material reaches a thermal runaway condition. At that point you can only extinguish it by throwing it in a swimming pool, which is clearly not possible on a 747 at 35000ft. These guys died in mortal terror, engulfed in the thickest smoke you can imagine with oxygen masks on and not a hope in hell making it back to a runway. The UPS guys couldn't even change the frequencies on their radios and had to rely on ATC to tell them their altitude and approximate airspeed.Russell wrote:So, what actually happened in those cases?
Tsuru wrote:A pallet of the things overheats, and reaches a critical point where the material reaches a thermal runaway condition. At that point you can only extinguish it by throwing it in a swimming pool, which is clearly not possible on a 747 at 35000ft.
So now it takes a while longer before they can deliver your precious batteries from http://www.dealextreme.com.
Charged or non-charged, Li batteries are light metal (flammable) packed tightly together with an alcohol-based electrolyte. Sending them out without a charge is probably not going to change anything about the flammability of these materials.Russell wrote:Are these defect batteries, or is this kind of common in this type of batteries? Can this be prevented by shipping them before they are electrically charged?
Russell wrote:Are these defect batteries, or is this kind of common in this type of batteries? Can this be prevented by shipping them before they are electrically charged?
Coligny wrote:Most accident with lipo happen if the physical container is broken or if there is overcharging.
FG Lurker wrote:Awe, come on Coligny, it's a potentially life-saving feature!
(Better drink your own piss...)
Tsuru wrote:Charged or non-charged, Li batteries are light metal (flammable) packed tightly together with an alcohol-based electrolyte. Sending them out without a charge is probably not going to change anything about the flammability of these materials.
None of the fire extinguishing systems available on cargo aircraft including BCF (halon) extinguishers and the option of intentional depressurization of the cabin at altitude can extinguish a pallet of burning Li-battery packs. As I said, the only option is basically throwing it in a swimming pool to stop the endothermic reaction by cooling, but this is not an option on an aircraft.Coligny wrote:Tsuru(tsuru(giggle)) Ain't them cargo plane don't have CO2 fire suppressing system ?
Tsuru wrote:None of the fire extinguishing systems available on cargo aircraft including BCF (halon) extinguishers and the option of intentional depressurization of the cabin at altitude can extinguish a pallet of burning Li-battery packs. As I said, the only option is basically throwing it in a swimming pool to stop the endothermic reaction by cooling, but this is not an option on an aircraft.
Tsuru wrote:These guys died in mortal terror, engulfed in the thickest smoke you can imagine with oxygen masks on and not a hope in hell making it back to a runway.
cstaylor wrote:I can't see a reason for human pilots in the airfreight business, but I'm not a pilot so maybe I'm missing something.
cstaylor wrote:This is one of many reasons for UAV technology to enter the commercial space.
I can't see a reason for human pilots in the airfreight business, but I'm not a pilot so maybe I'm missing something.
FG Lurker wrote:UAV's are still flown by pilots, they're just on the ground.
The UAV is an acronym for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, which is an aircraft with no pilot on board. UAVs can be remote controlled aircraft (e.g. flown by a pilot at a ground control station) or can fly autonomously based on pre-programmed flight plans or more complex dynamic automation systems.
cstaylor wrote:Think Google Driverless Cars at 30,000 feet.
GomiGirl wrote:I am thinking of jumbo jets flying at 30,000 feet with no pilot.
How much *fun* will hackers have trying to get into the control system.. no need for suicide pilots anymore - just a script kiddie with jihad tendencies.![]()
![]()
cstaylor wrote:From the source
FG Lurker wrote:UAVs used for pattern-based surveillance can be computer controlled, yes. Other types are pilot controlled.
cstaylor wrote:What's more pattern-oriented than take-off, waypointing, and landing?
IANAP, but from what I understand the big trouble is routing all of those flights when they come in to land... I've heard flight traffic control is a very stressful job.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests