
Lacessit
Advanced Member-
Posts
31,934 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Events
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Gallery
Blogs
Everything posted by Lacessit
-
The biggest problem came with replacement. IIRC, having to shell out AUD $38,000 to replace a failed battery on a vehicle that cost AUD 50,000 new. That's a repair bill which would make anybody's eyes water.
-
When I read other threads about changes to Immigration law, e.g. increasing financial requirements, buying any property in Thailand does not make sense. It looks even less sensible, when some of the new condos are probably built from toad s##t, ceiling wax, and duct tape.
-
Not on the Nissan Leaf, they don't. That's another Cadogan rant.
-
Should last longer than that. My OPPO A37 battery is still working after about 6 years.
-
Would you ever marry a bar girl? If so, why?
Lacessit replied to bob smith's topic in ASEAN NOW Community Pub
The only reason I don't marry my GF is Centrelink in Australia would start paying me a married couple's pension, about 5000 baht/month less. As she is not an Australian citizen, she gets nothing. I explained these facts to her when she proposed to me, and she accepted my reasons. A practical woman. -
I see, mobile phones don't get stolen now.
-
I did not know the Ford Taurus was available in EV. That car always looked as if it had melted in the sun.
-
Not at all, you can be rational on the odd occasion. There are always improvements to be had in any technology. One I like is a gold-based battery for mobile phones which can handle recharge cycles 100 - 1000 times the recharge capacity of current lithium-based batteries.
-
Would you ever marry a bar girl? If so, why?
Lacessit replied to bob smith's topic in ASEAN NOW Community Pub
If you ignore a poster, none of their past or future posts are displayed to you. Unless they are quoted by another poster. -
You can bet your left nut marine insurance companies are watching mixed EV/ICE shipments very closely. As Ian Fleming wrote, once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time it is enemy action. Packing a mix of said vehicles like sardines is looking more and more risky, in the light of videos showing EV fires. It would not surprise me if insurers either hiked their premiums, or refused insurance unless suitable isolation of EV's is adopted. Either way, that cost gets passed on to the car buyer.
-
John Cadogan rants about everything. That is his style of presentation. Underneath that is solid engineering and physics. The Fremantle fire is an example of probabilities and logic. Look at the number of shipboard fires arising from transporting vehicles that are solely fuelled by gasoline and diesel. Then look at the ignition temperature of said fuels, about 210 C. It takes an external heat source to get a fire going. It only takes a short circuit for an EV to go into thermal runaway. OTOH, there are now two shipboard fires where a mix of EV's and ICE's were being transported. The greater intensity of EV fires is undeniable. On balance of probability, it is almost certain both fires were started by EV's, as the ship's crew could have contained an ICE fire with foam, powder or water. As explained, EV fires supply their own fuel and oxygen. Occam's razor.
-
The temperature, according to the video, reached 900 C. That's red hot. IMO containing the heat under a blanket of a thermal runaway would be a foregone conclusion for initiating thermal runaway or gasoline explosions in adjacent vehicles. The blanket would actually make things worse. Heat up any rechargeable battery to 900 C, and see what happens. Stand well back when you do. The point on the impolite issue - I was directing the comment at another poster, not you. OTOH, you chose to butt in with the Prince Charming post after said comment. Score is actually 2 - 0. I have yet to see you admit you were wrong with the "nonsense" post.
-
So you have been impolite twice, and I have been impolite once. I suppose that works for you.
-
It's a good example of experimental design formulated to give a favorable result. The fire blanket works in an airfield or whatever. In real life, in a confined space, it would be as useless as tits on a bull. Advertising spin. It reminds me of a pharmaceutical company testing a product on mice for teratogenic properties. The company reported the mice were born "visually impaired". What actually happened - the mice were born without eyes.
-
Exactly. An open air demonstration with maximum access, no information on the level of charge in the battery, and firefighters equipped with full breathing apparatus. Not likely to be practical in an enclosed and crowded environment. It's called cherry-picking.
-
IIRC, your first response to a post of mine was a single word. "Nonsense". You've changed your tune somewhat as you understood some inconvenient truths. I call it as I see it. Tell me why I should suffer fools gladly.
-
This has to be the dumbest comment I have seen posted on this thread. Fire blankets will do absolutely nothing in a fire where the source is supplying its own fuel and oxygen. it's like saying a thermic lance, which can burn through a foot of concrete like a hot knife through butter, can be similarly restrained. AFAIK personnel engaged in fighting EV fires are instructed to stay well away upwind, due to toxic gases such as hydrogen cyanide and hydrogen fluoride. Nothing in their extinguishing armory will fight an EV fire, so they let the fire burn itself out. If the poster still has me on ignore, I regard it as a badge of honor.