Sanity in government?

[Timothybil]

I was reading the latest copy of TV Technology today, and ran across an article that said the rules on lithium batteries on planes were going to change in 2009. Instead of using 'lithium equivalents' they are going to use watt-hour ratings. According to the article, the limit for 'in-device' batteries is going to be 100 watt-hrs. Spares are going to be the same. Spares will have to be carried in carry-on luggage, and be stored in such a way that they can't short out. I know this has been an issue hotly debated here in the past. It looks like we might be getting just a tiny bit of sanity in our government actions. Now, if it could only turn out to be contagious.

 

[PhantomPhoton]

Just another example of security theater stupidity and general bureaucratic shortsightedness.
While 100 watt-hours is sufficient for present day 9-cell laptop batteries, I'll bet in 2 years laptop will have even greater capacity than that.
2x 6-cell batteries (one in the laptop and one spare) should be over the limit of I'm doing my math right. :thinking: So I'm not sure exactly how they think this is going to work.

"no I'm sorry sir you have 41 eneloops and our government issued cheat sheet says you're only allowed 40. Or else it'd be over 100 watt-hours."

 

[baterija]

Just another example of security theater stupidity and general bureaucratic shortsightedness.
While 100 watt-hours is sufficient for present day 9-cell laptop batteries, I'll bet in 2 years laptop will have even greater capacity than that.
2x 6-cell batteries (one in the laptop and one spare) should be over the limit of I'm doing my math right. :thinking: So I'm not sure exactly how they think this is going to work.

"no I'm sorry sir you have 41 eneloops and our government issued cheat sheet says you're only allowed 40. Or else it'd be over 100 watt-hours."

Watt-hours is a more clear standard than lithium content. A typical user can more easily figure out the number of watt-hours in their laptop (since laptop batteries are sold mentioning that data). Lithium content is still limited to limit the risks presented during flight. It sounds like it's in effect a 200 Wh limit. 100 in device and 100 as spares.

How it works is users making choices that accomplish their needs while remaining within those limits. At least the standard more clearly lets you make decisions. If someone is a frequent business traveler they can make efficiency a higher priority in laptop selection, and set their power management settings to maximize runtime.

The eneloops are fine since they aren't lithium. The limits would give a flashaholic traveling without a laptop 11 18650's (2400Ah times 3.6) in lights with 11 more spares with a little bit of cushion for a couple small devices like a cellphone/MP3 player. At least the rule is clear enough we know not to show up with 12 now.

Limits with clarity can be managed...even if it's annoying. Limits without clarity seemed to come down to TSA roulette - show up and see if it gets through. This is a nice step towards clarity.

 

[PhantomPhoton]

I agree watt hours is a better estimate than trying to figure out lithium content. But I still stand by the fact that in the next couple years we're likely to have bigger batteries.
If in fact it is 100 installed and 100 spare that at least speaks of some sanity.
The eneloop remark was just sarcasm.

 

[Timothybil]

I'm sorry, I guess I didn't make it clear. The 100 watt-hour limit is PER BATTERY. I guess that is their way of controlling the amount of lithium equivalent in a single container. There is another limit as to how many spares are allowable, but the article gave the impression that as long as we are not talking case lots, it shouldn't be a problem.