Machinbird wrote:
As a betting man, I'll bet that the issue with the battery is actually with the charging system and insufficient feedback from the battery to the charging system regarding cell temperature. The charging system should not continue to charge a battery that is moving in the direction of thermal runaway.
I can't find his post anymore but wbclay earlier posted a link to a whisteblower case that might offer evidence towards your theory? It was dismissed as the employee appeared to have other good reasons for termination, and most of his whistleblowing related to departure from design specs and a short that was later resolved. However he was top tech engineer on testing the battery until May 2007, and allegedly very good at his job. Here is the relevant portion of transcript of judge's decision, rendered July 2011:
Leon also alleged he engaged in protected activity when he told
Boynton that there was a problem with the thermistor wires in some
BCUs and claimed Boynton forced him to run an Acceptance Test
Protocol (ATP) on these units despite the thermistor problem, knowing
all the units would have to be opened later to inspect the problem. <snip> However, there is no proof Leon communicated his concerns about the
thermistor wires to Boynton or explained he was not completing the
ATP paperwork in order to avoid shipping a potentially defective BCU,
nor that Boynton pressured him to perform an ATP on a unit with a
potential thermistor problem.
pg. 26
http://www.oalj.dol.gov/Decisions/ALJ/AIR/2008/LEON_MICHAEL_v_SECURAPLANE_TECHNOLO_2008AIR00012_%28JUL_15_2011%29_172333_CADEC_SD.PDF
Physics, and particulary the base hardware portion of electrical circuitry (vs. programming logic, memory/processor architecture, etc.), were my weak suit (one of my three required EE professors accused me of obviously being a CS major, apparently a derogatory label, but ha ha, I got A's in the courses anyways), so I leave you to sort this out.