You are proceeding along a path dictated by your preconception of the cause.
Despite to have some models that could explain BOS and TAK i am completely open minded as any search of the truth should be and MUST be.
Obviously we donīt have all necessary information and so we need to be careful and REDUNDANT when expressing what is our models, what is our mind.
NO. It did not work because something happened that exceeded the design's limits.
Not necessarily. E.g. the algorithms certainly respected design limits but could stressed the cells beyond safe levels. Only time can test certain design characteristics. (E.g. Comet, Electra, etc.)
Boeing did everything just right. Just not enough of it.
Just (another
) hyperbole or you indeed think this?
Boeing knew what happened before the Fire Department arrived.
Certainly some Boeing engineers, some
posting in many forums probably expected.
I will be perfectly happy if Boeing provides a system that prevents PROPAGATION. Runaway int the problem.
I am convinced NTSB will do an exemplar job when showing FAA their results. Propagation, runaway are important but they are looking to WHY the cell shorted. Runaway and propagation were consequences. In TAK a probable cell short resulted (posted earlier) in a devastating (external to the battery) short circuit. A battery failure DESTROYED an aircraft conductor during the flight. Fortunately transformed in a (non designed
) fuse. Thus saving Boeing from a much more serious case:
An inflight fire, outside of battery inside the FWD EE bay.
(The smoke in the vent was just a sample. TAK ATC could see the smoke:
And i suspect FAA design review is the BIG ISSUE.
