Hi RR
The danger of fire (outside battery case) IMO reduced after this moment
After the voltage dropped to zero. To conclude that loss of load on the battery prevented further fire, you have to assune the thermal runaway that had started and spread to other cells, would also cease because there was an open? At this point, how is voltage relevant?
I view the problem the other way, that the monitoring/controls system worked fine, the thermal runaway was due Battery issue, not control issue.
But it does not matter the cause, the runaway was an anticipated event. And a runaway, by definition, won't respond to further controls, hence "runaway"...
The nuts and bolts is the word, "contain". Again, had there been no propagation of thermal event, to other cells, the regs remain satisfied. We had to listen to Boeing repeat ad nauseum that the environmental protections functioned as designed. It seems they did, subject to a heated discussion between paid professionals....
You have to sense how frustrating it is for Boeing. The only thing that went wrong was that runaway propagated. JAL APUBatt burned for 75 minutes.
An hour and fifteen minutes! And yet the aft E/Ebay looked pretty ok...
That goddam pissant propagation! And even then, the house did not burn down.
But they have only themselves to blame. As it should be. They stand to make a half Trillion dollars on this mark.
I think they will.
