[The failure by itself may not be critical to safe flight
@ lomapaseo... As these batteries form a strategic last-ditch power-source, I'm baffled by the above assertion.
the ONLY time a flight with "dead" batteries can be (grudgingly) considered "safe", is if said aircraft is within gliding distance of a suitable airfield.....and that would be stretching credulity to the limits.
Boeing refuses to abandon the troublesome technology and therefore are reducing the aircraft to an "in-service" development role. I don't have a problem with that,
so long as critical safety is not affected Therefore, IMHO, the strategy I outlined many moons ago, seems the only prudent way forward.
Boeing should eat a large slice of humble pie, admit their lack of understanding of the technology and maybe look to the modellers who fly Helis with over a metre diameter rotors on Lithium technology,pushed to it's limits....I'd venture to suggest these amateurs have a vastly lower failure-rate than Boeing have demonstrated and they don't send their depleted cells back to the manufacturer either.....(nor would they pay 16,000 dollars for a 24 cell pack
)
If necessary, the sub-cells could be reduced in size and more of them, in order to reduce the potential thermal danger of any single cell going into "meltdown"
and the isolation in a ceramic "jacket" together with fusible connectors would all help to ensure a safe and reliable storage-system
In any event, it is imperative that ALL cells are monitored and balanced.
Looks like they tried to maximise profits by only monitoring clusters of three....I believe the problems this bought -on is known colloquially as a "Cluster fxxk"
Theie "emperor's new clothes" denial of a fire is beyond belief....sit the buggers on a pile of thermite (aluminium-powder plus rust powder , heat to ignition and it reacts strongly enough to melt and join railway-track ) ...then wait for them to deny it was a fire!