Well, FWIW, I'm still looking for signs that there was actually a cascade rather than just multiple ruptures. But frankly I'm tired of playing the terminology game (and apparently other people are as well) since we clearly see things differently. Cells vs. modules for example.
"The data is consistent" with all kinds of things that aren't reality, so I prefer to focus on what the evidence supports or suggests rather than just "what it's consistent with".
So I'll just call everything I see as a Cascade(TM) and "consistent with the facts" and be done with it. Apparently, you'd prefer to do that.
I didn't say you made up facts, I said you weren't entitled to your own (at least that's what I recall). But whatever, if you want to dwell on it and be unhappy then fine. Start a "BrianMan gave me angst" thread and move it all there. I'm done with it, and based on feedback I've gotten in various ways apparently others are too.
For future reference, when I see words like "cascade" and "consistent with" I'll just ignore the post and move on. It's apparently not worth my time or effort trying to quell the drama by attempting to push the conversation to more precise and accurate terminology.
I'm not sure why the strong reaction to CO's posts.
He was conjecturing based on evidence available (and yes, a video of an event in progress
is evidence), on what events led up to the evidence he could see. Just like everybody else.
Unfortunately, not all evidence is direct. Some is indirect. That does not, however, prevent it from providing some context by which to form an opinion about events not directly observable.
The fire itself, the violent nature of it's exiting under some pressure, the location of the erupting flames, all allow one to favor some causes above others. This was not a "lazy fire". It was exiting with significant force behind the wheel wells. There were some potential ignition flashes evident in the video.
It's not unreasonable to assume that the main pack was involved. Furthermore that implies batteries adjacent to the ones producing that energy are being exposed to ignition temperatures above their threshold. Therefore it's reasonable to surmise there would be a cascade effect.
It's apparently not worth my time or effort trying to quell the drama by attempting to push the conversation to more precise and accurate terminology.
On the contrary, IIRC you took issue with cells within the same module (as opposed "across modules") suffering ignition as being categorized as a cascade effect. As far as I can tell with the definitions, that artificial limitation is your inaccuracy, not CO's. Batteries cascade when one or more cells experience thermal runaway, and in turn ignite adjacent cells... be it 1, 100, or 1,000. Even if that chain reaction is eventually terminated for whatever reason, be it running out of batteries, being doused with water, or being stifled by the built-in safeguards at the module boundary, a cascade event still occurred.
CO's terminology was accurate when he stated his opinion regarding what occurred. It was other folks that took liberties, as far as I can see.
