Skip to main content

Add new comment

Nehmo Sergheyev (not verified)    February 14, 2012 - 7:11AM

In reply to by David Herron

Incorrect. The protocol of de-powering the batteries after battery damage or the possibility of it was there before the crash.

search: chevy-volt-catches-fire-weeks-after-crash-feds-probe/1
'Volt, spokesman Greg Martin said.
"Had those safety protocols been followed for this test, this incident would not have happened," he said, adding that this is the only crashed Volt ever to catch fire.'
and
search: chevy-volt-fire-post-crash-test-protocol-slip
'The protocol not followed by federal testers, according to GM's spokesman was not "de-energizing the battery after the crash test." '

Moreover, in a a crash in the real world, GM’s Onstar system would report the crash and provides enough data to indicate if the battery was damaged. GM would then have the opportunity to follow up to see if the protocols were implemented.

And of course I know "conductive" means the ability to conduct. But conduction of a material is an intrinsic value that typically doesn't change with voltage. Please re-read my post. There's no point in repeating myself.
However, since I wrote that, I discovered what they really meant was that the liquid *when crystallized* (not when higher voltages are applied) becomes significantly more conductive. This is understandable, and it answers the question I said the words of the article provoked.

Finally, if you want to cite something, then link to it (you should be able to post links here) and quote exactly you are referring to.

`~- Nehmo

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote cite> <ul> <ol'> <code> <li> <i>
  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.