No, the switching off of the PSU's couldn't have been manual for obvious reasons. Moreover, the dry-out of Cell 1 happened in the very late evening of a Sunday (1) and Cells 2 and 3 dried-out in the middle of the night (2). A timely manual intervention would have required the permanent presence of someone h24*d7.
So, the PSU's turned off automatically as suggested by Alan Smith (3).
Any reference? And, anyway, what does it mean? We are talking about the specific HAD event claimed to have occurred during the 1992 boil-off experiment in only one of the 4 cells under testing. FWIK this is the only presumed HAD event that has been documented by F&P, although the permanence of a residual voltage during the period in which Cell2 remained at high temperature demonstrates that there was no HAD at all (4).
Btw, can you cite any other HAD event documented by F&P?
Monitoring and logging the current would have been not only reasonable, but mandatory. I also believed that F&P did it (5), although the absence of any current curve in all the F&P documents was inexplicable and rather suspicious. But thanks to your clipping of the their paper on the HAD (6), we have the confirmation that F&P didn’t log the cell current!
In fact, the small dagger at the end of the highlighted sentence indicates the following footnote:
You see? The cell current was assumed to be at the set value, this means that they did no measurement and, consequently, no logging of the cell current! And it can also be noted that the two references in the footnote refer exactly to the documents describing the 1992 boil-off experiment.
It's amazing. The more you explore this story, the more absurd it appears!
Ascoli, you misunderstand.
They assumed set Value until dry to be CONSERVATIVE in their calculation of excess heat, it does not mean they did not log.
But as Wyttenbach says, they did not need logging since the Galvanostat was set to 500mA.