## 4 Discussion  
Comparisons of the results of these two experiments can be extensively discussed. In the beginning, it seemed that it made no sense. But, after studying the results, we came to an interesting conclusion. The course of the BEV fire was the same in both tests, regardless of the initial conditions. They differed primarily over time.  
The common result of the obtained experiments is a sharp increase in temperature above 1000 \({}^{\circ}\)C within 2 min. In the first experiment, it was 1056.9 \({}^{\circ}\)C, and in the second experiment, it was 1028 \({}^{\circ}\)C, regardless of their initiation time.  
In Figure 9(a), we see a mutual comparison of temperatures (T1) in thermocouple 1 in real time. The above comparison shows a significant difference in the heating of the EV traction battery and the initiation time. The point is to point out the same sharp increase in temperature in a short time following the initiation. That is why, in Figure 9(b), the curves are shown without real-time acceptance. The initiation point and temperature rise are shown.  
Another common result is a 2 min delay in the temperature rise of T2, while the time-temperature curves of thermocouple 2 copy the course of the temperature rise of T1 in both cases. It could be concluded that, in both cases, the same heat release occurs in the same time regime. [PERSON] et al. [51] conducted fire tests on BEVs with two different batteries. The maximum temperatures in the tests reached values above 1000 \({}^{\circ}\)C for both types of batteries. [PERSON] et al. [51] used a pool fire (size: 0.5 m2, 60 L Ethanol) as an initiator. Nevertheless, the Battery Pack Type A test with the same parameters listed in Table 2 had the same temperature flow pattern as in the case of our first test. Two-stage thermal course was due to re-ignition.  
Lastly, a common phenomenon is the method of extinguishing using a selected foam. The last monitored phase in the experiments was the extinguishing process (Figure 11). Test 1 was completed by applying the selected foam. A sharp drop in temperature from 486.1 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 76.5 \({}^{\circ}\)C was observed after 10 s of application on thermocouple T1, as seen in  
Figure 10: Comparison of T1 from thermocouples 1 in both tests. (a) Real-time experiments considered; (b) regardless of the real time of the experiment.  
The extinguishing in Test 2 used the same foam as Test 1, and has a comparable extinguishing process. On thermocouple 1, a drop in temperature (T1) from 720 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 97 \({}^{\circ}\)C was recorded within 40 s. The drop in temperature 2 was much smoother and took longer (Figure 11a,b).  
It is difficult to compare the results of this research with the research of other authors. For example, [PERSON] et al. [41] conducted a series of full-scale fire experiments about the thermal behaviors of battery electric vehicle (BEV) fires. The placement of the thermocouples for the abovementioned experiments was in the cabin for passengers, in the engine compartment, in the trunk, and in the tires. Additional thermocouples were additionally installed inside the LIB packs to observe the heat progress among internal LIB modules. Voltmeters were used to monitor the voltage drop of the modules to confirm thermal leakage.