Luton Airport Car Park Fire

Status
Not open for further replies.
catsmate said:
The relevent standard, UN Regulation 34 annex 5, chapter 5 (often referred to as the RISE tests after the Swedish body who usually performs many of the actual tests) requires a tank to resist fire for two minutes.
Click to expand...

I looked up the test protocol. It's pretty lenient.

Two minutes' fire endurance time is kind of cute. For other life-safe components, we generally want fire endurances on the order of half an hour to two hours. But the stuff I design and build is more high-stakes engineering, not commodity wheeled vehicles where final cost is an issue. That said, the intent is clear: two minutes is enough time for people to get out of a vehicle and move to a safe distance.

From the practical perspective, yes, the heat loading from one ruptured fuel tank spreading its burning fuel load is within the realm of the test protocol. Under the presumption that manufacturers will build fuel tanks to only a small margin beyond the test heat load, we should expect fuel systems to be compromised within a small number of minutes. Under a heat profile where several fuel loads have been released and are now on fire, this would exceed the test heat load profile by a considerable factor.
 
JayUtah said:
That is excluded. The vehicle in which the fire started was diesel-fueled.



Yes, I believe a plastic fuel tank can be heated to the point of rupture in ten minutes of sustained proximal combustion from a mixture of Class A and B combustibles.



Why don't you? You've listed the melting point of various polymers, but you haven't presented the necessary heat-transfer computations to dispute the suggested heating profile.
Click to expand...


Again, why is the type of fuel important, if as is claimed 'it must have been an electrical fault'? If it was an electrical fault - hot enough to melt a Range Rover fuel tank - why does it matter what type of fuel it ran on?
 
Foster Zygote said:
<snip>

And here's the video demonstrating that you can, in fact, light diesel oil with a wooden kitchen match: (you have yet to comment on this video)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7soVqy...c2VsIGZpcmU=

<snip>

Yes, I have introduced it, because clearly you didn't think about it yourself. In fact, the very slope of the parking garage's levels will allow hot gasses to flow away from the fire, drawing fresh air in to feed it.
Click to expand...

'Video not available'.

Sloping floor doesn't explain the intensity of the heat.
 
Vixen said:
Again, why is the type of fuel important, if as is claimed 'it must have been an electrical fault'?
Click to expand...

You're claiming the vehicle at fault was an EV or a hybrid and that this is being covered up. The vehicle in question was powered by a diesel-fueled engine, in contrast to the powerplants you're desperately trying to foist on the situation. Nevetheless, all cars contain power sources and systems besides their propulsive elements, and these are often the causes of fires in those vehicles.

If it was an electrical fault - hot enough to melt a Range Rover fuel tank...
Click to expand...

Not the claim.

Now are you going to "do the math" for us? Or are you just going to flounder and change the subject endlessly?
 
Vixen said:
Sloping floor doesn't explain the intensity of the heat.
Click to expand...

It was just explained to you how it accounts for the intensity of the heat. You've provided no scientifically tenable argument to the contrary. Your inability to grasp or acknowledge the physical factors in this situation does not render your opinion somehow valid.
 
Vixen said:
Why is it important to exclude a hybrid?
Click to expand...

The real question is: why is it important to you to exclude it having been a diesel Land Rover?

The rest of us aren't the ones arguing against the findings of the investigators. Contrary to your implied sleight of their ethics, you have offered no evidence to conclude that they've been anything less than professional and responsible in their assessment of the incident that started the fire, insofar as the type of the vehicle involved. The only reason offered to defend the claim that they have lied is the assertion that they're being directed to do so by some conspiratorial entity determined to hide the supposed dangers of Li-ion batteries.

The rest of us aren't invested in any way in finding a diesel powered car to have been the source of the fire. That's simply where the investigation lead.
 
Foster Zygote said:
By the time the fire is extinguished, you can see that all of the plastics have melted and burned in this X5, including the front valance, fenders, hood, various covers over the engine, the induction system, the valve cover...

Oops! Forgot the link.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4IObb6bGrGw
Click to expand...

Wait. Why are you showing videos of cars burning? Is it now your strawman that someone has said 'cars cannot burn' and you are arguing against yourself?

But look again. You haven't told us what sort of car this is, how long it has been burning and what caused the fire. Arson? As is the case in a high percentage of abandoned cars. So where is the missing information?

Look again, whilst you are there, consider carefully what you see and answer the following:

  1. What three words would you use to describe the smoke?
  2. In which direction are the flames of the fire?

Having observed carefully the above, answer the following questions:

  • (a) What type and colour of smoke does diesel and other hydrocarbons give off?
  • (b) In which part of the vehicle is the fuel tank normally located?
  • (c) Where is the fuel tank not normally located?
  • (d) Compare and contrast to the picture of the burning Luton car park fire: what are the differences?

Here's another exercise to help concentrate the mind:

Looking at the Luton burning car:

  • (i) what colour are the flames?
  • (ii) In which direction are they shooting out?
  • (iii( are the flames at the back or the front of the car?
  • (iv) If at the front, how did the fuel tank warm up sufficiently for the plastic to melt?
  • (v) Can you see any sign of heavy black hydrocarbon smoke?
  • (vi) Are the flames localized? High up or low down near the floor?
  • (vii) Any sign of fuel or other fluids on the floor beneath the vehicle?

So now perhaps reevaluate your conviction that that car 'is exactly the same as the one on fire on a California highway'.

One last riddle-me-ree for you:

Do you have any videos showing a diesel car fire leaping from one vehicle to another within the space of ten or even fifteen/twenty minutes to create an raging inferno?

Here endeth today's lesson.
 
GlennB said:
And yet we know for certain that the fire spread extremely quickly from one conventional car to another, so it's hard to see how this argument from incredulity helps make your point.
Click to expand...

Yes, the fire spread extremely quickly. So why is it important that it be emphasied (although not by Fire Chief Hopkinson) it is a diesel car only and not a hybrid?
 
Vixen said:
Wait. Why are you showing videos of cars burning?
Click to expand...

To show you examples of combustible loads that have nothing to do with the vehicle fuel, since you seem so very confused about what actually burns in car fires.

Having observed carefully the above, answer the following questions
Click to expand...

No, you're not the teacher.

Do you have any videos showing a diesel car fire leaping from one vehicle to another within the space of ten or even fifteen/twenty minutes to create an raging inferno?
Click to expand...

Yes, but it's from a YouTube server that's only accessible from a small school in Leicestershire where twenty minutes is notated 20″.

Here endeth today's lesson.
Click to expand...

You are not the teacher.
 
Vixen said:
Yes, the fire spread extremely quickly.
Click to expand...

According to what criteria?

So why is it important that it be emphasied (although not by Fire Chief Hopkinson) it is a diesel car only and not a hybrid?
Click to expand...

You keep insinuating the car at fault was an EV or a hybrid and that this fact is being covered up. It remains important because the powerplant of the car at fault has been identified, and it's not what you say it is.
 
Vixen said:
Yes, I understand that this is something that is very important to you.
Click to expand...

Rather, it's important to the rest of us that at some point you acknowledge that the powerplant of the car at fault has been identified, and it's not anything powered by lithium-ion batteries, as you keep trying to insinuate.

Can you explain why you are so emotionally invested in the initial car being a diesel car?
Click to expand...

The investment is not emotional, but merely to facts that you are stubbornly resisting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom