Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen please stop ignoring me.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Testing

 

[Andy_Ross]

Large exterior parts of modern cars are made of plastic.
Large wrap around bumpers, wheel arch liners, engine and body under trays, decorating trim etc. Then there's the rubber tyres actually in contact with the ground where any burning fuel would be located.

It doesn't require actual contact with anything burning to ignite a car, radiated heat can be enough to melt and ignite any of the plastic and rubber parts.
Even pain is plastic based and burns really well.

 

[Mojo]

Even pain is plastic based and burns really well.

Ouch.

 

[Mojo]

When a thing that is on fire comes into contact with a second thing that is not yet on fire, sometimes the second thing subsequently catches fire, due to the fire.

Hope that helps.

Really? Are you claiming therefore that EV's are ultra dangerous?

No, you are, remember?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You'll note that it has also been Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service, Full Fact, Jasper Jolly and numerous others' 'whole point' and number one obsession that 'You can't pin the Luton Airport car park fire on an EV'.

Wrong. They have responded to correct the counterfactual nonsense unceasingly spouted by conspiracist blowhards.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Must have been very early on for the firefighters to have had to retreat from the building pronto.

You're now assuming firefighters only retreat from the uniquely terrifying and unfightable phenomenon of a lithium battery fire. Remind us of your qualifications which guided your assessment here.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Testing

Hi Mark!

I know you're still here.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Hi Mark!

I know you're still here.

Well at least someone does.

Actually I was testing for my sig. It didn't come up in the previous post.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Ouch.

Paint of course!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Paint of course!

Flammable pain was just a pigment of the imagination.

 

[SpitfireIX]

<sigh> I never claimed that all accountants were scientists. But a large percentage do come from a Maths, science or Economics background.

To add to Jay's response, I dispute your claim that "a large percentage" come from such backgrounds, and I ask for evidence. Again with the caveat that I only practiced for a couple of years, I never knew of anyone either at school or at work with such previous experience. Counting my professors, I'm reasonably certain that I knew at least 25 accountants (and probably significantly more) well enough that I would have known if they'd had math, science, or economics backgrounds.

I do, however, have two friends who became accountants after I stopped being one. One of them had gotten a math teaching degree, but decided he didn't want to teach, so he went through the same bachelors-level certificate program I did in order to sit for the CPA exam. The other was a former nuclear power technician in the US Navy who later worked at a civilian nuclear plant. He married an accountant, and when they decided to move back to Indiana, as there are no nuclear plants here, he got an accounting degree, and they now have their own accounting firm. But I would argue that my friends' being accountants is at best only tangentially related to their previous training.

Running a enterprise or an industry can be considered a science IMV. For example, calculating a production line, space required on supermarkets shelves, bums on seats re airlines, capacity re hotels bookings, etc. etc.

You're mainly talking about operational research^* here, which the Science Council does recognize as a science. But it's not accounting.
_____
^*Operations research in American parlance.

 

[catsmate]

Ops. Don't tell my club I said that, they'll have me radished!

No more than you deserve..... And with 'Income Tax' at seven-pence in the pound too.

 

[JayUtah]

<sigh> I never claimed that all accountants were scientists.

You claimed you were a scientist. This whole debate ensued because you thought you could make some categorical argument in favor of that claim, when asked to provide your credentials. As usual, you couldn't decide which part of your academic career to embellish. You tried to tell us you were a scientist because you had taken science-oriented classes as an undergraduate. You tried to tell us your "Master's equivalent" vocational training in accounting made you a scientist because accounting is a science.

No part of your education and experience makes you a scientist, regardless of the paths taken by others. But ultimately you are not a scientist because you cannot display any scientific literacy, knowledge, or skill. No categorical argument fixes that. And insofar as your arguments are premised on your personal ability to reason scientifically, those arguments do not hold up.

But a large percentage do come from a Maths, science or Economics background.

You've provided no data to support this claim. And it is irrelevant in any case. If what they did before they became accountants qualifies them as scientists, they are scientists. But because of that, not because of anything to do with accountancy. People who weren't scientists before they became accountants do not become scientists by virtue of studying and practicing accounting.

Running a enterprise or an industry can be considered a science IMV. For example, calculating a production line, space required on supermarkets shelves, bums on seats re airlines, capacity re hotels bookings, etc. etc.

You cite examples of science done by scientists with observable and testable aspects of business operations as their subject. This does not mean that "running a business" is a science. The scientific method can be applied to study a large spectrum of activity. That does not mean that those who engage in the studied activities are scientists.

 

[catsmate]

Closer to the truth than you might have thought!

Many years ago I wrote a paper on the disruptive effects/consequences of certain new technologies, and how often reactionary voices had failed - initially at least - to understand the power and the paradigm-shifting qualities of these new technologies (it was around the time that Bill Gates, probably through a combination of initial short-sightedness and protection of his own physical software business model, had publicly come out against the spread and utility of the internet).

Anyhow, in researching other older technologies, I came across a quote from the 1870s from the then chief engineer of the British Post Office, who had this to say about the telephone:

"The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys."



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17510101

If I may don my historian's hat for a moment, the main competitor to the Post Office only fifteen years after Peece's comment was in fact The London District Messenger Service and News Company which, at it's peak, employed over 1,100 boys (usually 13-15) to carry messages and small packages around the city of London and environs.
They commonly appeared in period fiction (including Sherlock Holmes), inspired a game, a musical comedy and a magazine serial.

 

[catsmate]

Consider this: Car Zero is a diesel car. Not parked in a bay. It has an electrical fault. Since Liverpool, multi-storey open car parks are now designed to obviate fuel fire lines along the ground, i.e., any such spillage drains away properly and not onto lower floors.

Car #1: a petrol-hybrid (ha!) is the car that goes into thermal runaway, as petrol ignites very easily and Car #1 or #2 or #3 is the real cause of the uncontrollable fire with intense levels of heat that cause the steel rebars to deform by bending causing the concrete to collapse and literally melt in places.

Question: was Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service being 100% honest when it hammered the public over the head that the fire was not caused by any kind of electric vehicle?

Jeebus all that straw is more a fire hazard than a CONEX full of lithium

A simple yes or no will suffice.

A barrister tried that tactic on me once. It didn't work.

 

[catsmate]

Let me get into my listening pose whilst you explain to me as though I were a five-year-old, how a 'leaking liquid fuel' spill 'accidentally ignites' a nearby EV facing forward (as in the CCTV clip), with its back near to the wall and its nose perpendicular to that of Vehicle Zero, bearing in mind the nearby EV not having any fuel tank at all.


Talk me through the steps.

Sure, you go and look at the figures I supplied last lat regarding the flammability of materials. Then we'll talk.

 

[catsmate]

Perhaps you can help. Tell us how this relatively low grade electrical fire, now turned 'fuel leak' according to catsmate, let's say this fuel leak is even aflame. Explain how it sets off the EV, given its relatively low temperature at that early stage.

Sigh. More childish lies and distortions. Pathetic.

 

[catsmate]

Really? Are you claiming therefore that EV's are ultra dangerous?

More straw....

 

[catsmate]

Wrt to those, I obviously exclude Vixen, who are actually interested in the mechanism of fire spreading in car parks I recommend a look at the publications (e.g. this one which is more than twenty years old in Heron) of the Built Environment faculties of Delft or Aalborg, who have published rather a lot on the matter. Or indeed the three year project in the UK called 'Fire Spread in Car Parks'.