Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[Foster Zygote]

And what does thermal runaway look like?

Surely you saw the cartoon.

 

[JayUtah]

Interesting video by this Australian guy today.

Do you have any evidence that isn't just a random, barely-relevant YouTube video?

EV fires in car parks is a GENUINE risk, not "misinformation" | MGUY Australia

Seems to share similar views as myself, in some respects.

Straw man. No one is claiming EVs are not fire risks. No one is downplaying fire risks in parking structures.

You are claiming a particular fire in a particular structure was caused by an EV, contrary to the findings of competent authority, and that there has been a conspiracy to cover this up by government edict to benefit certain politicians. We're waiting for your evidence for that, not whatever YouTube cartoons or other offerings you find agreeable.

 

[novaphile]

Well, she claims to have been a forensic accountant and once to have worked on a criminal case. This implies she understands what constitutes evidence, what constitutes a standard of proof, and how to construct a line of reasoning from evidence to conclusion that can withstand a vigorous challenge.

However, we find in practice that Vixen doesn't seem to know how to read and apply laws, how to evaluate regulatory frameworks, what constitutes evidence for a claim, or how to avoid such obviously specious reasoning as an argument from silence. Faced with the discrepancy between her claimed background and her demonstrably poor performance, the conclusion is clear: Vixen has no concept of how to investigate anything, how to develop evidence, or how to create a valid line of reasoning—a typical armchair detective. However, characterizing the person is not the end goal. It is often an instructive side quest, but the real goal is to evaluate the claims.

Here the claims stand entirely without evidence upon a foundation made mostly of the proponent's imagination, and bereft of any brand of defensible logic.

Just a minor quibble, it is extremely unlikely that an accountant would not know what a blind trust is, I think we're well beyond the point where we should expect any truth from this poster.

At best, probably has worked as a low-level clerk or bookkeeper, given all the other inflated claims. Perhaps one of the data entry clerks for a tax firm.

 

[JayUtah]

Just a minor quibble, it is extremely unlikely that an accountant would not know what a blind trust is, I think we're well beyond the point where we should expect any truth from this poster.

I don't believe any of Vixen's claims to expertise.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I don't believe any of Vixen's claims to expertise.

But she never says she's an expert, therefore she isn't making any claims to expertise! That's how it works right?

 

[Vixen]

Why do you think we should be given the exact make and model of the first car to catch fire before the full report is out? Why is it not sufficient for you at this stage for Beds F&R to state unequivocally "The vehicle involved was diesel-powered - it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle".

Last August I was on the M1 south and a lorry caught fire. The junction was closed after I joined so I was in the trapped traffic, which was eventually waved past the fire. None of the press reports, then or now, give the exact make/model of the lorry. I am sure that the full report produced by the fire service does mention it, but the press didn't report it because it's not necessary to understand the fire.

https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2023-08-24/tanker-fire-which-closed-motorway-caused-by-engine-damage.

I was about 100 metres away from the fire when a tyre on the tanker blew out, it was so loud! At that stage there was only a couple of police cars there, the fire service hadn't arrived. After the tyre blew, the police officer who was waving us through in the outside line started shouting at the traffic to speed up and get clear fast. It's four lanes plus hard shoulder there, but the heat was intense as I drove past. And then the motorway was closed both ways for the rest of the day so a 45 minute journey home later took almost four hours.

I am happy to wait until the report is out. Re the lorry, I am guessing the papers don't imagine a lorry's make is newsworthy, perhaps more its size and structure. Glad you got past it unscathed!

But it is usual for the papers to mention make of car. For example, a story just today about a swan on the motorway. Caused a red Vauxhall Corsa to catch fire as it collided with another car to avoid it.

A red Vauxhall Corsa burst into flames moments after impact as the drivers avoided mowing down the swan.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...scapes-uninjured-oblivious-chaos-created.html

BTW: I couldn't find the 'Where there's muck there's brass' quote in my Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable (15th Ed). What is it under, or what page...?

 

[Vixen]

What about the witnesses who said it started on the roof? The accounts can't both be true.




Because even though they can be mistaken (see above), they are a useful source of information. Witnesses are not infallible, either in their actual observation or in the impressions they draw from those observations.

But as I said, I wasn't talking about eyewitnesses, I was talking about your insistence in the Estonia thread that early newspaper reports of an incident, made before all the evidence can be collected, are a more accurate account of events than later ones.

I think developing news can be useful because once people have been arrested and the investigators become involved, all fresh news shuts down.

 

[JayUtah]

I am happy to wait until the report is out.

Except that you're not. You're already second-guessing everything that's going into it. And you have shown absolutely no respect for any previous official finding in any other matter you've made the subject of your conspiracy theories.

But it is usual for the papers to mention make of car. For example, a story just today about a swan on the motorway. Caused a red Vauxhall Corsa to catch fire as it collided with another car to avoid it.

What was the driver's name?

 

[JayUtah]

I think developing news can be useful because once people have been arrested and the investigators become involved, all fresh news shuts down.

Because you say so?

 

[phiwum]

Okay, so only hybrids or EVs are capable of thermal runaways. But are you confident that the Luton fire started with a thermal runaway? Couldn't it have been just a diesel fuel leak or something besides a thermal runaway?

Vixen, I know you've been out for a while today, but I'm hoping you won't forget this question. I'm trying to understand precisely your position.

Does the evidence we have show that there must have been a thermal runaway in that first vehicle? Or at least that there very probably was a thermal runaway in it?

 

[Vixen]

Thermal runaway, in this context, refers to a process whereby a battery overheats, possibly enough to ignite a fire. (It's a positive feedback process, aka a vicious cycle, whereby a battery begins to overheat and, if current continues to be drawn from it at the same rate, heats up even more because its efficiency decreases at higher temperatures so the total demand on it increases. That's the "runaway" part.)

The one and only characteristic of thermal runaway is an overheated battery continuing to get hotter. Does the video show an overheated battery? If not, it does not show anything that looks exactly like a thermal runaway.

Not so. It emits highly toxic vapours and projectile jets of flames with debris as well, as the unstable cells form dendrites. If you douse it with water, the water becomes highly toxic with hydroflourides.

See here a van in thermal runaway at Heathrow:



https://youtu.be/mIIdMkwKLp4?si=Fm9cS6qrRoslrb0i




Mercedes Vito electric van in thermal runaway near Heathrow Airport

 

[JayUtah]

See here a van in thermal runaway at Heathrow:

How many thermal runaways have you seen in person? How many deflagrations have you seen that look like this that were not thermal runaways? What evidence can you present to establish that you are a reasonably informed authority on this point such that your judgment should be considered evidentiary?

 

[novaphile]

Wait until Vixen finds out about diesel runaways, and what happens to diesel engines when it happens.

(Hint - they catch fire.)

 

[JayUtah]

Wait until Vixen finds out about diesel runaways, and what happens to diesel engines when it happens.

Or jet runaways, which isn't really pertinent in the automotive world. But it serves as additional information that not all combustion profiles are intuitive, and not all are immediately dispositive of a certain fuel type. Vixen wants to pretend that her cherry-picked videos, interpreted for her by advocates, give her the expertise to be able to contradict the competent authority that says the Luton fire was caused by a diesel car.

It doesn't.

 

[Vixen]

But ICE vehicles, having tanks of highly flammable liquid fuel and mechanisms to move that fuel around the vehicle, are far more prone to fire anyway. And that fire is far more likely to spread, again by means of that highly flammable fuel.

Whilst ICE cars statistically show more instances of fires, that is meaningless outside of context. Most such fire start whilst the car is being driven or just parked. Often it is fairly minor and easily put out. The average age of ICE cars on the road is 12 years - some as old as twenty years or more. EV's are more likely to be very new. You are not comparing like to like. When an EV catches fire, it is likely to be completely destroyed and/or difficult for the flames to be put out. It is not so that an ICE vehicle catching fire in a car park will automatically spread because a lot of research has been done on this, as per the Liverpool Fire Report:

1.2 Building Regulations
In Approved Document B, Volume 2 (buildings other than dwelling houses) 2010, section 11.2 gives the following general principles for buildings used for parking cars:
a. The fire load is well defined; and

b. Where the car park is well ventilated, there is low probability of fire spread from one floor to another

In 1968, The Ministry of Technology and Fire Offices’ Committee Joint Fire Research Organisation produced Fire Note No.10, “Fire and Car-Park Buildings”.

It states in its summary, “The experimental work carried out…..confirms the fact that an outbreak of fire, within a single parked car, is unlikely to result in uncontrollable fire spread in the car park or in serious damage to the structure of the building.”

“From visual observations made during the tests, the smoke layer was mainly at ceiling level and would have caused the fire brigade little or no difficulty in dealing with the outbreak” (Fire Note 10 Risk of Smoke Obscuration p.8)

What went wrong at Liverpool was whilst the Fire Brigade thought it had the two rows of thirty cars on fire under control, the fire suddenly spread to the next level, and that is because the aluminum trays in the ceiling melted, causing waterfalls of fire falling downwards and gases running along the ridges designed to catch the petrochemicals on the next level up. Once this ceiling was permeated by that means, the cars on the next level were soon on fire. The Fire Brigade then had to urgently evacuate all of its teams and it was at this point the fire was uncontrollable.

The spread of fire at Luton looks to me to have followed a similar pattern of vertical spread, which suggests running ridgeways of gases igniting in the heat, when it should never have breached the ceiling in the first place.

“…in Metropolitan Boroughs the fire brigade attends 4 out of 5 fires within 3 min and it is therefore difficult to see how a sustained fire could take hold.” (Fire Note 10 An assessment of the Risk p.9)


In Test 1, car 1 (Renault Laguna petrol 2002) burnt for 20minutes at 2MW, but within 2 minutes of car 2 (Renault Clio petrol 1998) igniting, the intensity reached 16MW and a ceiling temperature of 1100°C. There was extensive spalling of concrete roof slabs during this test. (BD2552 2.9.1

Rapid spread of fire, once two or more vehicles are fully involved will occur. Fire will “leap” across empty bays, due to its intensity, in particular the temperature of the smoke/ceiling jet (BD2552 p.39). In the Kings Dock car park incident crews reported that additional vehicles became involved “every 30 seconds”. The rate increased exponentially up to rapid fire development on level 4, just after the crews withdrew. Sprinklers will delay fire development and prevent fire spread to multiple vehicles before the attendance of the Fire and Rescue Service. P 19

Liverpool King's Dock Fire Report 2018

So, every 30seconds at Luton will mean that once two or more vehicles are involved, other vehicles catch light every 30 secs or so.

Liverpool 16:50 fire fighter arrival to 17:40 when thirty vehicles counted as being alight: 50 minutes, 30 vehicles – 28 x 30secs = 14 minutes, therefore, the other 50minutes must have been during when the first two vehicles caught = 36 minutes

Estimate: within 20 minutes of arrival at Luton, multiple vehicle would have been on fire. Based on the above, proportionally, 12 vehicles.

(This is a back of envelope calculation as the rates increase exponentially and I am short of time.)

So, within 20 minutes of the vehicle arriving two or more would be ablaze after the first twenty minutes with rapid spread to roughly a further twelve.

Recap:

Luton time line: first smoke seen at about 20:38 first flames sighted by a witness as seen on roof level: 21:00, therefore 22 minutes to spread upwards: four times as rapid.

Firefighters arrived circa 20:55, emergency situation called 21:38 – one hour, fire teams evacuated 40 minutes after first flame on next level up. BUT fire only started an hour ago. Not dissimilar to Liverpool.

Liverpool time line:

16:29 – smoke
16:43 – fire brigade arrives
17:40 – two rows thirty vehicles involved – notice running fuel fires between rows of cars

So, within one hour, ten minutes, 30 vehicles alight, roughly every two and a half minutes as the mean.

17:52 first flame appears on Level 4, immediately above the car zero. CCTV. (It might have been earlier, after the 17:35 'waterfalls of fire', as smoke may have obscured the flames from the CCTV camera.

So, it was one hour, 23 minutes, or 83 minutes from initial smoke/fire captured on CCTV to fire on next level up.

18:07 confirmed fire confined to the two rows of 30 vehicles in all by firefighters working from the stairwell to Level 3.
18:20 – 18:25 firefighters withdraw because of untenable position.
18:38 emergency evacuation of all firefighters because of safety concerns.

So, 46 minutes from first flame to the next level up to firefighters needing to abandon.


Conclusion: the Luton airport fire progressed in a very similar way to the Liverpool one is my perception.

Notandum, had the car been an ICE it is probable it would have been put out by the fire brigade easily, see their note above. A plastic fuel tank explosion should still be within the realms of effective extinguishment, even if it spreads to several other vehicles. The deal breaker was the fire spreading to the next floor up and becoming dangerous to the fire teams, I would suggest, on both occasions.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, I know you've been out for a while today, but I'm hoping you won't forget this question. I'm trying to understand precisely your position.

Does the evidence we have show that there must have been a thermal runaway in that first vehicle? Or at least that there very probably was a thermal runaway in it?

Need to have it confirmed that the vehicle in the video is the initial one. If so, need explanation as to what caused those flames and why the fire brigade were unable to control the subsequent fire.

 

[junkshop]

...Notandum, had the car been an ICE it is probable it would have been put out by the fire brigade easily...

The BF&RS have stated unequivocally that the car was an ICE.

Once again you imply that they lie.

 

[phiwum]

Need to have it confirmed that the vehicle in the video is the initial one. If so, need explanation as to what caused those flames and why the fire brigade were unable to control the subsequent fire.

Okay, so let me see if I understand.

You do not have good reason to believe that the initial vehicle caught fire due to thermal runaway.

Therefore, you do not have good reason to believe that the initial vehicle was an EV or a hybrid.

And so, you don't have good reason to believe that there is any coverup or press embargo.

Does this sound right? I'm surprised that you say you need confirmation about the video, because you and I have discussed this and you agreed that the video very probably shows the initial vehicle. That second link has the following quote from you:

• "Yes but we have only seen an authentic first video from the back of the vehicle and most people are of the opinion it is an Evoque, none of it confirmed."

What happened to make you doubt whether that video is authentic?

Note: I'm only talking about "good reasons" to believe such-and-such. Thus, I'm not looking for certainty or proof, but evidence that ensures such-and-such is probable.

ETA: Vixen has also written, "Therefore, if it was NOT a lithium-ion fire of any sort, an explanation is required. And it had better be good." It seems to me that this expresses a confidence (though not certainty) that the initial vehicle involved an EV fire too. I wonder why she's hedging now.

 

[JayUtah]

When an EV catches fire, it is likely to be completely destroyed and/or difficult for the flames to be put out. It is not so that an ICE vehicle catching fire in a car park will automatically spread because a lit of research has been done on this, as per the Liverpool Fire Report

Your source only partially supports your second statement and says nothing about your first, which is simply—and always—"Because I say so."

The spread of fire at Luton looks to me to have followed a similar pattern of vertical spread, which suggests running ridgeways of gases igniting in the heat, when it should never have breached the ceiling in the first place.

Asked and answered. Your attempt to compare the two modes of propagation completely ignored the salient differences noted in your source material.

You are not a fire investigator. You are not a forensic engineer. You are not the smartest person in the room.

This a back of envelope calculation as the rates increase exponentially and I am short of time.

And short of brains. That's not a valid method of calculating fire propagation in a semi-open structure. You're just making it up as you go and asking us to agree that you know what you're talking about.

Conclusion: the Luton airport fire progressed in a very similar way to the Liverpool one is my perception.

No. You just invented your own method of fire propagation analysis that fits within your ability to reason, rather than being based on observation, testing, and understanding of the underlying principles fully. And now you're begging the question that this is the way it can and should be done, and that your doing so now somehow makes you smarter than the actual investigators.

Armchair detectives are worse than useless.

Notandum, had the car been an ICE it is probable it would have been put out by the fire brigade easily, see their note above. A plastic fuel tank explosion should still be within the realms of effective extinguishment, even if it spreads to several other vehicles. The deal breaker was the fire spreading to the next floor up and becoming dangerous to the fire teams, I would suggest, on both occasions.

This is all just, "Because I say so." Your source is describing a certain ideal or known set of circumstances. It may serve as a design guide. But it is not valid as a yardstick for determining the authenticity of claims or evidence in a particular real-life set of circumstances.

I cannot begin to emphasize just how much you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Notandum, had the car been an ICE it is probable it would have been put out by the fire brigade easily, see their note above. A plastic fuel tank explosion should still be within the realms of effective extinguishment, even if it spreads to several other vehicles. The deal breaker was the fire spreading to the next floor up and becoming dangerous to the fire teams, I would suggest, on both occasions.

The fire service has confirmed that it was a diesel car that started the fire.

Are you saying they are telling deliberate lies?