• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

[Continuation] Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
I neither agree nor disagree. I note it has been stated so. However, I like to have full facts not already known factoids put out here and there.
Click to expand...

You twist and turn like a twisty turny thing.
 
Vixen said:
Or...someone who is actually interested in the topic.
Click to expand...
That's a stretch. You declaimed on why a photo showed what you were sure was a lithium battery fire despite having zero relevant expertise to say so. Then the fire brigade said unambiguously the car had no lithium battery. So then you decide the photo must be fake evidence planted to mislead you because it's impossible you were wrong.

That's not indicative of being interested in the topic unless the topic is never ever accepting you might just be wrong.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
That's a stretch. You declaimed on why a photo showed what you were sure was a lithium battery fire despite having zero relevant expertise to say so. Then the fire brigade said unambiguously the car had no lithium battery. So then you decide the photo must be fake evidence planted to mislead you because it's impossible you were wrong.

That's not indicative of being interested in the topic unless the topic is never ever accepting you might just be wrong.
Click to expand...


Schrödinger's Range Rover.

Boy, that guy has some cool stuff.
 
Vixen said:
I like to have full facts not already known factoids put out here and there.
Click to expand...

You mean "facts" like diesel needs high pressure to burn, or any electrical fault in an automobile's wiring harness will immediately cut off all lights, or that welding steel doesn't involve melting it?

I'm sure you're sense of infallibility causes you to think such things are factual when you write them, but your claim that you are only interested in facts is, frankly, quite amusing.
 
zooterkin said:
It doesn't matter, though, does it? They've confirmed that the vehicle where the fire started was a diesel. What remaining issue do you have?
Click to expand...

zooterkin said:
For someone interested in the topic, you spend an awful lot of time talking about other things.

The vehicle where the fire started, concerns about which were what prompted you to start this thread, has been confirmed to be a diesel. Are you now satisfied that no-one is hushing up an EV-started fire in this case?
Click to expand...

zooterkin said:
What extra facts do you need?
Click to expand...

Vixen, you seem to have skipped over my posts. Please answer my questions, since they are absolutely germane to this thread you started. What questions remain to be answered?
 
Vixen said:
By normed I meant normed to the normal distribution. If the salient measurement is the z - standard deviation from the mean, often designated as '50' to represent the mean and as being easy to understand. So, if Dunning & Kruger say a person at the 11th percentile often incorrectly estimates their ability at the 62nd, then we are looking at a z score of -1.23 (reality) versus 0.62 (belief). If you look at the Gaussian curve you can see the area represented by z = -1.23 and +0.62, you'll see that it mostly falls within the 'average band' one standard deviation and slightly more below the mean (to the left of it) and almost one sd the right of it. Note the sheer number of the population that fall within ± one standard deviation (=50%) ipso facto. So far, so good?

So someone passes a 'normed' IQ test via Mensa at the 98th percentile (the imputed pass mark for entry). This we can see this it at z = 2.05 (standard deviations from the mean). Agreed? So then to juxtapose the parallel situation of such a person who scores at the 98th percentile with the earlier Dunning-Kruger character "at the 11th percentile who thinks they are at the 62nd", then in my case, such a person has overestimated their superiority over myself by z = +1.35 standard deviations. Look at the area under the curve in the wiki link, above, and you can see the number of people in the population is now quite rarified and of course, that is what standard deviations from the mean reflect: a point of comparison within a normally distributed population. Obviously, human measurements can never follow the exact course of abstract statistics because other variables come into play, due to genetic conditions, for example that can skew the tails at either side.
Click to expand...


And once again you state this statistics fact incorrectly. +/- one standard deviation contains a little over 68% of the population.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Having gone back this makes me wonder even ignoring the issues with IQ...Vixen are you claiming it isn't?
Click to expand...

I wonder if she thinks getting a score of 98 (presumably out of 100) on a "logic" test is the same as being in the 98th percentile for logical ability.
 
JayUtah said:
The report indicates the referral rate depends on vacancies in the various job sectors.
Click to expand...

Other factors come into play too.

For example, I was a clerical assistant (public servant) when I sat the clerk's exam in 1986.
Since I already worked for the Department of Defence, they were given the opportunity to make the first offer. Since they were familiar with my work at that establishment over the previous months, They immediately transferred me to a 'base grade' position, and put me on higher duties as a clerk class 2/3.

None of the above is any indication of my ranking after the exam. I was approached by one of the managers who said: "You passed the exam, and we'd like to offer you this new position."

I do have one small claim to fame.

At the 'Post Office' exam, in 1983 (IIRC), one of the tests was to memorise a page of suburb/postcode combinations and then try to populate the postcodes for all those suburbs after the list had been taken away.

Apparently, I was the first person who scored 100% on that test, and to this day, have no idea how. (I'm tempted to say 1 million monkeys, 1 million exams...) Sadly, I didn't end up working for the Post Office because I didn't have a motorcycle license and could not find any way to achieve one. (Poverty sucks.)
 
Vixen said:
That was the common understanding.
Click to expand...
Perhaps a common misunderstanding at your school.
Chances of passing very slim, obviously owing to limited number of places but still very competitive.
Click to expand...
Again you demonstrate that you don’t understand the “scoring” listed at the CS website.
Chances of “passing” the Fast Stream tests are not dependent on the number of places available , your test score is.
100% of applicants could achieve a passing score on the Fast Stream test (100% test pass rate) - this still has no bearing on the success rate of the Fast Stream applications - which is only dependent on the number of positions available.

Odd that those of logical superiority should not even understand the “passing” criteria of a test they are taking in order to gain employment - even when the employer explains the “passing” and selection process.

The boast of “passing” the Civil Service Fast Stream doesn’t seem to be the logical cognition flex you hoped it would be.
 
Last edited:
Note that the above was a long way to say:

Passed two exams (three if you count the Clerical Assistant's exam) presumably with similar results.

The outcome was determined by other external factors.
 
ferd burfle said:
And once again you state this statistics fact incorrectly. +/- one standard deviation contains a little over 68% of the population.
Click to expand...

Yes. But those are just numbers, man.
You can’t expect an accountant to have a feel for them, can you? :)
 
phiwum said:
You do not regard the press release from the fire department as evidence that the driver of the initial vehicle attempted but failed to extinguish the fire?

And you don't have any opinion on whether there is a fire extinguisher in photo 1 in this post? Because that's the photo of the "pictured" vehicle we're discussing. This is your post from November 6. In it, you clearly claim that there is an extinguisher to the right of the vehicle.

How come you're being coy here? You said the photo showed an extinguisher and now you're reluctant to come to the same conclusion.

I'll tell you what. We'll make a compromise.
  • The pictured vehicle seems to have a fire extinguisher on the ground next to it.
  • The Fire Brigade press release reports that the driver of the initial vehicle attempted to extinguish the fire and was unsuccessful.
Do you agree with the two above statements?
Click to expand...

Both statements appear to be self-evident truths as far as they go.
 
Vixen said:
Both statements appear to be self-evident truths as far as they go.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "self-evident", but very well.

So, there are two vehicles that I'm interested in. The first is the vehicle discussed in the press releases as the initial vehicle to catch fire. We know it's a diesel. We know that it was still in motion when it caught fire, so likely not in a parking space when the driver exited. We know that the driver attempted but failed to extinguish the flames.

Then there's the vehicle from the photo -- more accurately, from the video from with the still we've been discussing was taken. This is, you claim, a hybrid or EV (please correct me if I'm mistaken), so it's NOT the initial vehicle. Someone apparently attempted to extinguish the flames on that vehicle as well, since there seems to be a extinguisher next to it.

So, there are two vehicles that share some similarities (likely placement in a driving lane, failed attempt to extinguish, etc.), but are nonetheless distinct.

I notice that in the video, the cars adjacent to the flaming car are not themselves on fire. The SUV with (you tell us) a Lithium Ion battery is ablaze, but the fire didn't start from any adjacent vehicles.

Seems to me that if this vehicle isn't the initial vehicle, then TWO cars caught fire all by themselves in the same car park at roughly the same time, one a diesel and the other with a lithium battery. Or is there some other way that the fire from the diesel could have indirectly set the SUV in the video on fire?
 
Last edited:
EHocking said:
Perhaps a common misunderstanding at your school. Again you demonstrate that you don’t understand the “scoring” listed at the CS website.
Chances of “passing” the Fast Stream tests are not dependent on the number of places available , your test score is.
100% of applicants could achieve a passing score on the Fast Stream test (100% test pass rate) - this still has no bearing on the success rate of the Fast Stream applications - which is only dependent on the number of positions available.

Odd that those of logical superiority should not even understand the “passing” criteria of a test they are taking in order to gain employment - even when the employer explains the “passing” and selection process.

The boast of “passing” the Civil Service Fast Stream doesn’t seem to be the logical cognition flex you hoped it would be.
Click to expand...

When I did the Civil Service Fast Track exam/s it was before the digital age of the'90's. It was simply common currency that you only had a 'one in two hundred' chance of being called to interview (itself, extremely daunting with a panel of interviewers like something out of Judgement Day). You can read the history of these exams here: https://www.civilserviceworld.com/in-depth/article/testing-times-a-history-of-civil-service-exams

As you know, the UK is a class-bound country and the original exams were hoping to attract Oxbridge types. Today it is supposedly on merit alone and is fairly diverse. However, I note from P J Denyer's example, someone graduated from say Sandhurst military academy would readily spot the leadership skills element therein (assessment of task importance and priority and when to go in and help your team out, breathing down their neck or from afar) which perhaps an unwary candidate might be less able to recognize but possibly has a natural instinct for leadership skills. <shrug> Who knows?

So firstly, it had to assess how many fast stream vacancies it had in any year, usually a set number, in which the successful candidate spends a brief amount of time in several different departments (hospitals seem to have a similar scheme) and then it had to multiply the number of interviewees by a further factor to ensure there are X no. of candidates of whom only Y no. will be accepted or will accept the job.

How to recognize what skill sets are needed is the first step. In the context of this thread, yes, somebody from the motor industry or with Fire Brigade offspring might be better placed to advise than someone who only has the media to go by. Beyond that, I am not sure it is particularly relevant to be a Master Engineer to be allowed to discuss the issue as it is only current affairs news, after all, and IMV the UK taxpayer is quite entitled to understand the logistics of this fire and why the Fire & Rescue Services were unable to cope with it.
 
Vixen said:
I am not sure it is particularly relevant to be a Master Engineer to be allowed to discuss the issue as it is only current affairs news
Click to expand...

You’re a conspiracy theorist trying to advocate a conspiracy theory about what “really” caused a fire. In doing so, you’re trying to explain to everyone how much better you are at my profession than I am. And along the way, you’re being confidently and obviously wrong in the topics you profess to be an expert in. None of your long winded pretentious drivel has the slightest effect on the elephant in the room: you don’t what you’re talking about.
 
phiwum said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "self-evident", but very well.

So, there are two vehicles that I'm interested in. The first is the vehicle discussed in the press releases as the initial vehicle to catch fire. We know it's a diesel. We know that it was still in motion when it caught fire, so likely not in a parking space when the driver exited. We know that the driver attempted but failed to extinguish the flames.

Then there's the vehicle from the photo -- more accurately, from the video from with the still we've been discussing was taken. This is, you claim, a hybrid or EV (please correct me if I'm mistaken), so it's NOT the initial vehicle. Someone apparently attempted to extinguish the flames on that vehicle as well, since there seems to be a extinguisher next to it.

So, there are two vehicles that share some similarities (likely placement in a driving lane, failed attempt to extinguish, etc.), but are nonetheless distinct.

I notice that in the video, the cars adjacent to the flaming car are not themselves on fire. The SUV with (you tell us) a Lithium Ion battery is ablaze, but the fire didn't start from any adjacent vehicles.

Seems to me that if this vehicle isn't the initial vehicle, then TWO cars caught fire all by themselves in the same car park at roughly the same time, one a diesel and the other with a lithium battery. Or is there some other way that the fire from the diesel could have indirectly set the SUV in the video on fire?
Click to expand...

I remarked that it appeared to be a lithium-ion fire from what people in the general public claiming to be familiar with such matters commented, the speed of the fire and its sheer intensity, together with the floor collapsing. We have only be shown a small amount of CCTV and have not been given any information as to the make, year and model of the vehicle concerned. We have been told it is a diesel-fueled vehicle with a fire that started in the engine bay due to a probable electrical fault but we really need to see the full report to understand why the Beds F&RS could not contain the fire. I am sceptical it is as simple as they claim.
 
Vixen said:
I remarked that it appeared to be a lithium-ion fire from what people in the general public claiming to be familiar with such matters commented, the speed of the fire and its sheer intensity, together with the floor collapsing. We have only be shown a small amount of CCTV and have not been given any information as to the make, year and model of the vehicle concerned. We have been told it is a diesel-fueled vehicle with a fire that started in the engine bay due to a probable electrical fault but we really need to see the full report to understand why the Beds F&RS could not contain the fire. I am sceptical it is as simple as they claim.
Click to expand...

So you are no longer committed to the claim that the vehicle in the video has a lithium-ion battery? Because you seemed pretty sure back in November.

When do you suppose you'll have enough information to admit that you were wrong about the start of the fire involving a lithium-ion battery? When the final report comes out (assuming that it DOESN'T say that the issue was one of them batteries), will you be ready to admit your mistake?

It's possible, of course, that the report actually verifies your claim even though the initial vehicle was not a hybrid. In which case, I'll happily say that your claim was correct. But will you be ready to concede that you were mistaken if it turns out so?
 
phiwum said:
So you are no longer committed to the claim that the vehicle in the video has a lithium-ion battery? Because you seemed pretty sure back in November.

When do you suppose you'll have enough information to admit that you were wrong about the start of the fire involving a lithium-ion battery? When the final report comes out (assuming that it DOESN'T say that the issue was one of them batteries), will you be ready to admit your mistake?

It's possible, of course, that the report actually verifies your claim even though the initial vehicle was not a hybrid. In which case, I'll happily say that your claim was correct. But will you be ready to concede that you were mistaken if it turns out so?
Click to expand...

We haven't been told whether it was a JLR vehicle or which make or model, and why haven't we unless it is somehow considered a 'sensitive' subject?

Was the engine bay corroded? How did fuel leak into it? How did the vehicle pass its M.O.T.? Was it a manufacturing fault?
 
Vixen said:
We haven't been told whether it was a JLR vehicle or which make or model, and why haven't we unless it is somehow considered a 'sensitive' subject?

Was the engine bay corroded? How did fuel leak into it? How did the vehicle pass its M.O.T.? Was it a manufacturing fault?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you're asking these questions in response to my post. Here, I'll repeat myself so that you can actually respond.

phiwum said:
So you are no longer committed to the claim that the vehicle in the video has a lithium-ion battery? Because you seemed pretty sure back in November.

When do you suppose you'll have enough information to admit that you were wrong about the start of the fire involving a lithium-ion battery? When the final report comes out (assuming that it DOESN'T say that the issue was one of them batteries), will you be ready to admit your mistake?

It's possible, of course, that the report actually verifies your claim even though the initial vehicle was not a hybrid. In which case, I'll happily say that your claim was correct. But will you be ready to concede that you were mistaken if it turns out so?
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
We haven't been told whether it was a JLR vehicle or which make or model, and why haven't we unless it is somehow considered a 'sensitive' subject?
Click to expand...
Because it's not relevant?

It was a diesel. Do you now accept that?
Was the engine bay corroded? How did fuel leak into it? How did the vehicle pass its M.O.T.? Was it a manufacturing fault?
Click to expand...
Again, your concern in starting this thread was that it might be an EV where the fire started. We have had it confirmed that it was not.
 
Vixen said:
I will wait for the report.
Click to expand...

Yes, but are you likely to accept the report when it comes out?

Ah, well, anyway, it's good to hear that you are no longer claiming that the vehicle in the video is definitely a hybrid/EV. Hence, in fact, there's some pretty good reason to think that it really is a video of the initial vehicle, isn't there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom