Prices of the electricity we use to charge

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
19,994
16,722
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
You can hear the pressurised gasses wooshing out of the battery and all the cells popping. Does that sound like a diesel fire to you?
I can (a bit) work out what was burning from the light and smoke but not from the sound.
Anyway, I've looked up the internet. The BBC says that the fire report in March this year confirmed that the cause was a burning diesel car.
Luton Airport car park fire was 'accidental', says fire service - BBC News
QUOTE:
A fire service spokeswoman said: "As a result of the investigation, all evidence points to the most probable cause being an electrical fault or component failure, which started in the engine bay of the vehicle whilst it was in motion.

"The developing fire spread to other components, and whilst the owner of the vehicle attempted to fight the fire, the vehicle became overrun with flames and spread to other parked vehicles."
 

Ghost1951

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jun 2, 2024
1,045
353
Diesel is pretty hard to light unless it has been heated up enough to emit a lot of vapour, or if it has some absorbent material to make a wick. If you dip a match into a puddle of diesel it doesn't light, although the match will flare up as it takes on the diesel, but when you withdraw the match, the puddle is not alight.

On the other hand, there is stuff in a diesel car that will light. Brake fluid for one. Long ago, a pal of mine had a leaking brake master cylinder that dripped brake fluid onto his exhaust pipe. That caught fire, but he managed to smother it with a rag.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,034
30,498
What type of car is most likely to catch fire?

The number of cars likely to catch fire per 100,000 sales by type (Statistics for 2021):


BEVICEHybrid
2515293474

 
  • Like
Reactions: Woosh

saneagle

Esteemed Pedelecer
Oct 10, 2010
5,884
2,807
Telford
Diesel is pretty hard to light unless it has been heated up enough to emit a lot of vapour, or if it has some absorbent material to make a wick. If you dip a match into a puddle of diesel it doesn't light, although the match will flare up as it takes on the diesel, but when you withdraw the match, the puddle is not alight.

On the other hand, there is stuff in a diesel car that will light. Brake fluid for one. Long ago, a pal of mine had a leaking brake master cylinder that dripped brake fluid onto his exhaust pipe. That caught fire, but he managed to smother it with a rag.
There isn't enough brake fluid nor diesel in the front of the car to burn like that. Landrovers have a fuel shut-off valve, anyway, that stops the fuel from burning in the engine bay. The Landrover hybrid has a diesel engine. Its lithium battery is exactly in location of the fire, so when the BBC said that the car had a diesel engine, they're probably correct.
 

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
19,994
16,722
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
There isn't enough brake fluid nor diesel in the front of the car to burn like that. Landrovers have a fuel shut-off valve, anyway, that stops the fuel from burning in the engine bay. The Landrover hybrid has a diesel engine. Its lithium battery is exactly in location of the fire, so when the BBC said that the car had a diesel engine, they're probably correct.
Let's assume that the leak was around the fuel filter.
Is it possible that because the Land Rover was running when it was filmed burning, the fuel pump was running, the fuel shut-off valve was open and fuel continued to leak onto the fire until the pool of unlit diesel was big and hot enough to blow up?
 

saneagle

Esteemed Pedelecer
Oct 10, 2010
5,884
2,807
Telford
Let's assume that the leak was around the fuel filter.
Is it possible that because the Land Rover was running when it was filmed burning, the fuel pump was running, the fuel shut-off valve was open and fuel continued to leak onto the fire until the pool of unlit diesel was big and hot enough to blow up?
Diesel doesn't burn like that. Try it, and you'll see. It needs a very high temperature to vaporise it before it'll burn. The guy parked the car there. do you really think that he didn't switch it off? If my car started smoking into the interior or from under the bonnet, the first thing I'd do is switch it off. Anyway, you still need to explain the flaring and associated gas escape noises, the popping and the shrapnel exploding everywhere.
 

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
19,994
16,722
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
The guy parked the car there. do you really think that he didn't switch it off?
Apparently, the fire started while he was driving. He jumped out and tried to tackle it. Others also tried to help but a few minutes later, his car exploded.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: flecc

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,034
30,498
Diesel doesn't burn like that.
Yes it does, don't you remember all the photos of the burnt out London diesel buses I posted for you to see. This is an account describing the the video'd incident below:

"An orange fireball could be seen erupting from the vehicle as thick clouds of smoke billowed through the air. Meanwhile, horrified passers-by watched on in horror, with many taking to Twitter to report the dramatic scenes. One witness wrote: "Bus in Brixton pulled into the stop and promptly caught on fire. Huge flames & crashing as bits of it were burned off."

Watch the video:


One year we lost 56 London diesel buses that way. Diesel cars go up the same way.
.
 

Ghost1951

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jun 2, 2024
1,045
353
Once people get sucked into the mind set that there is a big conspiracy to hide things from them, they believe anything and then they seek out so called 'evidence' that only supports what they want to believe. It is called cherry picking.

They actively refuse to consider any alternate view - except to try and refute it. - the exact opposite of science and rationality. This eventually leads to whole sections of the population believing in complete nonsense.

So we end up with people busily seeking evidence that President Trump was not actually shot; that his wound was fake, that the whole thing was staged to support his re-election. Others believe in the idea that 'elites' are intent on having them all done away with so they can be replaced.

This madness probably existed before the Internet, but it has never been such a force in society as it is now, where every Tom Dick and Harry can publish the stupidest things imaginable and have them seen by thousands if not millions of people.
 
Last edited:

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
19,994
16,722
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
So we end up with people busily seeking evidence that President Trump was not actually shot;
Trump said that the bullet 'pierced' his right ear. That was a lie. There were pictures of his right ear covered in blood just as secret service moved him to the safe car. The ear wasn't pierced.
I don't know anything about the AR15 but I understand that bullets spin rapidly when leaving the rifle, the radius depends on several factors like model of gun, bullets and manufacturing quality. At that sort of distance, the cone's radius is about 5". If his ear was hit by a bullet, the bullet would have hit his temple or the back of his head.
I wasn't surprised when the FBI said that they don't know what hit his ear. I do accept Saneagle point about the FBI don't look very hard for the bullet that may have hit him though. 8 empty shells were found by Crooks body, 8 bullets were heard and the FBI did trace all 8 bullets, some have broken up. My conclusion is the bullet did not hit Trump. The FBI has now asked Trump to come see them to make a victim statement.
 
  • :D
Reactions: POLLY

Ghost1951

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jun 2, 2024
1,045
353
I don't know anything about the AR15 but I understand that bullets spin rapidly when leaving the rifle, the radius depends on several factors like model of gun, bullets and manufacturing quality. At that sort of distance, the cone's radius is about 5". If his ear was hit by a bullet, the bullet would have hit his temple or the back of his head.
Yes - as you say you know NOTHING about shooting, but feel qualified to invent all manner of utter cr@p about things you have no grasp of. You assert with huge confidence supposed 'facts' which are nothing of the kind.

Please take this from a fifty year rifle owner and shooter of many firearms, from large calibre to small bore rifles, used in all manner of country and terrain for pest shooting and on ranges where I shot in matches and beat army shooting teams with the Belgian designed SLR, 7.62mm assault rifle at the end of the 1970s.

The criminal lunatic by the name of Crooks, fired a number of shots at Trump from about 120 - 130 yards from a prone position, which ought to have made it easy for him to hit his intended target in a life threatening place - life threatening, especially bearing in mind Trump's age and health.

Forget the supposed mechanics of the flight of the bullet - especially unstable bullets - a feature which only happens with unstable loads and not properly designed, stable loads used by most shooters. They go where they are pointed, affected by wind, temperature and the ability of the shooter and not much else. You KNOW NOTHING about this and are simply parroting rubbish about cones and corkscrewing. No practical shooter cares a jot about this. Different calibres of rifle shoot differently predominantly because of their differing muzzle velocity and design. The BIGGEST factor on where the bullet lands up is the steadiness of the shooter.

Crooks narrowly missed probably his first shot which was likely Trump's head. People who knew him at the gun range he attended, said he was a poor shot and failed miserably to qualify for the match team when he applied.

Bear in mind that the attempt to get on the team was him in a calm state. His mind set when attempting to shoot the ex President would have been extraordinarily agitated. He would have been quivering with emotion, fright and excitement and there is nothing that could have a worse impact on his ability to shoot Trump in the head. That would have required a very precise and steady shot at 130 yards. If he had accomplished such a shot it would have been extremely lucky for him bearing in mind the state of his emotions and agitated body when he attempted it.

If he had aimed at Trumps substantial chest or torso we would likely be discussing a very different kind of event.

He fired a barrage of about seven other shots which hit people feet away from his target. It is even possible that his first shot was not the one which hit Trump in the ear, but that that one was just part of a spraying barrage of crazy shots in the direction of Trump. It could be, though I do not assert this, that what hit Trump's ear was a fragment of a bullet that had broken up on impact with something else such as the lectern or whatever was in front of Trump. The AR15 is a rapid firing, small bore assault rifle, which would allow a shooter to fire a lot of pretty random shots in a general area. It is a small calibre not much bigger than a .22 - only half a mm bigger bore, though about three times the velocity of the .22 rimfire which I now use weekly for rabbit pest control.

Trump was lucky he was only winged in the ear, unfortunately one of the other victims died and one was badly injured.

It is unsurprising that not all the bullets or fragments of them have been found. Ammunition like that used starts off at velocity around 3,200 feet per second and if they were expanding bullets (quite likely) they would be smashed into fragments on striking anything at all solid.


59037

The only conspiracy that any sane person sees here is the plan of a sad, ignored, wannabe famous, loner, to make a name for himself by carrying out a murderous outrage, with no regard for anyone that was near his intended target. It does not matter that I despise Trump; I utterly condemn such a horrible crime.

You have a tendency to imagine conspiracies in a variety of directions. This indicates a very odd state of mind. Contrary to the view that there are conspiracies everywhere, mostly, things are exactly what they first look like.
 
Last edited:
  • :D
Reactions: POLLY

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
19,994
16,722
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
Yes - as you say you know NOTHING about shooting, but feel qualified to invent all manner of utter cr@p about things you have no grasp of. You assert with huge confidence supposed 'facts' which are nothing of the kind.
It's true that I know nothing about shooting but I know a fair bit about physics, including mechanics.
It's a fact that a bullet leaving something like an AR15 will spin rapidly. Don't you agree? And it's trajectory is a cone?
 

Ghost1951

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jun 2, 2024
1,045
353
It's true that I know nothing about shooting but I know a fair bit about physics, including mechanics.
It's a fact that a bullet leaving something like an AR15 will spin rapidly. Don't you agree? And it's trajectory is a cone?
No. There is an error there.

Firstly, of course rifle bullets spin. The 'rifling' is a screw cut set of spiral grooves in the barrel of a rifle or pistol or even an artillery piece which tightly grips the projectile as it rapidly passes up the barrel of the piece. The projectile is made slightly larger than the bore of the barrel, so that it grips VERY tightly onto the spiral grooves and has a very rapid spin imparted to it. This technique though complex to achieve in manufacture was adopted in the eighteenth century and vastly increased the accuracy of firearms. It achieves that by turning the projectile into a very rapidly rotating gyroscope and this resists the bullet or shell going off course.

Projectiles don't travel in a cone, they travel in a parabolic curve and sights are designed to take account of this. At shorter ranges the barrel is pointed more directly at the target and at longer ones it is pointed above the target. The nature of the curve of the parabola depends on the velocity of the projectile. A rifle like the AR15 which uses high velocity ammunition has a much shallower trajectory than lower velocity one such as the old WW2 Enfield .303 I used to own in the 1980s. That had a muzzle velocity of about 2,400 fps whereas the AR15 is about 3,300 fps.

The rifle Crooks used would have been sighted in probably at about 100 yards to allow for its known trajectory with particular ammunition so that the cross on the telescopic sight matched the point of impact at that range and he would have had graduations on the vertical reticule of the scope to allow him to judge the point of impact at closer, or more distant ranges. All shooters need to learn the detail of the curve their particular ammunition will follow and different ammunition needs to be learned because not all rounds made by different manufacturers for a particular rifle travel at the same velocity. Shooters practice a lot to come to terms with different ammunition if the accuracy counts - say for shooting live creatures where accuracy and a very quick and humane kill is required. Nobody who is normal, is accepting of a wounded creature wandering off.

None of this really bears on the question of how Trump was injured. Corkscrewing instability that you referred to in earlier posts is caused by damaged ammunition, or damaged rifling in the barrels muzzle at the point where the bullet leaves. Any asymmetry in the bullet or the point of exit from the barrel at the muzzle, will cause it, or an unstable bullet design viz a viz centre of gravity. Some ww1 rounds were deliberately contrived to be unstable so they caused worse wounds by tumbling. A decently maintained gun with factory loaded quality ammunition will not exhibit this trait.

That said - so called high velocity .22 rimfire ammunition (it isn't really high velocity at all but just above the sound barrier) shoots much wider groups than low velocity .22. The reason is that as the bullet passes towards the target - probably about 60 meters for rabbit shooting, the slowing velocity of the bullet means that it passes through the sound barrier (while slowing) and this brings instability. This would not affect the AR15 at that range because it will be well above that speed at that range. I have a .17HMr pest rifle which can shoot half inch groups at 100 meters. My .22 RF is lucky to get a 2 inch group at that range. Some rifle designs are very much more accurate than others. All of that though depends on the shooter. In the hands of an agitated murderer, who couldn't shoot well on a calm day let alone a few seconds before he was bound to be shot himself, no rifle was going to be very good.
 
Last edited:

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
19,994
16,722
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
Projectiles don't travel in a cone, they travel in a parabolic curve and sights are designed to take account of this.
We can now have a normal conversation. The trajectory is indeed a parabolic curve, the cone is the space where the bullet will fly, in other words, where the probability of finding the bullet is greatest.

If you create two opposite cones whose summits meet where Trump's wound is and the height of the cones equals to the radius of his head, you can see that the radius of the base of the cones is about 1cm. In order for the bullet to hit his ear and miss the rest of his head, the parabolic trajectory of the bullet must be confined within the two cones.
That's just incredibly lucky.

youtube FsvJzfXZI18
 
Last edited:

saneagle

Esteemed Pedelecer
Oct 10, 2010
5,884
2,807
Telford
Once people get sucked into the mind set that there is a big conspiracy to hide things from them, they believe anything and then they seek out so called 'evidence' that only supports what they want to believe. It is called cherry picking.

They actively refuse to consider any alternate view - except to try and refute it. - the exact opposite of science and rationality. This eventually leads to whole sections of the population believing in complete nonsense.

So we end up with people busily seeking evidence that President Trump was not actually shot; that his wound was fake, that the whole thing was staged to support his re-election. Others believe in the idea that 'elites' are intent on having them all done away with so they can be replaced.

This madness probably existed before the Internet, but it has never been such a force in society as it is now, where every Tom Dick and Harry can publish the stupidest things imaginable and have them seen by thousands if not millions of people.
If it was not a lithium fire, the fire chief would have said. We know what car it was. It was a diesel. That's it. You have to answer the question why he couldn't say that.
 

Ghost1951

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jun 2, 2024
1,045
353
If you create two opposite cones whose summits meet where Trump's wound is and the height of the cones equals to the radius of his head, you can see that the radius of the base of the cones is about 1cm. In order for the bullet to hit his ear and miss the rest of his head, the parabolic trajectory of the bullet must be confined within the two cones.
That's just incredibly lucky.
But all this is just contrived.

Whatever Crooks intended as he initiated the trigger movement, the bullet struck where the barrel was actually pointed at the moment that it left the muzzle, influenced also also by gravity acting on it in a downward direction, and any wind which may, or may not have carried the bullet away from its original path.

If Trump was hit by the actual 5.5mm bullet and not a fragment of a ricochet, had the muzzle been minutely pointed towards the right by a tiny fraction of a degree when the bullet left the muzzle, there would have been a very different outcome.

None of this is great. A far better thing would have been if Crooks had stayed at home and watched TV. One man who is dead would be alive and another who is badly hurt would be enjoying himself on a Saturday.
 
  • :D
Reactions: POLLY

Ghost1951

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jun 2, 2024
1,045
353
If it was not a lithium fire, the fire chief would have said. We know what car it was. It was a diesel. That's it. You have to answer the question why he couldn't say that.
I know nothing about whether it was a lithium battery fire or not.

I don't have any axe to grind at all in the issue.

I made a general remark about the way people are eager to suspect conspiracies to hide facts from them. This thread is full of such discussions.
 

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
19,994
16,722
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
You can see in slomo the size of the cavitation bubble if a real bullet hits the edge of Trump's ear at around 9 minutes mark on the video. I don't know how or what cut trump's ear but it can't be big, it can't be supersonic and is unlikely a bullet. There's a lot of clues if you want to look into cavitation.
 
Last edited:
  • :D
Reactions: POLLY