Australian News On Drone Danger

[BJR981S]

What is the big surprise? Drone is too generic. Its consumer quadcopter that is the news. The US Government / Military has been taking out installations and people with drones for years from half a planet away.

This is the same concept as IEDs a poor mans Predator.

Very sad. As I keep saying its not so much the hooligans that are going to destroy this hobby its the **** media.

Its all Rupert Murdock's fault.

 

[Pietros]

Imagine if cars were new tech and we were trying to sell the concept to a government:

"We have this fantastic idea for a personal transport system. For less than an annual wage anyone can buy a CAR and after a months on the job training they can take it on the roads by themselves and drive anywhere. Its pretty safe - they will pass in opposite directions on the road at a closing speed of 220 kph separated by less than two meters and a white painted line and only a couple of thousand of people will die a year and about ten times that many will be injured for life. No problems mate..."

Not sure that would get up and fly now!

 

[EdM]

And it all could have been staged by the Venezuelan government.

 

[sar104]

And it all could have been staged by the Venezuelan government.

That's definitely a possibility. Maduro is a good actor in that case, if he knew about it.

 

[Drgnfli]

That's pretty funny, since the BBC is definitely one of the most objective news sources out there. And you may be misunderstanding the charter of the BBC - it is publicly funded but independently run - it is not a government news agency. I can't speak for ABC except to note that the subject of this discussion is a perfectly reasonable news article.

Wrong! BBC is left leaning IAW this & other charts I have found...
Media Bias Chart - All Generalizations are False

 

[sar104]

Wrong! BBC is left leaning IAW this & other charts I have found...
Media Bias Chart - All Generalizations are False

You should probably check the chart again. The BBC is in the "Fact reporting" vertical block and in the "Neutral - minimal partisan bias or balance of biases" horizontal block .

 

[JDawg]

You should probably check the chart again. The BBC is in the "Fact reporting" vertical block and in the "Neutral - minimal partisan bias or balance of biases" horizontal block .

Oops!

 

[KDog]

You may have seen the video of this event and noticed that there was clearly a significant explosion with a noticeable blast. And just to clarify, despite what you see in movies, petrol does not explode like that, it just burns, unless it is first dispersed into the air by a prior explosion. So the anonymous officers (other sources cited them as firefighters) were wrong.

But I had no idea that car bombings no longer attract media coverage. That is strange.

That’s actually incorrect. There’s enough vapour in the ullage of a half full 20L jerry can to cause a primary explosion which can then vaporise and disperse the remaining liquid fuel, resulting a much larger secondary explosion. This is well documented and something I’ve seen demonstrated a number of times in a controlled environment (petroleum industry fire fighting traing).

Notwithstanding, that doesn’t means the news is correct, nor does it mean it’s incorrect.

There are a number of logical fallacy’s in this discussion thread (I.e. some news is biased therefore all news is biased; report has inconsistencies therefore report is fake news). It’s obviously an emotive topic, particularly in this forum.

We all love drones, and whether the event was perceirved or actual, some arse-clown has gone and f#%ked it up a little bit more for all of us in the war of perception and public opinion. I don’t think anyone would disagree that drones - like trucks and cars - can be used for good and evil. We just need to be able to demonstrate that drones can do more good than evil, and we’ll win the war.

We’re not going to achieve that by arguing amongst ourselves like a pack of teenagers, so everyone just calm the f#%k down, take a few deep breaths, and go and fly your drone (safely and legally, please ).

 

[sar104]

That’s actually incorrect. There’s enough vapour in the ullage of a half full 20L jerry can to cause a primary explosion which can then vaporise and disperse the remaining liquid fuel, resulting a much larger secondary explosion. This is well documented and something I’ve seen demonstrated a number of times in a controlled environment (petroleum industry fire fighting traing).

I'd be curious to know what you used as the secondary ignition source. And while it's easy enough to achieve a mixture within the flammability limits inside the can at normal temperatures, what would be the primary ignition source to ignite the mixture in the can in the first place? Have you ever come across any real-life cases of this happening?

So when I said that it doesn't happen you are correct, I should clarify - I've never heard of it happening uncontrived. Even initial explosive dispersal of gasoline generally does not lead to a secondary dispersed fuel air explosion.

Notwithstanding, that doesn’t means the news is correct, nor does it mean it’s incorrect.

There are a number of logical fallacy’s in this discussion thread (I.e. some news is biased therefore all news is biased; report has inconsistencies therefore report is fake news). It’s obviously an emotive topic, particularly in this forum.

We all love drones, and whether the event was perceirved or actual, some arse-clown has gone and f#%ked it up a little bit more for all of us in the war of perception and public opinion. I don’t think anyone would disagree that drones - like trucks and cars - can be used for good and evil. We just need to be able to demonstrate that drones can do more good than evil, and we’ll win the war.

We’re not going to achieve that by arguing amongst ourselves like a pack of teenagers, so everyone just calm the f#%k down, take a few deep breaths, and go and fly your drone (safely and legally, please ).

Agreed - even if this happened exactly as alleged - I don't see any reason to think that it will kill the consumer or commercial drone industries.

 

[KDog]

I'd be curious to know what you used as the secondary ignition source. And while it's easy enough to achieve a mixture within the flammability limits inside the can at normal temperatures, what would be the primary ignition source to ignite the mixture in the can in the first place? Have you ever come across any real-life cases of this happening?

So when I said that it doesn't happen you are correct, I should clarify - I've never heard of it happening uncontrived. Even initial explosive dispersal of gasoline generally does not lead to a secondary dispersed fuel air explosion.

It doesn’t need a secondary ignition source; it’s already ignited, so unless the dispersal extinguished the ignition source, you’ll almost certainly get a secondary explosion. Explosive mixture is present in ullage by default, down to about -27 degrees Celsius or so (might need to check that figure) so any ignition source will do the job - I.e. match, spark plug etc..

I’d disagree that initial dispersion generally doesn’t result in a fuel air explosion. It will, almost without exception. What’s the basis of your position?

In terms of real life experiences, there are literally thousands of documented cases. Rarely when some dIckhead roasts himself accidentally in his back yard will the report go into the technical details of primary vs secondary explosion, but in the bigger scale - in mining (particularly coal) and petroleum and sometimes in exploration drilling, incident investigations look into the mechanisms, and almost exclusively the initial blast would have limited destructive power and had it not initiated the secondary blast, huge catastrophes would have been avoided.

In coal mines in particular, poorly maintained conveyers can cause a static discharge which causes an initial explosion, then this initial explosion lifts all the coal dust and can rip an entire mine apart. Similarly, at fuel terminals, there are many documented cases.

Just because the scale of a jerry can is smaller, doesn’t mean the principals are any different.

Anyway, I suspect we’re getting off topic a bit here...

 

[sar104]

It doesn’t need a secondary ignition source; it’s already ignited, so unless the dispersal extinguished the ignition source, you’ll almost certainly get a secondary explosion. Explosive mixture is present in ullage by default, down to about -27 degrees Celsius or so (might need to check that figure) so any ignition source will do the job - I.e. match, spark plug etc..

I’d disagree that initial dispersion generally doesn’t result in a fuel air explosion. It will, almost without exception. What’s the basis of your position?

In terms of real life experiences, there are literally thousands of documented cases. Rarely when some dIckhead roasts himself accidentally in his back yard will the report go into the technical details of primary vs secondary explosion, but in the bigger scale - in mining (particularly coal) and petroleum and sometimes in exploration drilling, incident investigations look into the mechanisms, and almost exclusively the initial blast would have limited destructive power and had it not initiated the secondary blast, huge catastrophes would have been avoided.

In coal mines in particular, poorly maintained conveyers can cause a static discharge which causes an initial explosion, then this initial explosion lifts all the coal dust and can rip an entire mine apart. Similarly, at fuel terminals, there are many documented cases.

Just because the scale of a jerry can is smaller, doesn’t mean the principals are any different.

Anyway, I suspect we’re getting off topic a bit here...

It's a bit off topic, but relevant to the incident in question and interesting in its own right. On the first point, initial, real, explosive dispersal doesn't generally ignite the dispersed cloud because the first reaction has finished and cooled by expansion well before flammability or detonability limits have been achieved in the larger cloud. Of course if there is another, persistent ignition source then that can do the job, so we may be talking about different scenarios.

The examples in mining, processing and large-scale storage, at least that I've seen, are caused by the dispersed cloud becoming detonable after a significant time and then being ignited by an existing fire. Those are quite devastating if anything close to optimum stoichiometry is achieved. The backyard accidents that I've seen reports and videos of have typically involved gas cans bursting in a fire, followed by simple rapid combustion of the contents - I've never seen anything that looked remotely like an actual fuel-air explosion. So you just use a primary igniter, but not a secondary igniter, in your demos, and that works?

 

[Drgnfli]

You should probably check the chart again. The BBC is in the "Fact reporting" vertical block and in the "Neutral - minimal partisan bias or balance of biases" horizontal block .

OK, it is a little LEFT in that chart but try this one:
Research Guides
I have found them to be 'medium' left in many articles & info...

 

[sar104]

OK, it is a little LEFT in that chart but try this one:
Research Guides
I have found them to be 'medium' left in many articles & info...

Impressive - you have now managed to misread two completely simple representations that rate the BBC as non-partisan/centrist.

I assume that in your rush to defend your assertion you didn't make it past the fist couple of paragraphs of that one, and never noticed that the chart that got you excited was titled "Ideological Placement of each Source's Audience", not an assessment of the source itself. To find that you would actually have had to read the article where, just below that, you would have found the section "Placing Some News Sources on the Political Spectrum", in which it states:

In the Middle
Common Ground: Centrist News Sources

BBC News
The British Broadcasting Corporation News division produces television, radio, and internet news. The BBC is a public service broadcaster established by a Royal Charter of the United Kingdom.
The BBC News has a bias rating of "Center" from AllSides. According to Pew, BBC is more trusted than distrusted among the different ideological groups except for consistently conservative individuals who view BBC as about equally trusted as distrusted.​

And back to the first chart you cited - the sources are organized in blocks in order that they are not all on top of each other. It's in the center block, not left at all.

Feel free to keep searching though - I'm sure that you will be able to find a chart somewhere to support your argument. If not, you can just make one up.

 

[JDawg]

OK, it is a little LEFT in that chart but try this one:
Research Guides
I have found them to be 'medium' left in many articles & info...

Oh man, quit while you are behind, and quit getting your 'facts' from Infowars and Fox.

 

[ac0j]

It's a bit off topic, but relevant to the incident in question and interesting in its own right. On the first point, initial, real, explosive dispersal doesn't generally ignite the dispersed cloud because the first reaction has finished and cooled by expansion well before flammability or detonability limits have been achieved in the larger cloud. Of course if there is another, persistent ignition source then that can do the job, so we may be talking about different scenarios.

The examples in mining, processing and large-scale storage, at least that I've seen, are caused by the dispersed cloud becoming detonable after a significant time and then being ignited by an existing fire. Those are quite devastating if anything close to optimum stoichiometry is achieved. The backyard accidents that I've seen reports and videos of have typically involved gas cans bursting in a fire, followed by simple rapid combustion of the contents - I've never seen anything that looked remotely like an actual fuel-air explosion. So you just use a primary igniter, but not a secondary igniter, in your demos, and that works?

Here is a back yard accident, the can is not really even a factor

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[sar104]

Here is a back yard accident, the can is not really even a factor

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Yes - that's a classic. The can was not involved at all there - it was just a big cloud of vapor around the stack undergoing rapid deflagration. A bit like when you light a gas grill after letting the gas run for too long.

 

[JDawg]

"Here is a back yard accident, the can is not really even a factor "

LOL. One of the comments on FB - "RIP beard"

 

[Phill]

I don't know why everyone is on about gasoline.
The original article is about gas as in a gas stove.