Playing with fire

Jaydub · Post by **Jaydub** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:33 am

Wouldn't you know Nip would work in a scene where he is playing with fire.

Of course that would make it very true to life.

The JAM · Post by **The JAM** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:06 am

Just his luck, the explosion is going to destroy all the evidence and he'll still be treated like a criminal.

Namrepus221 · Post by **Namrepus221** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:24 pm

ok...

Instead of a gas attack from the terrorists...Nip is just gonna blow the place sky high.

hmm....

Calbeck · Post by **Calbeck** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:49 pm

And now, it's time to find out how to make a jackal go WOOF!

Sciguy · Post by **Sciguy** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:17 pm

Burn baby Burn. Disco infirno.

You know, This would be a good way for a hero to go if you're into heros who die and still win.

Makes me want to watch Cowboy Beebop. Spike just kicks ass.

Kerry Skydancer · Post by **Kerry Skydancer** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:57 pm

Heck, that was the only thing I liked about Armageddon. It's extremely rare that Hollyweird even acknowledges that there are some things worth dying for.

The rest of the movie had me screaming at the TV every few minutes. Absolutely the worst adherence to RL physics and science I'd ever seen in a flick. And then, of course, Hollywood had to come out with The Core a little bit later and manage to do even worse...

Calbeck · Post by **Calbeck** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:08 pm

Yeah, but Armageddon had some delicious cinematography. I liked it far better than Deep Impact, a movie which I have not (unfortunately) managed to forget. I'd watch Armageddon again, but of course I'd never take it seriously as science.

Here's what I REALLY hate about the entire lot of "asteroid defense" movies, though: ALL of them have impressed upon the public the stupid idea that we can spot an asteroid at the last minute and, somehow, formulate some moronic point-blank defense that saves part or even most of humanity.

If there's any REALLY good reason for expanding into space, it's to start mining and debris clearance operations on grounds of public safety. We spent trillions on the Cold War and the notion of preparing for nuclear war, so why the hell not spend a few extra billions on the notion of preventing a rock that can't say "detente" from smacking the planet?

Kerry Skydancer · Post by **Kerry Skydancer** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:38 pm

Dunno, Calbeck. We oldsters all remember what happened after Shoemaker-Levy 9 smacked two dozen holes into Jupiter, right?

For the kids - Congress saw the pics on the news (big disasters always get press, even disasters on another planet) and panicked. NASA was called in, asked 'could this happen to us?' were told 'YES, we've been TELLING you this for YEARS!' and was actually given a chunk of money to start a sky search.

A year later, Congress took it out of the budget as an unnecessary expense.

Fortunately, NASA (wise in the ways of Congress) had front-loaded it to the extent that they could run the operation on a shoestring after the setup, so it's still looking.

The United States Congress. All the foresight of a ferret on crack.

TGIF · Post by **TGIF** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:11 am

Kerry Skydancer wrote:The United States Congress. All the foresight of a ferret on crack.

I'm afraid in this case that the ferret would still do better.

TGIF

Maxgoof · Post by **Maxgoof** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:21 pm

Kerry Skydancer wrote:Heck, that was the only thing I liked about Armageddon. It's extremely rare that Hollyweird even acknowledges that there are some things worth dying for.

The rest of the movie had me screaming at the TV every few minutes. Absolutely the worst adherence to RL physics and science I'd ever seen in a flick. And then, of course, Hollywood had to come out with The Core a little bit later and manage to do even worse...

And then "The Day After Tomorrow", making a mockery of environmentalists everywhere, while attempting to support them.

EdBecerra · Post by **EdBecerra** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:01 pm

maxgoof wrote:
Kerry Skydancer wrote:Heck, that was the only thing I liked about Armageddon. It's extremely rare that Hollyweird even acknowledges that there are some things worth dying for.

The rest of the movie had me screaming at the TV every few minutes. Absolutely the worst adherence to RL physics and science I'd ever seen in a flick. And then, of course, Hollywood had to come out with The Core a little bit later and manage to do even worse...
And then "The Day After Tomorrow", making a mockery of environmentalists everywhere, while attempting to support them.

Indeed... the entire movie gave the impression "This is our fault, we should feel SOOO guilty, and let Mother Nature bitchslap us around for a few centuries to atone."

Y'notice that while the northern half of the Northern Hemisphere got its ass kicked by the wild weather, you never see ANYTHING nasty happening to any Third World nation.

It's as if they're trying to teach kids that we have to live naked in the jungle to be in "harmony" with nature...

Feh.

RDB · Post by **RDB** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:29 pm

Kerry Skydancer wrote:The rest of [Armageddon] had me screaming at the TV every few minutes. Absolutely the worst adherence to RL physics and science I'd ever seen in a flick.

Speaking of which, just how realistic is it that a puddle of (paint thinner?) set on fire is enough to heat an acetylene tank to the point of exploding in less than a minute?

http://www.thefabricator.com/OxyfuelCut ... fm?ID=1156
http://manybooks.net/support/l/leedsbut ... 0.exp.html

The latter implies that the fire would need to get the internal temperature/pressure above 780 C/30 psi...

Ron

MikeVanPelt · Post by **MikeVanPelt** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:53 am

RDB wrote: Speaking of which, just how realistic is it that a puddle of (paint thinner?) set on fire is enough to heat an acetylene tank to the point of exploding in less than a minute?

Trying to imagine the chain of events...

Fire burns through rubber hoses carrying O2 and C2H2 to the torch. Hoses whip around like crazy with oxyacetylene flames shooting out of them, as they burn up to the regulators.

Now, at this point, is it going to burn the regulator off the top of the O2 tank? Because if so, that could be quite bad, even if the acetylene tank didn't go. (Isaac Asimov wrote several murder mysteries where the perp did the deed by rigging an oxygen tank to blow the regulator off. Think "released balloon", on the balloon is thick steel...)

(Yeah, I know, Mythbusters dealt with this...)