Jump to content

Talk:RAF Fauld explosion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Time?

[edit]

11:11 or 11:15? Both times appear in the article.2.24.61.100 (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

I'm not sure how to integrate it into the article, but the coördinates of the crater are 52.847N, 1.731W --π! 07:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information - I added it into the introduction where we're describing the location of the explosion. SteveBaker 13:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crater depth

[edit]

Ok, so the Ministry report cited in the article gave the depth of the crater as 120m, but this seems ridiculously deep. Isn't 120m deeper than the original depth below ground of the tunnels? Plus, much of the ejected material from such a deep blast would land back in the crater, refilling it. I think some of the other sources say about as much, e.g. Mercian Geologist Article. I'm not sure how a Government dossier could be dodgy, but could we introduce a bit of sanity? JBel (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 120 m depth does seem wrong. Other reliable sources mention the deep crater: one says 80 ft. another 140 ft, so the figure is probably 120 feet rather then 120 m. However, the 120 m depth is given without a supporting reference - there is no government source quoted. A blast in an underground structure is likely to be deeper than the level of the tunnels. In addition, there was so much energy released that some of the overburden was vapourised. A dam also burst leading to a further trail of destruction.Pyrotec (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article says

Extracts from the Ministry of Home Security report File RE. 5/5i region IX. contained the following facts...

which seems to suggest this report is the source of the 120m depth figure? ISTR remember reading that a substantial amount of the tunnels remained intact after the explosion because of the great thickness of rock walls separating the tunnels---which tells us something about the crater depth. I would have thought the amount of rock vapourized or decomposed would be piffling---it usually is, based on enthalpies of vapourisation or decomposition. Wasn't the dam lower down the slope, so floodwater did not enter the blast site? JBel (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The depth is still inconsistent in the article: 2nd para says 300 feet (91m), the effects section says 100 feet (30m), per the sign. Lovingboth (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

Added location map. Box width seems excessive, but not able to fix it. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Messrs vs Mr

[edit]

The abbreviation "Messrs" is used at a couple of points in the story when referring to a single gentleman. Unless there are multiple gentlemen, it should be replaced with "Mr". Keeper of Maps (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit! SteveBaker (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original research & crater size.

[edit]

User:81.174.243.48 changed the dimensions of the crater in our article with the edit summary saying "(Crater dimensions were wildly out. In the previous version the crater was 3/4 miles across & 400m deep – I've been there, and its definitely not that big!)". I reverted that change.

Wikipedia has an important editing rule: "No Original Research" - which says (in effect) that even if you went out there with a tape measure and measured the size of the crater yourself, we can't use that information. We require that all facts of this nature are backed up by "Reliable Sources" - such as contemporary newspaper reports and such.

In this particular case, you're looking at what remains of the deepest part of the crater - what's left after erosion and the activities of farmers and so forth - and you aren't seeing the more subtle depression formed by the entire crater. There are MANY accounts from the time (some very official, some eye-witness) that say that the crater was as big as the article says it is.

Hence the revert. But please be aware of our WP:NOR rule - it's very important.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a crater's diameter grows larger with age because the sides slip inwards. I know this is your article, but I think there is a real problem with credibility here, and quoting WP:NOR is unhelpful. Even the original reports are contradictory, because photos can be found of the tunnels after the explosion, yet the tunnels were in the gypsum layer only 90ft below the surface. The Mercian Geologist article says the crater is 250m across. Just draw a 3/4 mile diameter circle on a map of the area...it's ridiculously big. If we only allow contemporaneous sources, we'd have to accept that dragons, ghosts, and witches really roamed the earth. I wish the anon editor would provide his source, as I have a feeling he hasn't just measured it himself. In the meantime, how about you allow a table of competing measurements with refs, or at least say that there are differences of opinion on the dimensions, or provide a size for the crater today? JBel (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, Improvements and crater size

[edit]
  • Even the originally linked BBC article mentions 100ft depth and 250 yd width of the crater. I corrected the dimensions and added two more sources. Regrettably a lot of the debaters above mention "the sources say this and that" but don't link them.
  • Aren't those two sources identical?:

^ a b c Ministry of Home Security report File RE. 5/5i region IX.
^ File no RE5/5 region IX, now held by The National Archives as AIR 17/10

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on RAF Fauld explosion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

These were in external links - if they're references, they need to be inlined as references.

Obviously, the Daily Mail link should be avoided without general consensus (e.g. at WP:RSN) that it's such a good source it overrides two RFCs of general conensus not to use the DM - David Gerard (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Brass sparks"

[edit]

The theory that a brass chisel produced sparks is not plausible. Brass does not produce sparks when striking steel. In fact brass tools are specifically used in circumstances where sparks would be hazardous.

Indeed, with brass being so soft, the idea of a brass chisel is implausible on its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E490:7D01:310B:818E:2001:91D7 (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


[1]https://www.elgas.co.nz/resources/elgas-blog/258-an-lpg-marriage-where-sparks-never-fly-brass-cotton/ 81.106.98.229 (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:RAF_Fauld_explosion&oldid=1209098238"