Quake3World

andyman wrote:are you for real here? gasoline explodes. babies know this.

How can a liquid explode? It's not unstable, like nitro-glycerine, is it?

Doesn't gas do both, depending on the ignition temperature? Surely, if a 35 foot tall steel robot smashed into a bus, that would be enough to ignite it, yes?

:icon32:

DTS wrote:

andyman wrote:are you for real here? gasoline explodes. babies know this.

How can a liquid explode? It's not unstable, like nitro-glycerine, is it?

Because it can be kept under pressure. One could argue that cars can explode because of the gas tank but they actually have release valves to alleviate enough pressure that it couldn't explode.

cars only explode on film

in reality cars burn, they don't explode

DTS has made it clear he has never messed around with gas before.

Grudge wrote:cars only explode on film

in reality cars burn, they don't explode

That's what I said !

bitWISE wrote:

DTS wrote:How can a liquid explode? It's not unstable, like nitro-glycerine, is it?

Because it can be kept under pressure. One could argue that cars can explode because of the gas tank but they actually have release valves to alleviate enough pressure that it couldn't explode.

Then when one fills up a tank with fuel, what stops the fuel from bursting back out cause of the pressure?

Damn it nulltron stop throwing turds all over such an awesome thread.

DTS wrote:

bitWISE wrote:

DTS wrote:How can a liquid explode? It's not unstable, like nitro-glycerine, is it?

Because it can be kept under pressure. One could argue that cars can explode because of the gas tank but they actually have release valves to alleviate enough pressure that it couldn't explode.

Then when one fills up a tank with fuel, what stops the fuel from bursting back out cause of the pressure?

When things get hot they expand. Also, gasoline sitting in a container is going to fill the container with fumes. Thus, if a bunch of gasoline and gasoline fumes were trapped inside a sealed tank (or at least sealed enough that the rate of expansion is greater than the rate of release) and placed under high temperatures it would certainly explode.

Would you also argue that a can of spray paint can't explode?

PS: I'm not saying cars can explode. I agree with you on that point.

DTS this video is not real

http://www.break.com/index/biff_sings.html

bitWISE wrote:

DTS wrote:

bitWISE wrote: Because it can be kept under pressure. One could argue that cars can explode because of the gas tank but they actually have release valves to alleviate enough pressure that it couldn't explode.

Then when one fills up a tank with fuel, what stops the fuel from bursting back out cause of the pressure?

When things get hot they expand. Also, gasoline sitting in a container is going to fill the container with fumes. Thus, if a bunch of gasoline and gasoline fumes were trapped inside a sealed tank (or at least sealed enough that the rate of expansion is greater than the rate of release) and placed under high temperatures it would certainly explode.

Would you also argue that a can of spray paint can't explode?

PS: I'm not saying cars can explode. I agree with you on that point.

A can of spray paint contains compressed gas that makes it spray, that's why it could explode.

Gasoline isn't compressed gas. Any liquid placed under high enough temperatures would boil and become gas. So yes, they would expand, or explode the container. That wouldn't be an explosion of fire, though.
That would require a spark or flame. The temperature alone wouldn't ignite the liquid or gas.

So basically you've said that things can explode cause of pressure. Well of course they can, that's how a spray-can of paint works, the pressure forces the paint to explode out of the nozzle, but an explosion of pressure isn't an explosion of fire.

Also, you're agreeing with me, but you're argueing against what I said? So what point are you trying to make?

That something can explode if it's trapped in a container and the temperature increases? That's an explosion of pressure, not an explosion of fire. So it's completely beside the point.

andyman wrote:DTS this video is not real

http://www.break.com/index/biff_sings.html

I've seen that before, and it's irrelevant.

Either way you fucking nubs want to slice it, it just looks cooler when cars explode. Its a fucking action film. The cars explode to create more excitement. Who gives a fuck about realism. Realism is boring...

Idiots.

Doomer wasn't kidding.

xer0s wrote:Either way you fucking nubs want to slice it, it just looks cooler when cars explode. Its a fucking action film. The cars explode to create more excitement. Who gives a fuck about realism. Realism is boring...

Idiots.

I think it looks better when they smash, and flip over and stuff. Like armour getting beaten up in combat.

Formula 1 crashes are far more interesting to watch than exploding cars.

Some people just like explosions too much.

I saw Tekken Dark Resurrection and that had firey explosions when there were hits, and Soul Calibur has explosions of light, or flashes of light, when there are hits; I'd prefer something realistic with blood, cuts and decapitations like in Bushido Blade 2 and Tenchu.

Realism doesn't make something boring, it makes it more believable. The more knowledgeable someone is, the less gullible they are so the more realistic something has to be for it to be believable.

If something's unbelievable it's just like magic. Alright if you like magic and fairytales...

Yeah, it's an action film, not a fairytale, not a fantasy film, where cars should magically explode for visceral effect. Why not make explosions happen when someone gets punched in a boxing film? It's an action film! It's done in Tekken Dark Resurrection!

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:Doomer wasn't kidding.

I'm sorry that you feel that way.

dude, it's a live action film spawned from a cartoon. get over it.

DTS wrote:

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:Doomer wasn't kidding.

I'm sorry that you feel that way.

the majority of this place feels that way.

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:dude, it's a live action film spawned from a cartoon. get over it.

It's not this film in particular, it's Hollywood films in general. I'm just bored of seeing explosions happen at nothing in films, and other unrealistic things happening.

It's like how can one be interested in a film like Fast and Furious if one knows anything about racing?

(I haven't seen it, btw.)

How can one be excited by the minigun scene in Predator when one knows that that isn't how a minigun sounds? (The director said (in the directors commentary) they used a cannon of some kind (maybe he said an assault cannon) that goes on the back of a vehicle, or is towed, for the sound.)

How can one enjoy the bit in Die Hard where he jumps off the building and has his fall stopped by the hosepipe wrapped around him if one knows that it's been calculated by scientists that the force would rip him in half?

Needless explosions, wrong sounds, impossible stunts.
What's to enjoy in a film if those things are supposed to be the main entertainment?

As regards sound effects, I will say I don't mind the sound effects that are put in kung fu films, though I might soon tire of those. I'm all for realism, now.

alright.

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:

DTS wrote:

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:Doomer wasn't kidding.

I'm sorry that you feel that way.

the majority of this place feels that way.

You speak for the majority, now? Did you hold a secret poll? :icon34:

DTS how does one enjoy life when you cant accept something so simple as "visual effect" in a film?

Also why did you have to shit all over everyone enjoying this video?

Richard_guy wrote:DTS how does one enjoy life when you cant accept something so simple as "visual effect" in a film?

A visual effect like what? An explosion? Disney magic sparkling twinkles in the air?

Richard_guy wrote:Also why did you have to shit all over everyone enjoying this video?

I didn't. I was only replying to someone that said he liked the fire, saying I didn't like that and why.
People argued with my reason, and I argued back, to prove my point. There's nothing wrong with that.

You were right that vehicles don't blow up that easily.

But you were wrong that they don't catch fire that easily.

Either way, you've made your opinion abundantly clear already.

Yet you persist.