'Walkie-Talkie' skyscraper melts Jaguar car

'Walkie-Talkie' skyscraper melts Jaguar car(bbc.co.uk)

46 points by drucken 12 years ago | 23 comments

lutusp 12 years ago |

Title of this submission: "'Walkie-Talkie' skyscraper melts Jaguar car"

Title of the actual article: "'Walkie-Talkie' skyscraper melts Jaguar car parts"

This is like saying, "Prime minister discusses end of world rumor" and leaving off "rumor".

joosters 12 years ago | |

The original seems fair enough to me. Are you insisting that the entire car is melted into a puddle before the title can leave the 'parts' bit out?

lutusp 12 years ago | | |

That depends. What does the title say, if it's intended to convey facts?

UVB-76 12 years ago | |

It's correct to use that terminology even when an object is only partially melted, as in this case.

lutusp 12 years ago | | |

No, it is not correct. It exaggerates the facts. A journalist at a conscientious periodical wouldn't get away with it.

okwa 12 years ago | |

By adding "parts" to the submission title, at least we're still talking about a subset of the car.

Can't say the same for "rumor."

lutusp 12 years ago | | |

That depends on whether the rumor is a subset of the truth. Sometimes true, sometimes not.

Truth: Joe Smith has never beaten his wife.

Rumor: Joe Smith no longer beats his wife.

There's some truth in the rumor, but no rumor in the truth.

corysama 12 years ago |

A friend of mine worked on one of the few "laser disc holographic" arcade game machines. (ex: http://www.oobject.com/revolutionary-arcade-cabinets/1991-ho...) The "hologram" was a visual trick involving a large, curved mirror. They had to do a recall after one arcade establishment positioned the machine next to a window. The sunlight shining through the window was focused to a point on the side of the wooden cabinet causing the machine set itself on fire and burn down the arcade! A quick redesign later and they had a variation on the "holographic" effect that used a convex mirror instead of a concave one.

sbarre 12 years ago |

Didn't this happen with a Gehry building in Los Angeles too?

The concert hall was reflecting "hot spots" in various areas, etc..

http://architecture.about.com/od/ideasapproaches/ss/Controve...

fuser 12 years ago | |

This also happened with the Aria in Las Vegas, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39403349/ns/travel-news/t/death-ra...

easytiger 12 years ago |

I wonder if this is Jaguar specific or because it was an aluminium monocoque. But I would hope that Jaguar would have something to say about this. Especially since one carrying dick van dyke went up in flames. And especially since i have one and am now a tad worried.

Also < £1k for those repairs sounds very very low.

rMBP 12 years ago | |

I'm sure it's a plastic part. The exterior looks fine apart from that small panel. The car looks like an XJ which have small panels on either side of the rear window. http://carsfolia.com/photo/im/jaguar-xj/03/

easytiger 12 years ago | | |

Ahh for some reason I just assumed XK. My bad. That makes sense then.

brazzy 12 years ago | |

I am pretty sure only plastic parts were affected.

fnordfnordfnord 12 years ago | | |

Plastic is cheap. Auto parts made from plastic? Not always.

leoedin 12 years ago |

It seems that they've inadvertently built a giant parabolic reflector. Out of glass...

I wonder what the solution to this will be, and to what extent the developers will be held responsible. Is there any laws against focusing light intensely onto the street? I'd imagine that the cost of either increasing the light absorbed by each window or somehow adjusting the windows so they don't create such a uniform reflector will be rather high.

nknighthb 12 years ago | |

> Is there any laws against focusing light intensely onto the street?

Laws tend to be passed for things that people think of. This will now be something people think of, and will probably end up in building codes. In the mean time, tort/delict laws may still serve to make the developers/owners financially responsible.

mikeash 12 years ago | | |

Is that really true? Seems to me that laws tend to focus more on outcomes than mechanisms. If I invent a totally new way to kill people and then use it to murder my neighbor, I'll still be convicted of murder even though the law predates the invention of the weapon.

Similarly, this would fall under laws covering property damage. Since intent plays a big part in the law, and this was almost certainly not intentional, I'm sure they won't be found guilty of anything particularly bad, but it seems certain that they would be liable for the cost of repairs.

rexreed 12 years ago |

One potential solution might be to coat the reflective glass windows with a transparent layer that diffuses rather than reflects the light. Sounds like that would be the simplest and least costly approach.

ris 12 years ago | |

That would be frosted glass. I don't think the people who've stumped up huge amounts of money to get premium office space would be too happy to be presented with a blurry view of nothing.

mikeash 12 years ago |

How, exactly, do you design a gigantic curved reflective surface without considering things like this? I mean, the basic idea dates back to at least Ancient Greece if not further.

code_chimp 12 years ago | |

Ha, my first thought was "Archimedes" when I read this.