So what happened in Britain?

[Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker]

Bad execution or bad reporting?

Peter Jennings said that part of the ceremonies would be setting the Thames on fire for a lenght of almost 5 miles.

What didn’t happen?

[OpalCat]

I think the idea was that the fireworks would reflect in the water making it appear to be on fire… possibly from some other angle than the one the cameras got, it worked…

---

–
Teeming Millions: http://fathom.org/teemingmillions
“Meat flaps, yellow!” - DrainBead, naked co-ed Twister chat
O p a l C a t
www.opalcat.com

[Crusoe]

From yesterday’s Guardian newspaper…

River of fire that fizzled out

Fireworks Thames trick failed to match expectations

Matt Wells
Monday January 3, 2000

It was billed as a “river of fire”, a piece of pyrotechnic wizardry that would create the illusion of water turning to fire in a wall of flame advancing at the speed of the earth’s rotation from Tower Bridge to Vauxhall. In the event, it just looked just like what it was - a load of rockets being let off from a dozen or so barges.
It was no less spectacular for that - the 20-minute display enthralled the million or so people jammed along the banks of the Thames, and the millions more who saw it from other vantage points around London. It was the biggest firework display in British history - and people seemed to like it.

Yesterday, the event’s organisers, Big Time, were putting a positive gloss on things with a statement from which they would not budge: “The 39 tonnes of fireworks on 16 barges produced a fantastic 20 minute display.” True enough: but what about that picture which accompanied the event’s launch showing the Thames bathed in flames …

The theory went something like this. The explosives were packed onto barges 100 and 250 metres apart. A computer on the shore would send radio cues to the two operators on each barge, who would trigger detonations at an average time interval of 0.675 seconds.

Each signal would send hundreds of fireworks into the air in a fan shape, appearing in the words of the organisers “as an advancing river of fire going upstream at 650 mph”. The river of fire effect would be achieved, it was said, “because the fireworks ascend at different angles from the barges, [so] the detonations will take place at different distances from their launch positions”.

The reality was somewhat different. If you were standing on the Embankment in front of one barge, for instance, all you would have seen were the fireworks from that one, and a few on either side.

Perhaps London’s problem was quality of location: Sydney lit up the harbour bridge; Edinburgh had the unmatched backdrop of the castle; Paris the Eiffel Tower. Nowhere in London is there one location which could serve a similar purpose.

[UncleBeer]

Oh, New Year’s celebrations. I thought this was gonna be about the London Beer Flood of 1814.
http://www.expage.com/page/beerflood

---

Easy one-step assembly instructions.
Pour Beer A in Uncle B.

[glee]

The ‘River of Fire’ was certainly a dud:

• there was a newspaper cartoon the next day set in ‘The River of Fire Company’ with the caption ‘We are working; you just can’t see it’

• my family were glued to the television waiting for it. The announcer said ‘and now for the River of Fire … any second now …errrr… well, I think the River has, in fact, actually gone off, but it was …errrrr… difficult to see against the background’.

We also had a Big Wheel, with splendid views over London. Our Prime Minister pulled a lever and … nothing happened. Apparently (known well in advance) there was a safety fault, so the Wheel couldn’t be turned on. The it was proudly announced that Concorde would fly overhead. Unfortunately there was low cloud cover, so we didn’t see anything.

Perhaps they’ll do better next time…

---

Why doesn’t the sun come out at night when the light would be more useful? (Pratchett)

[Lawrence]

Well, glee, I detect that you are unhappy about the performance of your government during the faux-Millenium. May I suggest that you elect a Conservative government next time?