I just read the thread above on static electricity problems associated
with using jerry cans of various compositions. I have a couple
questions and comments.

First of all, does anyone really know of an accident anywhere? I
mean, is there anyone out there in this ng who has ever seen a fire
start from a static discharge associated with one of these cans? I
have heard about this for years, but Wal-Mart and hundreds of other
retail outlets sell gas cans that are made of nonconductive plastic.
The red plastic ones I have are not conductive. And...it's obvious if
you have a conductive can, you can get rid of the electrons real easy
by pre-grounding. I'd bet that my red-plastic gas cans are completely
nonconductive however.

So, I'm thinking that even if you have a big electron buildup on the
plastic can, it can't flow fast enough to make a spark anyway.

I think the older metal cans were more dangerous because they did
conduct and if they were isolated and built up electrons, those
electrons could move fast through the metal spout and make a spark.
Even then, however, I have never heard of a real accident from filling
a tank anywhere. Yes, I've heard rumors of accidents, but does anyone
out there in RAH- land know of a specific accident happening that was
caused by using any fueling can, ever?

About a year ago, I saw a video clip on TV where this guy went to
fill a can in the back of his pick-em-up truck and some gas fumes sort
of exploded, burning him quite badly. But, this is the only accident
I've ever heard of or seen first hand and it was something a little
different since it was a spark from a gas pump nozzle somehow.

Also, it's a matter of the chemical kinetics. Since gasoline is so
volatile the hydrocarbon/oxygen ratio in the air above the liquid
gasoline in one of those cans is too high for combustion. You can
throw a cigarette in a can of gas like that and it will most likely go
out. The kinetics for burning are just not right because of the
overload of hydrocarbons. Of course at the mouth of a gas can things
are different. You can have perfect kinetics for burning since the
hydrocarbons are escaping into the atmosphere there is plenty of
oxygen.

I know that kerosene for instance is much more dangerous because it's
more oily and less volatile. So, you have perfect kinetics for
burning in the air above the liquid in a gas can. We don't put jet
fuel in gas cans for that reason.

Anyway, is there anyone out there who knows of a real accident using
either metal or plastic cans?

Just curious

----Whaa Keen

"The only difference between a nobleman and a commoner is that the
nobleman thinks one thing and says another."
--Zorro

"Juaquin Murrieta" > wrote in message
...
>
> Anyway, is there anyone out there who knows of a real accident using
> either metal or plastic cans?
>
> Just curious

Well, it is one way to know for sure if you are going to heaven. :-)

Yes, I would like to know if there have been any accidents attributed to the
composition of the can, too.

It is very well documented that there is a hazard with metal gas cans being
filled while in the back of pickup beds with plastic bed liners. Here is a
link to an article that also documents the problem occurring with plastic
portable fuel containers. http://www.pei.org/FRD/gascan.htm

Chevron has a very detailed news release located at
http://bioengr.ag.utk.edu/extension/extprog/safety/Fire/fire-gascan.html

Here are a few other links

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hid2.html

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/AE/AE17400.pdf

Do a search on google.com and you will get hundreds of sites.

Jeff


"Juaquin Murrieta" > wrote in message
...
>
> I just read the thread above on static electricity problems associated
> with using jerry cans of various compositions. I have a couple
> questions and comments.
>
> First of all, does anyone really know of an accident anywhere? I
> mean, is there anyone out there in this ng who has ever seen a fire
> start from a static discharge associated with one of these cans? I
> have heard about this for years, but Wal-Mart and hundreds of other
> retail outlets sell gas cans that are made of nonconductive plastic.
> The red plastic ones I have are not conductive. And...it's obvious if
> you have a conductive can, you can get rid of the electrons real easy
> by pre-grounding. I'd bet that my red-plastic gas cans are completely
> nonconductive however.
>
> So, I'm thinking that even if you have a big electron buildup on the
> plastic can, it can't flow fast enough to make a spark anyway.
>
> I think the older metal cans were more dangerous because they did
> conduct and if they were isolated and built up electrons, those
> electrons could move fast through the metal spout and make a spark.
> Even then, however, I have never heard of a real accident from filling
> a tank anywhere. Yes, I've heard rumors of accidents, but does anyone
> out there in RAH- land know of a specific accident happening that was
> caused by using any fueling can, ever?
>
> About a year ago, I saw a video clip on TV where this guy went to
> fill a can in the back of his pick-em-up truck and some gas fumes sort
> of exploded, burning him quite badly. But, this is the only accident
> I've ever heard of or seen first hand and it was something a little
> different since it was a spark from a gas pump nozzle somehow.
>
> Also, it's a matter of the chemical kinetics. Since gasoline is so
> volatile the hydrocarbon/oxygen ratio in the air above the liquid
> gasoline in one of those cans is too high for combustion. You can
> throw a cigarette in a can of gas like that and it will most likely go
> out. The kinetics for burning are just not right because of the
> overload of hydrocarbons. Of course at the mouth of a gas can things
> are different. You can have perfect kinetics for burning since the
> hydrocarbons are escaping into the atmosphere there is plenty of
> oxygen.
>
> I know that kerosene for instance is much more dangerous because it's
> more oily and less volatile. So, you have perfect kinetics for
> burning in the air above the liquid in a gas can. We don't put jet
> fuel in gas cans for that reason.
>
> Anyway, is there anyone out there who knows of a real accident using
> either metal or plastic cans?
>
> Just curious
>
> ----Whaa Keen
>
> "The only difference between a nobleman and a commoner is that the
> nobleman thinks one thing and says another."
> --Zorro
>

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:58:42 GMT, (Juaquin Murrieta)
wrote:

>
>I just read the thread above on static electricity problems associated
>with using jerry cans of various compositions. I have a couple
>questions and comments.
>
>First of all, does anyone really know of an accident anywhere? I
>mean, is there anyone out there in this ng who has ever seen a fire
>start from a static discharge associated with one of these cans?

One incident mentioned at:

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/archive/march/Static1.htm

....though I didn't find it on the NTSB accident database.

Ron Wanttaja

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:58:42 GMT,
(Juaquin Murrieta) wrote:

>
>I just read the thread above on static electricity problems associated
>with using jerry cans of various compositions. I have a couple
>questions and comments.
>
>First of all, does anyone really know of an accident anywhere? I
>mean, is there anyone out there in this ng who has ever seen a fire
>start from a static discharge associated with one of these cans? I
>have heard about this for years, but Wal-Mart and hundreds of other
>retail outlets sell gas cans that are made of nonconductive plastic.
>The red plastic ones I have are not conductive. And...it's obvious if
>you have a conductive can, you can get rid of the electrons real easy
>by pre-grounding. I'd bet that my red-plastic gas cans are completely
>nonconductive however.
>

My bet is that the red cans are CONDUCTIVE.... you want to
be able to bleed off the static charge. If the can was
"non-conductive" the charge would tend to build up. Case in
point.... on a really dry day you can build up a static
spark from merely sliding off of your car seat. On a humid
or foggy day it isn't going to happen.

Also, keep in mind that you "ground" the gas hose to the
airplane before filling your tanks. That is so the hose and
your airplane are at the same potential. No sparks that
way.


>So, I'm thinking that even if you have a big electron buildup on the
>plastic can, it can't flow fast enough to make a spark anyway.
>
>I think the older metal cans were more dangerous because they did
>conduct and if they were isolated and built up electrons, those
>electrons could move fast through the metal spout and make a spark.
>Even then, however, I have never heard of a real accident from filling
>a tank anywhere. Yes, I've heard rumors of accidents, but does anyone
>out there in RAH- land know of a specific accident happening that was
>caused by using any fueling can, ever?
>
> About a year ago, I saw a video clip on TV where this guy went to
>fill a can in the back of his pick-em-up truck and some gas fumes sort
>of exploded, burning him quite badly. But, this is the only accident
>I've ever heard of or seen first hand and it was something a little
>different since it was a spark from a gas pump nozzle somehow.
>
>Also, it's a matter of the chemical kinetics. Since gasoline is so
>volatile the hydrocarbon/oxygen ratio in the air above the liquid
>gasoline in one of those cans is too high for combustion. You can
>throw a cigarette in a can of gas like that and it will most likely go
>out. The kinetics for burning are just not right because of the
>overload of hydrocarbons. Of course at the mouth of a gas can things
>are different. You can have perfect kinetics for burning since the
>hydrocarbons are escaping into the atmosphere there is plenty of
>oxygen.
>
>I know that kerosene for instance is much more dangerous because it's
>more oily and less volatile. So, you have perfect kinetics for
>burning in the air above the liquid in a gas can. We don't put jet
>fuel in gas cans for that reason.
>

What did you just say?? Kerosene is less volatile so is
more dangerous?? Tell you what... try this experiment for
me. Take a small dish of kerosene, about a cup, no more and
hold a lighted match above it. Vary the distance of the
match from 10" to 1/2" above the kerosene. Ok, did it
catch on fire??

Now, take another small dish with the same amount of auto
gasoline (oh, to add another variable, try it later with
Aviation Gas). Same dish, same match and Same distances
from the fuel. Did it catch on fire??

I STRONGLY suggest you use a very long match or otherwise
keep your hands at least two feet from the dishes. Also,
any injurys resulting from this experiment are solely your
responsibility.


>Anyway, is there anyone out there who knows of a real accident using
>either metal or plastic cans?
>
>Just curious
>
> ----Whaa Keen
>
>"The only difference between a nobleman and a commoner is that the
>nobleman thinks one thing and says another."
>--Zorro

>
>What did you just say?? Kerosene is less volatile so is
>more dangerous?? Tell you what... try this experiment for
>me. Take a small dish of kerosene, about a cup, no more and
>hold a lighted match above it. Vary the distance of the
>match from 10" to 1/2" above the kerosene. Ok, did it
>catch on fire??
>
>Now, take another small dish with the same amount of auto
>gasoline (oh, to add another variable, try it later with
>Aviation Gas). Same dish, same match and Same distances
>from the fuel. Did it catch on fire??
>
>I STRONGLY suggest you use a very long match or otherwise
>keep your hands at least two feet from the dishes. Also,
>any injurys resulting from this experiment are solely your
>responsibility.
>
>

As usual, words just don't do it and my explanation above is
inadequate. Yes, Kerosene is less volatile. Because of that, there
are fewer hydrocarbon molecules leaving the surface and saturating
the air above the liquid. It turns out that this lower
hydrocarbon/oxygen ratio is combustible where that ratio in a gas can
holding gasoline is not combustible. With gasoline, it's more
volatile and therefore there are too many hydrocarbon molecules in the
air above the liquid. The kinetics aren't right for combustion.

Your example of putting some of these liquids on a plate is not the
same. That's not a closed container. It's exposed to the air and the
concentration of hydrocarbons just above the liquid will be high but
decrease as you move away and above the dish. You'll find a point
where the kinetics are perfect for combustion. In a "CLOSED"
container this is not the case. The hydrocarbon concentration in the
air above the liquid is fairly constant throughout the inside of the
container because it's trapped. With Kerosene and its lower
volatility than gasoline, this molecular ratio to oxygen is just
perfect for combustion. In a container partially filled with
gasoline, the air above the liquid is too saturated with gasoline
molecules for combustion to occur.

This is why airliners almost always burn upon crashing. For years
there has been a ton of research to build tanks that have honey
combing in them or other materials to impede the combustibility of the
air above the liquid fuel. All research to date has done very little
to reduce the probability of burning upon impact for kerosene filled
tanks

(jet fuel is essentially just kerosene).

Now, back to my question. I am not interested in web sites that talk
about filling gas cans in the back of pick ups. I am interested in
hearing from anyone who has actually witnessed or knows of someone who
has been involved in a combustion occurring from using a plastic or
metal gas can. My point is that I think the regulations on all of
this are probably just bull ****. I think there have been so few, if
any, real accidents involving this situation that the safety
regulations are overdone to the point of absurdity. Industry itself
drives a lot of this so they can sell newer containers. Look at the
propane industry over the last few years. Those *******s are always
changing something and getting a law passed so they can force us to
have to discard our older containers and buy new ones. I'm thinking
that this gas can stuff is about the same. The probability of a spark
causing ignition during fueling from one of these containers might be
more remote than being struck by lightening.

Thanks.
--Juaquin

I have had a standing challenge for anyone to affirm that they,
themself, personally witnessed a fire start by a static spark from
refueling by hand from a plastic can, metal, glass, anything... To date
everyone keeps posting what the govt, or Chevron said, or his buddy who
knew a guy, yadda, yadda,,, The actual incident rate of fire sparked by
pouring gas from a 5 gallon plastic can has to be about as close to
zero and you can get, given the tens of millions of lawn mowers,
tractors, snowmobiles, motorcycles, etc., that are refueled by hand
from plastic cans every single day in the this country...

Just use common sense... Set the can on the wing and while holding it
reach down and unlatch the gas cap... Your body is the grounding
resistor that makes all the static charges equalize...

denny

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:58:42 GMT, (Juaquin
Murrieta) wrote:

>
>I just read the thread above on static electricity problems associated
>with using jerry cans of various compositions. I have a couple
>questions and comments.
>
>First of all, does anyone really know of an accident anywhere? I

I know of several, but they were "way back when" and from metal cans
into metal funnels, with metal screens, into metal tractors. As I
said it was a long time ago as I haven't farmed since 1961

>mean, is there anyone out there in this ng who has ever seen a fire
>start from a static discharge associated with one of these cans? I
>have heard about this for years, but Wal-Mart and hundreds of other
>retail outlets sell gas cans that are made of nonconductive plastic.
>The red plastic ones I have are not conductive. And...it's obvious if
>you have a conductive can, you can get rid of the electrons real easy
>by pre-grounding. I'd bet that my red-plastic gas cans are completely
>nonconductive however.

I think we should be careful using the word "ground" in this sense.

*Normally* there is only one really important electrical connection.
That is the one between the fuel source and the receptacle. IE the can
and the tank.

We normally refer to this as grounding and although technically not
correct it's as good as any in common usage.

The can, the operator, and the tank need to be electrically connected
together. Normally the true "ground" to earth ground doesn't mean
squat if the source, be it tank, can, or underground storage, is
electrically connected to the tank it is fueling.

The common point *earth* ground is used because it is handy AND it's a
back up means of protection in case the other means of electrical
connection are broken (as in opened)

>
>So, I'm thinking that even if you have a big electron buildup on the
>plastic can, it can't flow fast enough to make a spark anyway.

There are some dynamics involved. Yes, gas can flow fast enough out
of a plastic or *metal* container (gas can) to create a spark. It's
surprising how little flow is required if you are really trying to
create one.

>
>I think the older metal cans were more dangerous because they did
>conduct and if they were isolated and built up electrons, those
>electrons could move fast through the metal spout and make a spark.
>Even then, however, I have never heard of a real accident from filling
>a tank anywhere. Yes, I've heard rumors of accidents, but does anyone
>out there in RAH- land know of a specific accident happening that was
>caused by using any fueling can, ever?

Yes, but as I said they were "way back when". No one was seriously
injured except in one case and that was not a fueling accident. It
depends on the concentration of the fumes in the tank and the noise
can be fairly loud, but the two I heard were mover a wwhistling and
very loud, "Fwapppp!".

The main danger is not *normally* the explosion per se, but rather
taking a bath in burning gas which can ruin your whole day.
>
> About a year ago, I saw a video clip on TV where this guy went to
>fill a can in the back of his pick-em-up truck and some gas fumes sort
>of exploded, burning him quite badly. But, this is the only accident
>I've ever heard of or seen first hand and it was something a little
>different since it was a spark from a gas pump nozzle somehow.
>
"Sort of exploded?" Is that something like "just a little bit
pregnant. Not enough to notice, but just enough to make you nervous?"

The gas pump is no different than the can with the exception of the
volume and velocity of the gas coming out. That means it can develop a
charge faster than pouring. In this case the pump was probably
grounded to earth and the truck was not. Had the nozzle been
electrically connected to the truck or can no spark would have
occurred.

>Also, it's a matter of the chemical kinetics. Since gasoline is so
>volatile the hydrocarbon/oxygen ratio in the air above the liquid
>gasoline in one of those cans is too high for combustion. You can
>throw a cigarette in a can of gas like that and it will most likely go
>out.

Well, kinda, sorta, almost, but not quite. The reason is the
interface between the air and the gas fumes. There are two limits.
The Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) and the upper explosive limit (UEL).
You rarely see UEL used, but LEL is quite common. Some where your
cigarette is going to pass between those limits on the way in.

As an extreme, the LEL for Hydrogen of 4% by volume and I believe the
UEL is 96%. This is about as wide as you are going to get. Gas OTOH
has a much narrower range between the LEL and UEL. I've forgotten the
specific values but they are much narrower than Hydrogen. Still, you
can get a lot of bang out of the proper mixture.

> The kinetics for burning are just not right because of the
>overload of hydrocarbons. Of course at the mouth of a gas can things
>are different. You can have perfect kinetics for burning since the
>hydrocarbons are escaping into the atmosphere there is plenty of
>oxygen.

This causes a dynamic reaction that creates a "Whooup" (sometimes
accompanied by a bang) sound with the air trying to get in and the gas
trying to get out.

>
>I know that kerosene for instance is much more dangerous because it's
>more oily and less volatile. So, you have perfect kinetics for
>burning in the air above the liquid in a gas can. We don't put jet
>fuel in gas cans for that reason.

I have put a lit "kitchen style" match directly into an open pail of
Kerosene without even a flash. When very close to the surface the
match did get a bit brighter, but there was no flash and the kerosene
put the match out.

I've seen the demonstration done with either the old JP-4 or Jet-A. I
Jet fuel has some additives like Benzene which are much more
flammable.
>
>Anyway, is there anyone out there who knows of a real accident using
>either metal or plastic cans?

Been there and seen it, but not at an airplane.
There is an ever present danger of fuel ignition when ever fueling.
Proper fueling techniques should eliminate them.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Just curious
>
> ----Whaa Keen
>
>"The only difference between a nobleman and a commoner is that the
>nobleman thinks one thing and says another."
>--Zorro

Jeff wrote:

> It is very well documented that there ilitigation with metal gas cans
> being
> filled while in the back of pickup beds with plastic bed liners. Here is
> a link to an article that also documents the problem occurring with
> plastic
> portable fuel containers. http://www.pei.org/FRD/gascan.htm
>
> Chevron has a very detailed news release located at
> http://bioengr.ag.utk.edu/extension/extprog/safety/Fire/fire-gascan.html
>
> Here are a few other links
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hid2.html
>
> http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/AE/AE17400.pdf
>
> Do a search on google.com and you will get hundreds of sites.
>
> Jeff
>


Yes, they'd also like to make you think that cell phones will cause and
explosion while filling your tank. I'm thinking since a cell phone is a
duplex transceiver there is no antenna switching, no relays to arc so what
would cause an explosion? A watt or so of rf, not in my life!
These things come from our societies fascination with litigation! No one
wants to take responsibilities for their own screw ups! Most of the fueling
accidents I'd be willing to bet are from people arcing from themselves to
the car in dry cold conditions.
So use common sense, ground yourself to the fueling vessel and fueled vessel
then open the containers and do it!
John
off the soap box now!

"UltraJohn" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> Yes, they'd also like to make you think that cell phones will cause and
> explosion while filling your tank. I'm thinking since a cell phone is a
> duplex transceiver there is no antenna switching, no relays to arc so what
> would cause an explosion?

The Mythbusters actually tried to get a cell phone to cause an explosion,
even putting it inside a container of fuel and air the same ratio as in an
engine. No dice. In fact, there has never been an explosion that can be
verified as having been caused by a cell phone.

Yet you still see cell phone warnings at some fuel pumps, the vendors say
because they are concerned about liability. But if someone beats you up
because they believe those warnings, can you sue the gas company?

"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
>
> What did you just say?? Kerosene is less volatile so is
> more dangerous?? Tell you what... try this experiment for
> me. Take a small dish of kerosene, about a cup, no more and
> hold a lighted match above it. Vary the distance of the
> match from 10" to 1/2" above the kerosene. Ok, did it
> catch on fire??
>
> Now, take another small dish with the same amount of auto
> gasoline (oh, to add another variable, try it later with
> Aviation Gas). Same dish, same match and Same distances
> from the fuel. Did it catch on fire??
>

Ah. But now try it with a lighted cigarette.

http://intuitor.com/moviephysics/index.html and scroll down to the section
"Cigarettes."

UltraJohn wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
>
>>It is very well documented that there ilitigation with metal gas cans
>>being
>>filled while in the back of pickup beds with plastic bed liners. Here is
>>a link to an article that also documents the problem occurring with
>>plastic
>>portable fuel containers. http://www.pei.org/FRD/gascan.htm
>>
>>Chevron has a very detailed news release located at
>>http://bioengr.ag.utk.edu/extension/extprog/safety/Fire/fire-gascan.html
>>
>>Here are a few other links
>>
>>http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hid2.html
>>
>>http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/AE/AE17400.pdf
>>
>>Do a search on google.com and you will get hundreds of sites.
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>
>
>
> Yes, they'd also like to make you think that cell phones will cause and
> explosion while filling your tank. I'm thinking since a cell phone is a
> duplex transceiver there is no antenna switching, no relays to arc so what
> would cause an explosion? A watt or so of rf, not in my life!
> These things come from our societies fascination with litigation! No one
> wants to take responsibilities for their own screw ups! Most of the fueling
> accidents I'd be willing to bet are from people arcing from themselves to
> the car in dry cold conditions.
> So use common sense, ground yourself to the fueling vessel and fueled vessel
> then open the containers and do it!
> John
> off the soap box now!
>
There was a Myth Busters show about this. It turns out the cell phone
users kept making and breaking physical contact with the vehicle. Same
with people who sat in the car after starting fueling. I think the moral
was to either limit the number of contacts in the fueling area or stay
attached to the vehicle or nozzle.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

A former flight student of ours had a fuel fire while refuelling
an airplane with plastic cans in Alaska. Cold air equals dry air, which
is worse for static buildup, and cold air reduces the evaporation rate
of the fuel, making a more combustible mixture around the filler neck
and inside the can as air replaces the fuel. It's not quite the same as
fuelling your lawn mower on a warm summer afternoon with a quart or two
of fuel. Longer pours can cause a higher static buildup.
Those red plastic jerry cans are apparently made of a
static-resistant material. I sure wouldn't want to carry fuel in other
non-fuel types of plastic containers.


Dan (from Alberta, where winter is sometimes seven months
long)

snipped>
> This is why airliners almost always burn upon crashing. For years
> there has been a ton of research to build tanks that have honey
> combing in them or other materials to impede the combustibility of the
> air above the liquid fuel. All research to date has done very little
> to reduce the probability of burning upon impact for kerosene filled
> tanks
>
> (jet fuel is essentially just kerosene).
>
> Now, back to my question. I am not interested in web sites that talk
> about filling gas cans in the back of pick ups. I am interested in
> hearing from anyone who has actually witnessed or knows of someone who
> has been involved in a combustion occurring from using a plastic or
> metal gas can. My point is that I think the regulations on all of
> this are probably just bull ****. I think there have been so few, if
> any, real accidents involving this situation that the safety
> regulations are overdone to the point of absurdity. Industry itself
> drives a lot of this so they can sell newer containers. Look at the
> propane industry over the last few years. Those *******s are always
> changing something and getting a law passed so they can force us to
> have to discard our older containers and buy new ones. I'm thinking
> that this gas can stuff is about the same. The probability of a spark
> causing ignition during fueling from one of these containers might be
> more remote than being struck by lightening.
>
> Thanks.
> --Juaquin
>

Speaking of 'non-conductive', neither silk nor glass is conductive but
rub them together & you get a tremendous electrical charge.

I do know a guy who had a fueling fire while fueling an RV-6A from
plastic cans containing auto fuel. No explosion, but a fire in the
filler neck, a fire on the top of the plastic can, & a fire in the
spilled fuel on the ground. He actually managed to drop the filler cap
on the wing tank & put out the fires on the can & ground without any
permanent damage. He now bites the bullet & fuels with avgas from the truck.

I agree that the chance of a problem is pretty remote, but after hearing
his story (and he has no reason to lie about it) I now take my cans out
of the truck & fill 'em on the ground. :-)

Charlie

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:27:10 -0600, Charlie >
wrote:

>snipped>
>> This is why airliners almost always burn upon crashing. For years
>> there has been a ton of research to build tanks that have honey
>> combing in them or other materials to impede the combustibility of the
>> air above the liquid fuel. All research to date has done very little
>> to reduce the probability of burning upon impact for kerosene filled
>> tanks
>>
>> (jet fuel is essentially just kerosene).
>>
>> Now, back to my question. I am not interested in web sites that talk
>> about filling gas cans in the back of pick ups. I am interested in
>> hearing from anyone who has actually witnessed or knows of someone who
>> has been involved in a combustion occurring from using a plastic or
>> metal gas can. My point is that I think the regulations on all of
>> this are probably just bull ****. I think there have been so few, if
>> any, real accidents involving this situation that the safety
>> regulations are overdone to the point of absurdity. Industry itself
>> drives a lot of this so they can sell newer containers. Look at the
>> propane industry over the last few years. Those *******s are always
>> changing something and getting a law passed so they can force us to
>> have to discard our older containers and buy new ones. I'm thinking
>> that this gas can stuff is about the same. The probability of a spark
>> causing ignition during fueling from one of these containers might be
>> more remote than being struck by lightening.
>>
>> Thanks.
>> --Juaquin
>>
>
>Speaking of 'non-conductive', neither silk nor glass is conductive but
>rub them together & you get a tremendous electrical charge.
>
>I do know a guy who had a fueling fire while fueling an RV-6A from
>plastic cans containing auto fuel. No explosion, but a fire in the
>filler neck, a fire on the top of the plastic can, & a fire in the
>spilled fuel on the ground. He actually managed to drop the filler cap
>on the wing tank & put out the fires on the can & ground without any
>permanent damage. He now bites the bullet & fuels with avgas from the truck.
>
>I agree that the chance of a problem is pretty remote, but after hearing
>his story (and he has no reason to lie about it) I now take my cans out
>of the truck & fill 'em on the ground. :-)
>
>Charlie

Don't know about where you live, but in Ontario it has been illegal to
fill a portable container in or on a vehicle for several decades. Also
illegal to transport fuel in "non-approved" containers. Also illegal
to cary more than a given amount (cannot remember the figure) of
gasoline without a placard. To carry more than a certain amount you
need to have a dedicated fuel transport vehicle. You can carry 200
gallons of deisel fuel in your pickup to fuel your tractor, but you
can NOT carry 200 gallons of gasoline for the same purpose.

Also illegal to have an "automatic" nozzle with a trigger lock on a
self serve pump. The "attendant", if not "trained" must continuously
control the nozzle by hand.

Now, when it comes to enforcement, half a dozen "inspectors" will
never see half the fuel pumps in Ontario in their life-time.
I remember the fuel and weights and measures inspectors checking the
pumps etc on a regular basis back in the sixties and seventies when I
was pumping gas on a regular basis.

In fact, there has never been an explosion that can be
> verified as having been caused by a cell phone.

I can't cite any examples, but I'll give you a scenario where a cell
phone could cause an explosion: What if the phone is set to vibrate
mode and you happen to receive a call while in the presence of
explosive vapors? The vibrator is usually a small DC motor with an
eccentric weight on the shaft - and DC motors make sparks!.

On the subject of static causing explosions and fires - there is
definitely a hazard. I have seen several video clips of it happening.
Static typically involves quite high voltages but only a tiny amount of
current. Even though something like a plastic can is a poor conductor,
there is some ability to pass current (perhaps aided by contaminants on
the surface). So if you "ground" the item in question any difference in
potential between it and other "grounded" things in the vicinity will
tend to be reduced. Personally I take the advice and place gas cans on
the ground when filling them. It's also a good idea to touch some part
of the can (other than the spout) to the machine you are refuelling
before starting to pour.

David Johnson

UltraJohn wrote:
> Yes, they'd also like to make you think that cell phones will cause and
> explosion while filling your tank. I'm thinking since a cell phone is a
> duplex transceiver there is no antenna switching, no relays to arc so what
> would cause an explosion? A watt or so of rf, not in my life!

A nitpick that reinforces your point, cell phones are normally .6
watts max. Most automatically reduce power with good reception, and
furthermore digital phones have a small duty cycle (only transmit
very short bursts several times a second). I think the old car
phones used 3w.

The funny thing about some (all? my old Motorola at least) cell
phones is the moment when someone calls you and your cell phone rings
or vibrates, it also transmits peak power (an electronic "I'm right
here!!!" to the network?). So do we put polite signs next to gas
pumps for all to turn off their phones? Heh, people can't even get
that right in a movie theater, church, court, on an airline...

To paraphrase what you said, hahahaha.

Funny the thread should turn this way, and on the topic of aviation,
a few military fields I've stopped at over the last year now have a
rule against using cell phones close to the fuel truck (filled with
JP-8 nonetheless). Most squadrons and/or bases have restrictions on
hot refueling- turn off transmitters like transponders, radar
altimeters, don't make radio transmissions, but cell phones and cold
refueling is taking it a bit far.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:44:39 -0800, Richard Riley
> wrote:

>I've seen one. Had nothing to do with gasoline. Had it on a wall
>recharger overnight. In the middle of the night I heard a bang, and
>came to find (afte searching the house) that the battery had exploded
>with the force of a small firecracker.

Just curious, was this the stock battery on the cellphone or an
aftermarket one?

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:12:50 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>
>"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> What did you just say?? Kerosene is less volatile so is
>> more dangerous?? Tell you what... try this experiment for
>> me. Take a small dish of kerosene, about a cup, no more and
>> hold a lighted match above it. Vary the distance of the
>> match from 10" to 1/2" above the kerosene. Ok, did it
>> catch on fire??
>>
>> Now, take another small dish with the same amount of auto
>> gasoline (oh, to add another variable, try it later with
>> Aviation Gas). Same dish, same match and Same distances
>> from the fuel. Did it catch on fire??
>>
>
>Ah. But now try it with a lighted cigarette.
>
>http://intuitor.com/moviephysics/index.html and scroll down to the section
>"Cigarettes."
>
They apparently didn't see the Discovery Chanel show about dragons the
other night.<:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Richard Riley" > wrote

> It was semi-after market. It was labeled as an original, factory
> battery from the same company that made the phone, but I bought it
> from a cart in a mall, so it could have been counterfeit.

Or a second. Those Li Po Ion batteries are real particular about how they
get their electrons stuffed back into them. It is my understanding that
even normal ones go "bang" once in a while.
--
Jim in NC

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 22:34:53 -0800, Richard Riley
> wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 03:42:05 GMT, Nathan Young
> wrote:
>
>:On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:44:39 -0800, Richard Riley
> wrote:
>:
>:>I've seen one. Had nothing to do with gasoline. Had it on a wall
>:>recharger overnight. In the middle of the night I heard a bang, and
>:>came to find (afte searching the house) that the battery had exploded
>:>with the force of a small firecracker.
>:
>:Just curious, was this the stock battery on the cellphone or an
>:aftermarket one?
>
>It was semi-after market. It was labeled as an original, factory
>battery from the same company that made the phone, but I bought it
>from a cart in a mall, so it could have been counterfeit.

I recall reading about a rash of cell phones blowing up due to poor
quality replacement batteries. Not saying that is what happened here,
but it is a good possibility.

-Nathan

Juaquin Murrieta wrote:
> >
> >What did you just say?? Kerosene is less volatile so is
> >more dangerous?? Tell you what... try this experiment for
> >me. Take a small dish of kerosene, about a cup, no more and
> >hold a lighted match above it. Vary the distance of the
> >match from 10" to 1/2" above the kerosene. Ok, did it
> >catch on fire??
> >
> >Now, take another small dish with the same amount of auto
> >gasoline (oh, to add another variable, try it later with
> >Aviation Gas). Same dish, same match and Same distances
> >from the fuel. Did it catch on fire??
> >
> >I STRONGLY suggest you use a very long match or otherwise
> >keep your hands at least two feet from the dishes. Also,
> >any injurys resulting from this experiment are solely your
> >responsibility.
> >
> >
>
> As usual, words just don't do it and my explanation above is
> inadequate. Yes, Kerosene is less volatile. Because of that, there
> are fewer hydrocarbon molecules leaving the surface and saturating
> the air above the liquid. It turns out that this lower
> hydrocarbon/oxygen ratio is combustible where that ratio in a gas can
> holding gasoline is not combustible. With gasoline, it's more
> volatile and therefore there are too many hydrocarbon molecules in
the
> air above the liquid. The kinetics aren't right for combustion.
>

Dead wrong.

Google for 'combustible liquid' and for 'inflammible liquid'.

The lowest concentation at which a spark can ignite the vapors
above a liquid is called the lower inflammible (or explosive)
limit (LEL). The highest concentration at which a spark will
ignite the vapors above the liquid is the upper inflammible
(or explosive) limit (UEL). The temperature at which the vapors
above a liquid will reach the UEL is called the flashpoint.

A liquid with a low flashpoint, low enough that it is easily
ignited at room temperature, is an imflammible liquid. The
exact flashpoint used by formal standards organizations seems
to have varied over the years. If the flashpoint is high
enough that the liquid does not readily ignite at room
temperature the liquid is called a combustible liquid.

Kerosene is combustible. To ignite it, you need to atomize
the liquid or heat it. Holding a match to the surface will
heat it enough to ignite it. A spark inside a can of kerosine
at room temperature will not ignite it because the concentration
in the atmosphere above the kerosene is below the LEL

Gasoline is inflammible liquid. The vapor above the liquid can
be ignited by a spark or open flame. In a _vented_ can the
concentration above the liquid may rise above the UEL. If it
does, then the vapor in the can will not be ignited by a
spark. However, if the can is not vented there will be air
trapped in the can and the concentration of the vapor may
well hover between the LEL and the UEL.

In YOUR example of throwing a cigarette into a can of gasoline,
the concentration at your hand may be below the LEL and the
concentration in the can above the UEL but in between your
hand and the inside of the can the cigarette will pass
through a region that is between the two.

At room temperature you will nto ignite the vapors above kerosene
using a spark or open flame, unless they are close enough to
heat the liquid. Not so for gasoline. Usually gasoline can
be ignited by a spark or open flame. If it is in a sealed
container that is vented so the the vapors can displace the
oxygen through the process of diffusion then it won't ignite,
but you cannot throw a cigarette into a sealed container.

I do not know for sure the reason to not put jet fuel in a
gasoline can. One very good reason is that there is no reliable
way to clean all of the gasoline out of a can. Putting jet fuel
or kerosene or any combustible liquid in a can contaminated
by gasoline will contaminate the combustible liquid with the
more volotile gasoline.

--

FF

C J Campbell wrote:
> "John Ammeter" > wrote in message
> ...
>...
> > Now, take another small dish with the same amount of auto
> > gasoline (oh, to add another variable, try it later with
> > Aviation Gas). Same dish, same match and Same distances
> > from the fuel. Did it catch on fire??
> >
>
> Ah. But now try it with a lighted cigarette.
>
> http://intuitor.com/moviephysics/index.html and scroll down to the
section
> "Cigarettes."

I bet kerosene will behave the same way.

--

FF

wrote:
>
> ...
> The temperature at which the vapors
> above a liquid will reach the UEL is called the flashpoint.

Sorry. That should be "LEL"

--

FF