Fueling from Plastic Containers and Blowing yourself up?

"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/...re-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