Slashdot Mirror
Can Cell Phones Ignite Gasoline Vapors?
Iphtashu Fitz writes "Matthew Erhorn was filling his car with gasoline outside of New Paltz, NY when when he flipped open his cell phone to answer a call. The next thing he knew he was engulfed by a ball of fire. Luckily for Erhorn a quick thinking employee hit the emergency fire suppression system and he ended up with only minor burns. Firefighters investigating the accident concluded that the cell phone triggered the fire. Experts at The Petroluum Equipment Institute disagree however, attributing the fire to static electricity. Since 1992 the PEI has documented 158 cases of gas pump fires believed to have been started by static electricity. Apparently cell phone signals are too weak to ignite gasoline vapors, but the human body can generate enough static electiricy (60,000 volts) from simply sliding out of your car seat to do just that. Do you pay attention to all those signs at the gas pump telling you to to make sure your car, cell phone, PDA, pacemaker, etc. are all turned off before you start pumping?"
no more self-service stations for me.
The stats also show that women are "the cause" of more fires at the gas pump. Hey, don't blame me... it's just the stats, ma'am!
The Mythbusters took care of this MYTH in episode #2:
Episode 2: Cell Phone Destruction, Silicone Breasts, CD-ROM Shattering
In this episode, Jamie and Adam test several explosive theories. Can chatting on a cell phone while pumping gas cause the pump to blow up? Our mythbusters put themselves at risk so you don't have to. They also put silicone breast implants to the test at high altitude. Will they burst under pressure? Finally, we'll learn once and for all if high-speed CD-ROM players can really shatter a compact disc.
"I'm not ashamed I can't function in society like I'm supposed to." - Paul Westerberg
They're flammable and they originate mere inches from our cell phones.
"...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness..." yada yada
It is obvious that the answer is yes - even from the submission.
The warnings about not using your cellphone at a gas station is because you might drop it and the battery pack might come loose. This could spark as well and cause a not-so-static discharge.
They did a thing about this on Mythbusters on Discovery, and were unable to start a fire this way. They pretty much concluded that the static you build up from getting in or our of the car during a fill-up can cause a spark if you touch the car. And doing that near the fueling point can cause a fire. Of course, the worst thing you can do then, which most people do, is pull the hose out of the tank and proceed to spill a LOT of gas into an already burning fire. Not good, especially when you are the one removing the hose. Leave the handle and hose right where it is and get the hell out of there.
And here is a little more data on this urban myth.
WWJD?
JWRTFM!
Another proof that the modern world is a dangerous place.
It was so much safer when native americans used smoke signals to communicate.
I think it's one of those 'cell phones cause cancer, fires, infertility, ugliness' scams. People are naturally panicky, and this just cements that belief. I ride up will phone, ipod, and palm all on, and have never had, nor ever heard of such a thing being reported.
Moving on from the gas station thing, what are people's policies about cellphones (or mobiles as we call them in the UK!) and computers. I'm currently in my computer science lab and if I get my phone out of my pocket I'll be banned for the day.
Are they being overly paranoid? Can cellphones really disrupt your average PC in as much as they might ignite petrol fumes...
In Finland, the local subsidiary of Esso has forbidden tbe use of mobile phones at gas stations. That has been effect for a few years. No-one seems to follow the rule, however. :)
hapo
before pumping.. I hate being interrupted..
for your cell phone to ignite a fire from gas fumes.
But it's the pizo-electric buzzer that would cause it. Most cell phones have a pizo-electric transducer that generates the ring tones. Pizo electric devices can generate high voltage discharges, in fact they are used in ignitors for gas grills. But this would only happen if your phone rang while you were pumping gas, not if you were to make an outgoing call. The transmitter in your phone CAN'T cause a fire.
If the phone is on fire.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
The commutator sparks would be the most likely couse IMO.
while(karma less_than enough_karma){karma++}
You are not telling the story in hope that people follow the link.
Here it goes, short version: they tried, they tried hard, to make a cell phone ignite gasoline vapours... and they failed miserably. They put the stuff in a closed environment, tested many concentrations of gas vapour, nothing worked.
The only way this happens is static electicity near the fuel entrance
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
It's only petrol (Gasoline) vehicles for which this presents a serious risk. I could drop a lit match into the fuel tank of my diesel car and it would just go out.
If the oil supply is as low as some sources claim (C 30 years) get used to the idea of catalysed diesel engines and vegetable oil fuel. Safe and Green!
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
FWIW, for over a year now it has been illegal to even have your cellphone on at gas stations in Puerto Rico. If you are seen using one at a station you can be fined (forget the exact penalty, but I think its like $250). We were somewhat baffled when this law went into place, and it still seems there is little fact to support it.
certain times of year our Opel becomes a generator for static electricity.
... no not really you still carry the static charge around. as my cat found out when it wanted to greet me by rubbing her nose to my hand. Needless to say the blue spark and the zap startled the poor thing and she wouldn't go near me for a couple of days.
A little over a week ago it was. I remember it like it was a little over a week ago. every time I got out of the car the doorframe zapped me when closing it. So the natural reaction to this is to close the door by pushing the window. "smart thinking"
I have seen the warning signs in the gas stations, telling everyone to not use their phones while in the petrol station. At least here in norway, they are everywhere.
Aside from the occasional exploding batteries in Nokias, what on earth could make a spark in a regular phone? There's no high voltage circuits, no glow points.
On ther other hand, I have seen sparks while my statically charged body touched the ground (shell) of the car,
A rather trashy science program in the UK on Sky, called Braniac: Science Abuse performed an experiment where they covered a trailer in gasoline and left a mobile phone in it. They then phoned it. Nothing happened. Then they added more gas and mobile phones, and phoned them all at the same time. Still nothing happened.
Not sure it proved anything, so they blew it up with something anyway. Bit of detail here.
We Build Beautiful Websites
In the UK they cell phone transmitters on petrol stations.*
Probably started by the same people who think you can hijack a 747 with a knitting needle.
Of course, I cannot seem to find it on the online version but I believe the May 2004 issue has a one-pager about it saying that this is a myth. Someone conducted a bunch of experiments and could not come up with a scenario where a cell phone could ignite gaslone vapors...
A show on the BBC last year filled a caravan with petrol (and allowed time for it to be filled with vapours), and added about 10 mobile phones. They were all called at once and nothing happened. The only way they could get the thing to explode was by sending it a static charge.
BUSTED !
Steal This Sig
Is the problem. The cellphone thing might have just been a coincidence. See here.
I live in the Washington DC area and we've had a few of these caught on video in the last 6 months. It's really crazy to see. One minute your pumping gas, the next your catching fire. Guess you should pay attention to those warning stickers at the pumps that say turn your car off, no smoking and no cellphone usage, eh?
DMAN MAN... Didn't you see that Mythbusters episode??
The sad part is, they're ALL getting "informative" posts... hello?
Anyhow, shouldn't the original editor of seen this... we are geeks right?
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
With the move to lower carbon content in modern tires, are they less able to dissipate any static buildup?
Not to pick on women, but I did hear that it was mostly women who would cause fires by static electricity. This was because they would most often leave their purse in the car or have want to attend to the kid inside of the car once they've started pumping the gas.
The recommendation was to get out of the car and stay out until you're done filling the tank.
Another tidbit: If you're filling up a portable gas tank, it is recommended that you maintain contact between the gas nozzle and the can during the gas transfer. This, due to the gradual transfer of electrical charge as the gasoline flows from the hose into the gas can. Keeping nozzle in contact allows the charege differential to equalize continually without turning your gas can into a capacitor...zap!
Finally, we'll learn once and for all if high-speed CD-ROM players can really shatter a compact disc.
I had this actually happen to me with a CDR. I'm not sure if the disc was damaged, but it sounded like a large firecracker when it catastrophically failed. I'm sure it has happened to others here.
Haven't seen the show to see what they concluded, though.
..don't panic
Hey, it's the gasoline that causes the burns not the cellphone. :-)
We are blaming the wrong item here
Time to get rid of this way to old fashioned source of energy anyway.
if your pants fit well, it's not only because of the pants
Turn off you PACEMAKER? What?
They did manage to get a very nice explosion by leading a wire to the cravan and getting soomeone wearing nylon clothes and standing on a bucket to touch the other end, though.
PS. They really liked blowing up caravans...
The eternal blue flame shall reignite forevermore, for it even predated the flame-Gods of Bic!
me
Why do so many people think Mythbusters is the final say on science? It is a TV Show people. They tried it. It didn't happen. That doesn't mean it CAN'T happen. THey didn't scientifically prove ANYTHING, they just didn't get it to occur which showed it to be unlikely.
I do remember last week when I saw the gas station closed with the fire trucks all around it (I live in New Paltz) and was like WTF but I do believe it was the cell phone that did it.
Further coverage of this myth here.
Sono koro, bokura wa, sore ga sekai no shinjitsu da to shinjite ita.
Is that the fire chief is so adamant about blaming cell phones rather than simple static electricity.
1. Cell phones emit minimum amount of power (no microwave heating of the fumes).
2. AFAIK there's no documented cases of cell phones starting a gasoline fire.
3. Electric sparks obviously can start gasoline fumes on fire. How do you think a spark plug works?
4. We all know how easily static electricity can build up from simply walking across a rug on a dry day.
Kinda makes you wonder just how much training the fire chiefs have. I'm sure they know how to fight fires, but at least this guy seems to have limited knowledge and analytical skills about how fires start.
AccountKiller
ofcourse, there have been several exploding cell-phone incidents. Exploding cell-phones would do the trick. Or maybe it was gass fumes that caused the expldong cell-phone incendent?
assignment != equality != identity
This is why we have a brain dead government. Cheney always shuts off his pacemaker before he pumps gas (or visits an oil drill).
do you think you can use a mobile phone at refinery in close proximity to hazzardous material ?
wanna be safe or sorry ?
It seems as if, reading the report, that nearly all of these accidents resulted from someone putting the nozzle into the vehicle, then locking it on, leaving, coming back, and a static discharge igniting the vapours near the filler cap.
This is reasonable - you quite often feel small static shocks. Especially in dry hot weather, perhaps explaining a high incidence of acccidents in Texas and Nebraska, and a lot less in humid coastal ares.
And when you are filling up, you often see clouds of vapour almost pouring out of the filler. These would be very easy to ignite.
Here in the UK you can't put a pump on automatic fill. You need to hold the trigger whilst all the time. The handle is grounded, so that as soon as you touch it, the static goes, and as long as you keep on holding it, there won't be a problem, as there will be no sparks.
I have a video on my email, girl gets out of car, starts pumping her gas, gets back in her car to what looks like put some lip stuff on. she gets back out and goes to touch the handle pumping gas into her car, and whooosh! fireball.
she pulls the nozzle out of the car, and you can see fire comming from the gas tank, as well as the nozzle. she ends up dropping it and running away.
all from a little static..
With process plants if we got any level of escaped gas etc.. you initate a level 1 shutdown which kills power to everything.
Even the UPS sytem that fed an automated tranmitter, the idea being that the transmitted radio waves could induce current and possibly lead to a spark in any nearby metal.
Petrol isn't quite as flammable, but the same principle applies. If you had you phone near a suitable surface an incoming call may well have the same effect.
Personally i'm more concerned about the mobile phone masts they have installed in petrol station signs.
There are things we know we don't know and things we don't know we don't know. - Donald Rumsfeld
Anyone that had leather seats in their cars should know that the chances of building up static electricity in a car that has leather seats are practically zero.
If the oil supply is as low as some sources claim (C 30 years) get used to the idea of catalysed diesel engines and vegetable oil fuel. Safe and Green!
I have yet to see a good energy analysis of biodiesel done that accounts for all the inputs used, e.g. fertilizer, fuel used by harvesting equipment, and energy for processing and transport. It would suprise me if there was a net energy gain, actually it would probably shock me.
Thermodynamics is dismal stuff. Oil works because there are billions of watts just sitting there needing to be scooped up, more or less. Other green technolgies require a lot more processing and it becomes harder to get an energy benefit.
Biodiesel can be used to make other processes more efficient by burning waste, but it in itself does not provide a net energy gain.
..don't panic
For not having their gas pumps up to regulation and allowing so much gas to be let out that it was able to ignite? I bet lawyers are calling this guy around the clock.
Why not just have patrons rigged up to a type of grounding strap while pumping gas? This would also prevent them from re-entering their vehicle while filling the tank if the stap were short enough. From reading the reports this appears to be a bigger risk than phone usage. Besides, if somebody fails to pay for gas the strap keeps him/her from running away. :P
Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
Inconvenience to me of leaving my phone in the car when filling up: essentially zero.
Inconvenience to me of going up in a ball of flames if it turns out the stories are true: potentially life-altering.
Really, as far as risk management goes, this one seems to me to be a no-brainer. I don't need to make or take a call while filling up my car; if the call is that urgent, the car can wait, and vice-versa.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
This question was also asked by the Myth Busters on the Discovery channel, in episode 2 And their discoveries came to the same conclusions as the PEI, that cell phones do not causes explosions, but that static electricity, especially that built up by entering and exiting the vehical while pumping up, was the cause of many gas station fires.
-- Never monkey with another Monkey's monkey
On the Discovery Channel there is a show called Mythbusters (love that show) and they tried every which way to see how a cell phone can ignite gasoline vapors.
They had there "blast chamber" filled with gas vapors and oxygen. Called the cell phone and nothing happened. Infact they ended up trying just static electricity and still nothing happened.
If you're going to make something up, at least make it plausible.
One wonders if static between e.g. a skirt and nylon stockings could provide a spark sufficient for ignition. If so, it would mean fewer skirts being worn which would be a serious loss for masculinity.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
A cell phone could cause a gasoline explosion by causing a spark. There are two possible kinds of sparks that a cell phone could cause.
Pushing buttons on the phone could result in switch closures causing sparks. This isn't very likely. There isn't very much energy there and any switches are so well contained that a cell phone practically qualifies as an explosion proof device. Things like the starter motor cause way more sparks.
My class (Microwave techniques) was interested in the possibility that the RF field caused by the cell phone could induce voltages in nearby metal parts which could cause sparks. In theory, this could happen. (With high power transmitters operating at lower frequencies nearby metal objects will spark.) In practice, we were unable to create a structure that would produce a spark even if we deliberately created resonant circuits.
I think there is a reason that people are willing to believe that cell phones can cause explosions. When you drive by a site where they are blasting there is a sign asking you to turn off your radio transmitter. This is quite a different case though. In this case, the wire leading to the blasting caps acts like an antenna. A nearby radio transmitter could induce enough current to detonate the caps. The transmitters that can do this are the kind that the police used to use operating in the short wave band. They had way more power than cell phones.
Unfortunately, it's paranoia of getting sued that drives this. Companies all over the place do things they know are ridiculous to cover themselves in the event that someone does a really stupid thing that they should know better. The company I work for has just annoyed over a thousand customers by insisting that advertising "lightboxes" are moved inside as we have been informed that there is a very slight chance that if someone touches it when it is very wet that they may get a minor electrical shock.
Of course companies need to act responsibly when they determine that a danger exists. However, the issue of mobile phones at petrol pumps is similar in many ways to the infamous do not eat stuff you find all over the place. Design something idiot proof, and they'll design a better idiot. People manage to hurt and main themselves doing all kinds of really stupid things.
* Petrol = Gasoline for Americans who don't what I'm on about
Also, ladies should remove their nylon stockings or pantyhose. Be sure to remove your boots, shoes and gloves, then touch the body of the car to ground the car. You are probably safe at this point, but if you are still concerned, ask to have you and your car hosed down while you pump the gas.
Maybe the people causing the fires just have "explosive" personalities?
fact: microsoft > linux
I work for a major manufacturer of gasoline dispensers (and many run Linux).
The sigificant risk for ignition via a cell phone is by dropping the phone. The battery separates, and a spark insues.
UL defines the Class I Division 1 area (considered explosive) as approximately 3 feet high and 18 feet in diameter from the source (dispenser). At the typical operational height of a cell phone there is little risk, even if there was sufficient RF energy. However if you drop it, the vapor does hover above the ground and presents a significant risk.
The predominate risk is static electricity. In times past (the 90's and earlier), vehicles would simply vent the vapor (largely pentane and butane) from the tank's fillneck by displacement as fuel was introduced. This led to a cloud of saturated vapor in proximity to the fillneck that was too rich to ignite at the fillneck interface. Newer vehicles have onboard vapor recovery whereby a carbon canister retains the vapor as your dispense. Consequently saturated vapor no longer clouds the fillneck area and the explosive region moves closer to the fillneck where a spark from static dischage (nozzle to car/hand to nozzle/hand to car) will cause ignition.
Treat fueling like handling a chip. Discharge yourself against the pump chasis first (damn well grounded) and vechile to put everything at the same potential before dispensing.
NEVER refuel a portable gasoline container upon an insulated surface like a carpeted trunk or plastic truck bedliner. Set it on the concrete, otherwise you've crated a perfect Lynden Jar capacitor. Many fires happen in this manner.
Maybe fire prevention is tied more to getting people to pay attention to pumping the gas (and not spilling any) than phones or otherwise.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
...every time I get out of our mini-van (shut up) I get the crap shocked out of me when I touch the door. I always make sure I touch it before gassing up.
I thing the biggest danger (besides the morons who smoke at the pump) are people who fill plastic gas cans in the back of pick up trucks. I've seen a few videos of people doing that going up in flames.
One time there was a guy filling his tire right next to the pump with one of those 12v mini air compressors, while filling his gas tank. I asked him if he knew how dangerous that was. He didn't understand until I pointed out that the compressor has an electric motor in it.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
While at a pump, I took out my phone and gave a buddy a call ( had to pick up something, forgot what). ABout 1/2 way trhough the call, this gas jockey came literally *hurtling* out of the store yelling at me "turn off the phone!".
After my initial shock, I quickly told my friend I had to go and hung up. I really had no clue what he was ranting about. Then the guy pointed at the numerous signs around the station banning phones. I had to laugh at him.
I always knew this was a bunch of BS. I wish they'd get the word out to the station owners though.
Just because someone is a Fire Chief doesn't mean they know jack about how electricity really works.
I'm no EE, but I can assure you energy discharged when I slide out of my seat in the car and touch the side of the car is hundreds, perhaps thousands of times stronger than the level of electricity used at any given moment on a working cell phone (modified stun-phones notwithstanding).
Perhaps the fireman hates cell phones, and is hoping this ruse will kill cell phone use. I can see that angle.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
hiring SUNY New Paltz grads? At one point they recommended giving literacy tests as a requirement for graduation.
It has been documented that these gas fires are caused by static buildup, not cell phones. People getting in and out of their cars while the gas is pumping is the main cause. And it has also been documented that women get back into their cars much more frequently than men (presumably to get their purse or money or whatever). So if you need to get in your car while pumping gas, make sure you touch something metal on the car before touching the gas nozzle to distarge any static, and you won't have any problems.
The idea that a battery in a cell phone poses a considerable danger because of the current draw when receiving/answering/making a call seems rather odd to me. Last time that I checked most trips to gas stations are made in automobiles that have much larger, much more powerful batteries than any cell phone that I have ever seen (If you do not believe me go out to you automobile and look around, you will probably find it under the hood).
After arriving at the gas station and spending a boat load of money to fill-up your monster SUV, most people will take their lives into their own hands and start their vehicles, think of the current draw from the batteries, what if something sparks. Obviously we should all make a point of pushing our autos at least a quarter mile down the road before we take a chance of actually starting them.
A rather fun program that has been running in the uk for a while is "Brainics", attempting to bring science to the masses in a fun and usualy explosive way, setup the following.
An old caravan heavily satuarted with petrol (insuring lots of fumes were trapped) with 6 mobile phones.
These mobiles were all called at the same time and live camera inside the caravan clearly showed them ringing, flashing , vibrating.
The presenters expected a big explosion, but nothing.
To rectifiy the issue of poor TV, they had one guy, dance in a shell-suit within a plastic bowl who then touched a bare wire attached to the inside of the caravan.
Static electricity wins the day !
of course this was not really scientific but fun to watch none the less.
ERR 411[Max number of witty sigs reached]
Yes, they also said on this show that under certain circumstances, mobile phone emissions interfered with the pump computers. So basically the only reason those signs are up is so you dont get the wrong price.
You're not going to get high voltage out of a piezo transducer which is being driven from a 4.5 volt battery through a low-impedance path. And if you could get high voltage by dropping it, lots of people would have blown electronics from dropping their phones; you might notice that this does not happen.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
I'm curious how many ppl leave their car running while pumping gas. Often times I do. (no explosions so far) Is there anything specifically dangerous about this? The exhaust is safely cool by the time it reaches the tailpipe, and I can't think of anything that would build up static or spark on my truck. Although if it *were* insulated, the belts would make a great van de graffe (sp?) generator.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Or...
Faraday's law!
When the phone is transmitting it produces a magnetic field.
Which will induce a voltage across a nearby metallic loop (Spring in a ballpoint pen?).
If the loop has a gap it could spark(?) and BOOM.
This is how passive phone indicators work, use an LED across the 'gap'.
Reading below (to date), most of the 'experiments' did not have this "loop"!
The piezoelectric used as ringer is very different from the piezoelectric used to generate high voltage to ignite gas grills, and it generates those voltages only when HIT, not when excited with tiny voltages (a few volts).
Saw a programe once where they filed loads of open topped tubs and soaked the material in a caravan in petrol then filed it with mobiles and turned them on and rung them all at the same time. Nothing happend next they got a guy wearing a shell suit and standing in a plastic bucket, so he wasn't earthed and then rubbed himself to build up a static charge then he touched a cable that they had feed into the vapour ridden caravan Boom. So it's more dangerous to wear a sheel suit than use a mobile around petrol fumes, which serves thoes 80's throw backs right.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
Hmmm, smoke signals while filling up.... I feel safer already!
between fire and explosion with Gasoline... that might help delineate what we're talking about here.
For a cell-phone held in the hand, we're probably most worried about igniting gasoline vapors, leading to a subsequent fire (unless you're bathing your cell phone in liquid gasoline while talking on it. Nobody's doing that, are they? Please tell me no...)
Gasoline has a flash point about 40-50 degrees below zero, so unless you're in the arctic circle somewhere, gasoline will almost always be producing some vapors. Those vapors can be ignitable and explosive... but only within a certain range of concentration. The range is between the LEL (Lower Explosive Limit) and the UEL (Upper Explosive Limit)... This naturally varies by compound... but for standard gasoline is roughly 1.5% and 7.5%, respectively.
I've never studied it personally, but I'd think the odds of getting just the right concentration around your cell phone (multiple feet from the nozzle) such that it leads to an explosion and fire are extremely small.
Static electricity? Now that's a much more likely culprit... there have been multiple cases where that's happened.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Yes, although it is strongly advised not to use a smoke signalling device near gas pumps either...
*woof*
Same reason as on planes. Petrol pumps pre-date cellphones. Nobody could be bothered to do the EMC testing so they just banned them. Must better odds of screwing up a pump's fuel counting system than igniting the fuel.
Many petrol stations are paid to have mobile phone masts concealed in their signs.
Naturally I assume that the reason for insisting on turning off phones is so that people don't notice they have full strength signal...
Seriously though - can a mobile phone in close proximity to a mast cause any interference?
There are 40,000+ people killed on the highways every yearhttp://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/announce/press/ pressdisplay.cfm?year=2002&filename=pr55-02.ht ml and we're worried about changing the rules of pumping gas because 160 or so morons couldn't pump gas without setting themselves on fire.
If we put half this much effort into reforming the drivers license exams to include an idiot stick test, we could blow up a gas station a week and still be people ahead.
In a related story, it was found that everyone who experienced a gas station explosion were wearing clothes. Such a troubling correlation cannot be overlooked. Thus, everyone fueling their car should be naked.
Then, some smartars will realize that in all cases, a car and gasoline were involved.
Heck, we're not allowed to pump the gas (and it's still cheaper than most places nearby).
No getting out of the car, no static, no death from fireball.
And I can talk on my cell phone, too.
It would take some motor to give you ignition there; the motor in a phone vibrator is very small, fully enclosed, and the surfaces are much closer together than the "quench distance" for a gasoline flame. In order to get a flame out, the flame has to find combustible mixture faster than it loses heat via conduction or radiation. All you need to stop a flame is a metal screen, which is how the Davies lamp stops ignition of methane gas.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Do I understand correctly that this guy used one of those stupid "flip" phones that you have to open to pick up? That movement can cause a spark in certain circumstances...
Szo
Red Leader Standing By!
It was much much more likely that it was static electricity. I don't even know anything about the science behind it but I can say this - I have been zapped by jolts getting out of my car before so strong they nearly knocked me down.
On the other hand, I also know my phone emits almost 0 power (most cell phone strengh comes from the towers), and the components in it that vibrate are so small that even if they did generate a spark it would be miniscule in comparison to the sparks that can come from static, which I know of from first hand experience.
Not to mention, I trust an electrical engineer over a firefigher when it comes to electromagnetic science.
The people who perpetuate and believe this kind of pseudo-science are the same freaks who insit that cell phones cause brain cancer despite any evidence.
"Can you hear me now?" (sound of loud explosion)
Terrorist mission accomplished.
Gasoline vapors in an enclosed tank will quench a match because they are too rich to burn. This is not true of petroleum diesel; the combustible range of saturated diesel vapors overlaps with our comfort zone. Biodiesel is another matter; it has a flash point greater than 300 degrees F, and if your car's fuel tank gets that hot you have bigger problems.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
The pump handle is made of metalic material, don't know which, so, if you keep your hand in contact with the handle while pumping, there is no risk of static electricity build up. And since, at least here in Canada, there is no way to pump gasoline without keeping your hand on the handle there is almost no risk for such accidents. Unless, you are doing intentionnally otherwise.
Achille Talon
Hop!
Of course, it's up to you whether you choose to accept this study.
Before i start pumping? Hey, man, i'm from New Jersey! We hire people to do that sort of thing around here!
(yes, i'm kidding. i think the NJ ban on pumping your own gas is dumb, and i've had to teach too many people how when outside the state because they've never had to before.)
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
The stats also show that women are "the cause" of more fires at the gas pump. Hey, don't blame me... it's just the stats, ma'am!
Nylon rubbing against cotton in a dry environment is a midget lightning storm, quite suitable for igniting gasoline vapor (or any other explosive vapor mixture). Women wear full-leg nylon stockings or pantyhose under loose cotton dresses MUCH more often than men. B-)
[...] Mythbusters [...] episode #2: [...]Can chatting on a cell phone while pumping gas cause the pump to blow up?
First you need an explosive mixture. With gasoline that's a rather strong concentration in air - present in a narrow region JUST OUTSIDE the gas pipe when filling without a vapor revovery system.
The you need a spark IN the explosive mixture. The spark can be VERY tiny. But it must be surrounded by the correct mixture, with a trail of the mixture back to the cloud of vapor emerging from the filler neck, through an open path large enough to propagate the flame without stealing its heat and quenching it (as passage through a metal screen with suficiently narrow holes will do).
Such sparks can occur on the breaking (and sometimes making) of any electrical contact inside the phone. But phones are pretty well sealed - especially the flexible circuit contacts under the buttons. (I'd be more concerned with the switch detecting the cover of a flip-phone.) You'd probably need a phone with a defect in the case - as well as holding the phone near the filler neck while filling for several seconds - to ignite gas fumes that way.
Another potential is arcing at the tip of the antenna (where the voltage is enormous) or the tip of a nearby object like a sheet-metal screw. (Even a near-invisible brush discharge would do the job.) Such screw tips are normally not found in the region around the filler neck where an explosive mixture is likely (both because they'd tend to savage the hands and clothing of people trying to fill the tank AND because they encourage static discharges, so the designers very carefully keep them away from the filler.) The tip of the antenna on a cellphone is normally imbedded in rubber, so no arc there unless there's a defect (like a pinhole) in the rubber. Also: Except for the old AMPS-system phones the cellphone signal is a rather broad spread-spectrum. This reduces its ability to excite a resonance in nearby metal leading to a high-voltage at the end of a conductor (like a screw point).
Note, however, that a cellphone doesn't have to be switched by the user to transmit. It sends a short burst every few minutes when it "checks in" with the local cell sites. An incoming call turns its transmitter on, increasing the opportunities to get any arcs it's producing into the explosive region as the user moves it around.
Third: If the battery came off you'll get a spark at its terminals as it disconnects. Again the caveat about getting an explosive mixture to the area of the spark with a path back to the vapor cloud.
Jamie and Adam "testing several explosive theories" on one segment of a show are hardly an exhaustive disproof. How many of the hundredish models of phone did they test? Did they arrange for a controlled concentration of gasoline at the phone, neither too rich or too lean, so it would actually ignite? Did they crack the phone cases in various ways to create an ignition path? Did they carefully make a pinhole in the rubber duckie antenna right at the end of the conductor?
Just like being hit by lightning or meteorites, gnition of vapors during fueling, from ANY source (even lit cigarettes!), is a rare event that nevertheless occurs when the conditions are JUST right. And getting the conditions right is hard - in part because automobile designers try to reduce its likelyhood. Millions of fillups occur daily, yet ignition is very rare. No offense to Jamie and Adam, but a few attempts to get it to occur while taping one segment of a show would be extremely unlikely to result in a fireball, e
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I'll report that I've seen *many* "static sparks" when getting out of my car. I've measured, then discharged accumulated potentials. I've measured the breakdown voltage of dry air. I've deliberately generated "static charges" by sliding my butt across the car seat. On a dry day, the experiment is very repeatable. All these situations relate to "static sparks"--more strictly--arc discharges of electrical potential.
I've never observed, measured, empirically repeated, or even heard reliable reports of an electric arc coming from a cell phone.
This does not prove that such things are possible.
But I'm not going to start looking for zebras.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Most likely another exploding Nokia phone causing all the fuss.
While it may be simple to say "it was the phone", its more likely that it was static electricity imho.
. ht m
For an example, check out this video, notice what she's doing just before she comes close to the metal in the nozzle (right next to the gas vapour).
http://www.everythingisnt.com/archives/00001265
Maybe it's God's (TM) retribution for the mayor of New Paltz allowing gays to marry. At least, that's what Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell would say.
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
Someone smoking while fueling? The attendant called his attention to it, and he replied, "There's no sign that says I can't". Nicotene apparantly increases knowledge of civil rights, at the expense of common sense. How 'bout fueling while the car is running? If your car stalls while shut off, everyone else's safety is secondary to again, common sense. How in our over protected, litigious world, they got away with making self-fueling gas stations I'll never know. And don't get smug, New Jersey and Oregon (I think?) natives. Your attendants make the same mistakes -- and they're slow. And here's a little fun link, nobody got hurt, suprisingly http://www.everythingisnt.com/archives/00001265.ht m
Static electricity can build up just by the fuel flowing through the hose. The signs properly say to put your fuel can on the ground when getting gas for your lawn mower. It seems likely to me that if fuel vapors were reduced by using a closed connection and your car was grounded these fires would be reduced.
I saw a programme once where they (the programme makers) filled a jam-jar with petrol then proceded to dip a lit cigarette into in the liquid.
It did not ignite either.
I found that very interested after watching years of Holywood films where the bad guys always started fires with cigar dog-ends.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Yup, and no science EVER proves anything. But knowing what we do about cell phones, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that it is the cause. The much more likely cause is static electricity, which is why you should not get in an out of your car while filling gas. Get out, ground yourself and then pump the gas.
By the same token that Mythbusters didn't "prove" anything. What makes you think the cell phone use in this case was more than a coincedence? I see people on cells while filling gas EVERYWHERE. You would think if it were a problem that we would here about more cases wouldn't you.
During a visit to a pumping station buffering natural gas from a pipeline in an old gas "mine" we had to leave all our mobile phones at the place where we put on the working suits and helmets. They told us that sparks inside the phone could ignite the gas which might possibly be in the air.
This was also where they mix the typical gas stench into the normally odourless natural gas.
At one time we were in a sealed cabin built around the point where the pipes enter the mine. The cabin wasn't all that big and was pretty cramped with all my classmates. The guide told us that should a fire break out we would have 30 seconds to get out of the cabin before the doors closed and it was filled with carbon dioxide to extinguish the fire.
The next 5 minutes while he was explaining what each machine does one could feel everybody's anxious looks at the door. I nearly freaked out when suddenly his mobile started ringing. He later explained that his phone was specially designed not to create any sparks.
from the to-stupid-for-words dept.
Perhaps the real reason is that the RF generated by the phone could interfere with the electronics that meters the fuel from the pump? I guess modern pumps are designed with EMC/EMI in mind, but perhaps older ones are susceptible.
biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
If you removed the fans from your computer...I'm pretty sure you could bathe your computer in gasoline...or have it sit in a pan of gas - don't actually try this since you'd have to get all the fans, powersupply, and monitor far enough away for it to actually work.
Repeat after me: 3 volts do not arc. 3 volts do not arc. 3 volts do not arc.
Repeat after me: My fat butt getting out of the car sparks repeatedly and could probably ignite and inferno.
Repeat after me: My fat butt getting out of the car sparks repeatedly and could probably ignite and inferno.
Repeat after me: My fat butt getting out of the car sparks repeatedly and could probably ignite and inferno.
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
First, do you really want some guy arguing with his girlfriend while he's trying to fill his gas tank to the absolute max? He won't even notice when he's dumping it all over the ground.
Second, with the number of instances of cell phones exploding, do you really think having a cell phone in hand while pumping gas is a good thing?
My father has some really interesting fire stories, he hauled fuel for one of the large oil companies for 15 years, and spent another 15 or so in management.
New, non-regulation, lights installed at a gas station ignited the fumes at the top of the truck while he was unloading. (Top load truck, several vents across the top...)
In another instance of dropping fuel the fumes travelled downhill across the ground and build up around the base of a lightpost, The plate was off at the bottom of the post and fumes were able to make it inside, the fuel air mixture in the post was perfect for ignition, it ignited and flames shot from the top of the post at another opening. (Luckily the fire did not follow the fumes through the bottom...).
He's seen enough stuff like this (many more, but less interesting stories) he wouldn't do anything to increase the risk.
The distance between a network transmitter at the top of a 40 foot pole, vs. the distance between the phone in your hand/pocket at the nozzle of the pump.
Think about it.
Is it too much to ask that if you are doing something dangerous that you pay attention?
Turn off the phone.
They did a thing about this on Mythbusters on Discovery, and were unable to start a fire this way.
The conditions may not have been met. The cell phone could have played a part in the static generation even if it did not ring. All it takes is a dry climate, a polycarbonate cell phone case, and a polyester shirt, slacks or lined ladies handbag. The phone rings and static is generated when the phone is removed from a pocket.
You know the static cling that sticks acrylic socks to the polyexter shirt? (If you don't remember static cling, stop using dryer sheets) Same thing can happen removing a phone from a synthetic fabric container (pocket/handbag). Not all experiments come out the same due to variables that may be different. Getting different results does not invalidate the original results.
The truth shall set you free!
Well the problem is you need the right equipment: I walk around all the time in antistatic boots, it's a pleasure not getting shocked.
I keep myself grounded to my car at all times while refuling. I touch the car before i pick up the nossle, i lean against the car and touch it with my hand while pumping, and i dont let go of the car untill the pump is out of the tank. If i have to get something inside my car, or god forbid sit DOWN in it, i always grab the metal on the outside of the roof while getting in and out. This may seem excessive and a pain, but i find it really doesnt take much more effort or time, and isnt even very noticable to anyone watching me. I work with small electronics all day, so grounding myself before doing ANYTHING comes naturaly to me. As for my cell phone, it sits in my pocket. On rare occations i have answered it while pumping. Risky? maybe
MythBusters looked into this. They built a chamber and filled it with various levels of gasoline vapors and then called cell phones that were in the chamber.
Now THERE'S a crock!
Ringing the cellphone will only create a spark if the vibarator motor is enabled or there's a defect in the insulation of the antenna exactly at the end of the conductor.
A much more likely source of ignition is a spark from the electrical contacts when opening a flip phone or hitting the answer button.
But even those are unlikely to create ignition unless the vapor concentration is just right AND there's a defect in the phone case.
How many different models of phone did they try? What defects did they induce in the phones? What surrounding metal (suitable for resonating if just the right dimensions and creating arcs at sharp points) did they supply? Did they EVER do anything to operate the phone buttons and flip-phone contacts? How many tests did they run, before leaving their audience with the impression that cellphone use while fueling is safe? Why did they dilute the number of tests by using "various levels of gasoline vapors" (i.e. mostly too rich or too lean to ignite) rather than creating an optimum explosive mix?
An alleged "debunking" of the alleged "myth" like this is very dangerous. Look how many posters here are now convinced that cellphones CAN'T light off gasoline vapors from tank filling. Imagine the number of watchers of that show that now believe the same thing, and will be using their phones while fueling.
If cellphones create one such fire a year in the next ten years, how many of those burn victims would have NOT been victims if they hadn't seen that show?
The conclusion was that a static spark from your coat on a dry day is FAR more dangerous than anything a cell phone can spit out.
Probably true - expecially in dry or cold climates. But the risk from static sparks is enormous, and likely to swamp ANY other ignition source (except maybe cigarette smoking while fueling). That doesn't make the risk from cellphones any smaller, or any less to be avoided.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
when i went to read all of your wonderful posts, i noticed that the banner ad on the top of my browser read "more bang, less buck". at first i thought it was a talking about gas (although gas is now more bang, more buck). but alas, it's merely a vmware ad.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream
In the last 4000 years, no new animals have been domesticated.
Not that this is the only wrong thing on this list, but starting in 1959 Russian scientists started breeding foxes for tameness, and there is now a domesticated line of foxes.
My car is a diesel. It's really quite difficult to ignite diesel accidentally.
Also, here in the UK, most (non-HGV) fuel pumps don't allow you to lock the pump on and let go.
Ydco co
While it is not possible for a properly functioning cell phone to ignite the fumes of gas at the pumps. A faulty phone with a short in it certainly has the possibility to. A shorted battery or worn wire while in the correct cercumstances(sp?) can cause a spark.
It is also true that the newer cells also have a number of protections from it. But do you remember the ones that were made 10 years ago? those big buggers that pulled down your pants cell phone? Yea there were lots of possibilies with those.
Having worked at a gas station for many years you see lots of stupid ppl doing stupid things. Lighting cigarettes at the pumps. And ppl smoking standing directly next to the huge propane tank.(Darwinism at its best, I was just glad that I was behind a bullet proof window and large cement wall) - Not that it would have helped too much but might have saved my life.
While your chances of being a ball of flame is small with a newer cell phone are the same as the lottery, are you completly possitive that the phone is not faulty in any way? Do you want to take that chance? And will you live with yourself if something happens to someone working there because of you? And Really How important is that call??
- my $.02? - you can't have it...it's all I have!!
...that loads of UK petrol stations have GSM masts in their signposts.
-- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
they also said your mom was bad in the sack, but i contest their finding in my report "i banged your mom and it was really good."
Actually, you can start a fire with the end of a cigar/cigarrete. The difference is vapors. A large gas spill on a non-porous surface causes a vapor build up near the ground very rapidly. The cigar enters the vapor field and ignites before it hits the main pool of liquid. If the vapors weren't present the cigar would just drop into the pool and go out, just like in your experiment.
I regularly see dumbasses smoking cigarettes while pumping gas. Nevermind static electricity. Lets get these idiots away from the pumps.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
People keep saying that women cause most of these fires because they are more prone to getting back into the vehicle. That little factoid comes from a well-known urban legend; no statistics exist to back it up. Check out the urban legend site at snopes.com.
After I figured out that the charge came from fabric rubbing while sliding out of the seat, I've started to make sure I keep in contact with a metal part of the car as I get out. On my car, holding onto the latch on the door frame works. No more shocks.
I used to be even more paranoid while fueling my propane vehicles until I read your post.
And I was worried about the proposed hydrogen cars of the future.
Thank you for putting my mind at ease.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
1) Don't return to you vehicle while pumping gas, or this could happen to you. At least she thought to release the pump before pulling out the nozzle. Notice that she is wearing long sleeves, temperature is likely low and humidity would be the same. Discharge yourself to the car and pump before reaching for the gas pump nozzle (it is surrounded by gas vapors).
2) Don't pull out the nozzle, or this could happen to you. Leave it in so this will happen.
3) Always fill gas cans on the ground. Metal cans provide a better path to ground helping preventing accumulation of static charge.
4) A good source of information.
Remember, Amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic
A flight line is certainly a far more hazardous place than a gas station. That is more of a mitigating risk based on the environment kind of thing. I wouldn't use any electronic device if I were, say, soaked in gasoline, regardless of how "safe" or "approved" it was.
I did find an official Navy response. (Yeah, not Air Force, I know, but should be similar.) Their conclusion? It could be possible to start a fire using a cellphone. However, their hypothetical solution to generate the correct voltage and spark requires dropping the phone, and having a spark generate when the battery pops off. Anyway, until we have one proven case where a cellphone has caused a fuel fire, I am going to continue to chalk it up to an urban legend.
Getting in and out of your car during refueling is much more dangerous, and that is not just MHO, but fact. How so? According to the Petroleum Equipment Institute, they do not have a single known case of a cell phone causing a fire. They have an entire page devoted to static electricity. (Of course, it is only fair to mention that ALL refueling fires are extremely rare to begin with, regardless of ignition source.)
WWJD?
JWRTFM!
There is a miniscule risk that you will get a broken cellfone to produce a big enough spark (that is big in size and duration).
:-D
There is an equally small chance that the starter of your engine will NOT create that spark when you start your car after filling...
Hence, to minimize risk of fire prohibit starting of your engine at gasstations
Sure, it's the same thing that's used to light propane grills. But 1) in reverse 2) encased in plastic 3) I can't think of any conceivable way that you could somehow deform the speaker enough to build up enough potential to create a spark even if the speaker already wasn't permanently attached to the cell phone's wiring.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I always wear my anti-static bracelet when pumping gas ;)
Privacy is terrorism.
if he removed a COMB from his pocket.
Should they ban combs from gas stations?
Your point is taken, however. I don't think you can blame the cell phone, however. It was the act of getting out of the car and not GROUNDING himself that caused the problem. I always touch the gas pump or the vehicle when I get out at a gas station... not dead yet.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
That has nothing to do with the computer, but with the long unshielded audio cables that act as great antennas.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Go Here. This has long been an urban legend, and this particular instance may still be an urban legend...
Un-news
All Things Considered did a piece on this very topic on October 20, 1999. It took a little hunting to find it, but I'm grateful that NPR archives all its broadcasts, even going back that far. :D
.rm format, I recommend listening to the whole story. Every time I see one of those little "no cell phones" signs at gas pumps, I have to laugh since they were placed there based purely on heresay with no scientific backing or even basic testing whatsoever.
The short version is that an anecdotal story written in an internal newsletter at an Indonesian Shell branch office that alleged the possibility of risk of fire was misinterpreted and eventually mistranslated as real news by an English Taiwanese newspaper. This, in turn, eventually wound up on the desk of a BP exec, who ordered the signs to be placed at the pumps.
If you can stand the
That green slime had it coming.
When I worked at an oil company several years ago, I investigated this issue. Cell phones do not store or emit enough energy to ignite gasoline vapors even when the mixture requires the least amount of energy to ignite - which corresponds to a staggeringly high fuel/air ratio not found outside of the car. This is an urban legend more than anything else.
I know this post will get lost in the 300 other posts already put here, but for the information of those who might read it, the issue of filling up with the car running is an environmental one.
With the advent of OBD and check engine lights, one thing cars have to monitor is pressure in the fueling system. If the engine is on, and the sensors detect a leak in the fuel system, the check engine light comes on. Leaving the engine running with the cap off will do the same thing. There's no fire risk as a result of fueling the car with the engine running.
A lot of gas stations advise you to switch off your phone before filling up. It is indeed true that they can spark on transmit. The sparks are of course invisible, you won't ever see huge arcs coming off your mobile, but a call in a fuel station is really not a good idea (unless you're filling up with diesel of course :) )
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Anybody who's done any car repairs (specifically with electric starter motors), should know this isn't possible.
A starter takes somewhere around 100-300 amps at 12 volt, depending on the engine it's trying to start. The sparks that fly from the fixed brushes and the split ring on the rotating armature would put some lightening storms to shame, yet you never hear of a car blowing up when you start it at a gas station.
Yet, a cell phone, with it's miniscule 3-6 volt battery, supplying at most a couple of hundred milliamps, is blamed for igniting fuel vapours?
Get.....a.....clue!!!!
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
where it demonstrates how you can generate a spark in a passive conductor with even as generous as a 10 watt signal at 1 centimeter.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
On the other hand, we had a house explode about a month ago in Highland NY due to a gas leak , so it just might be a local thing.
Paul Lenhart writes words!
1.5W of *RF* is not going to make a spark. Nowayinhell. And resonances don't work that way, as they always break down (familiar with feedback in a speaker? Similar). To get more than a few times amplification with resonance you have to have perfect conditions. Get real. I would love to see any evidence of more than 10x amplification due to resonance using a cell phone signal under ambient conditions. Moreso, I would love evidence that someone ever, anywhere, managed to generate a spark with an unmodified cell phone.
It amazes me how in the UK, where warning notices are to be seen quite often in filling stations, that imbeciles continue their pathetic and unnecessary conversations while filling. If I see one near me, I move, and quickly...... It is a criminal offence under the petroleum spirit regulations, it is time that it was enforced properly.
First, that only shows that your legislators, like ours, have no clue about anything technical, and their willingness to make laws before educating themselves.. Second, I'm sure you provide with your antics endless entertainment for all others filling up their tanks.
Do you pay attention to all those signs at the gas pump
shit, I still smoke at the gas pump.
It's pretty funny to watch the yuppies hopping around. They want to say something, desperately, but there I am, covered in tattoos, shaved head, knives, and pumping gas into a truck that has more dents that Tyson's face. They get this look on their faces, like a man w/ chronic diaraghea (sp?) waiting in line for the bathroom, then get the hell out of there.
and, before some smartass starts telling me the facts about gas vapors and hot coals - let me tell you this : Hollywood aside, you can't light gasoline w/ a cigarette, nor have I ever run across a case where you could light vapors w/ them either. Tobacco just doesn't burn hot enough.
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
weren't there some cases where the cell phone batteries catch fire themselves? I think i remember reading about that here, but I don't have the time to search for the link.
At any rate, our psych class did a project last semester about the crappy warning labels and changing things around to make the hidden dangers more apparent. The industry really needs to do a better job with designing and placing them. Most of the warnings mention not to use cell phones, but it's really just a CYA maneuver.
I do not see a flame of burning fart gas, so I would tend to guess that flames produce something that interferes with the ability to smell a fart - possibly this could be bottled as an anti-fart spray?
The smell of a fart doesn't come from the gasses expelled ( which I bet is mostly CO2 not methane as the fart lighting myth would have one believe - especially beer farts which most likely come from unburped bubbles. But even if there were methane, it is an odorless gas. The smell comes from aerosolized feces particles containing 3-methylindole. It is supposedly this potently stinky chemical that is eau-de-shit.
It might be worth extracting pure 3-methylindole ( skatole ) from feces using a solvent and burning it to see if it is incompletely burned combustion products of this chemical that 'vaccinates' the nose against the horrible smell of the unburned skatole.
I advocate extracting it yourself from crap using a solvent instead of buying it because apparently eau-de-shit is used for making a drug and so is watched by the DEA. ( It is also supposedly used in perfume - YUCK! as well as for other legitimate purposes excluding pranks, but the DEA doesn't care, they'll come to your house and confiscate the contents of your sceptic tank )
Eat at Joe's.
You can put as many phones as you want anywher eyou like and make them ring, they will ignite nothing unless some bits of metal provide the spark gap. That was not done by the incompetent fools who carried out these tests.
Irresponsible reporting like that endangers the public because it encourages people to think that using them in the wrong place, illegally, is safe, when all the factual and theoretical experience, stretching way back to long before cellular phones were dreamed of, says that it is not.
Fires have been seen starting as the nozzle was put into the tank, which as theory would suggest is the worst condition.
As much as I loved my good ole Ericsson T39, for being the first one to combine BlueTooth/IRDA/GPRS/GSM into one nice little package, the damn phone had one of the weirdest symptoms.
If it would be humid outside (just before a storm), and my hands were sweating, I would be getting shocks on my ear from my phone.
Nowadays, most cell phones use a high-voltage inverter to power the screen (color, backlit, etc..), which basically means, taking that 3.3/5v DC battery current into ~ 40-60volts AC and even more (I'm not certain).
I'm not an electrical engineer, but essentially, if the humidity is right, and you walked-out of your car that was nicely cooled and dry from your air conditionner, the fact of rubbing on your chair generated static electricity in you. Adding the cell phone as a catalyst for an electrical discharge sounds reasonable no?
You've got a device generating A/C as very low amperage that does not have any grounding point, and the humidity provides the necessary gap of discharging through your body to the gas pump (the closest grounding source)
References to cel phones and electricity generated by the human body, and there still isn't a single Matrix joke?
On the Discovery channel, the TV show Mythbusters did a show on this. They proved it wasn't the cell phone, but more likely it was static electricity built up in the car while moving and built up in the person due to the fabric of the clothes worn.
-Goran
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
I think it was a static discharge, caused by using the phone. Here's my theory. The guy gets out and starts pumping gas. At this point he has grounded himself on the pump, possibly the car too. Phone rings. He lets go of the gas nozzle. Does it keep going? I dunno, depends on which pump he is using. Reaches into his clothes for the phone. Phone possibly has a leather or other cover on it. The act of pulling the phone out builds a discharge. He then grabs the nozzle again... discharge & kaboom. So the phone itself it not to blame. But it was a factor. Morale of the story - don't go rubbing balloons on your head (so to speak) while not in a grounded state. I have no sig...
- I stole your sig.
Here in the U.S. there is a show on The Discovery Channel that is called Myth Busters. A pretty cool show too. In any evemt, they did a show on just this topic - Check Episode 2. They proved it to be a Myth
In the April 2004 IEEE Spectrum, page 6 (no link available, sorry) there's a statement approved by the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology's Committee on Man and Radiation.
Basically it does a great analysis of the physics involved in creating a spark to ignite gasoline vapors and concludes there is nothing to worry about.
They also clarify the difference between (dangerous) static sparks and the potential hazard from cell phones.
The rumored risk from cell phones seems to me a lot like the rumored risk to commercial aircraft avionics from laptops/electronics/etc. Every time there is an unexplained incident, the people in charge (fire chiefs, pilots, whatever) jump to blame whatever nearby technology they don't fully understand. Anecdotal evidence does not constitute proof, however. Too bad the mainstream media doesn't do a little more homework.
OK, show me the evidence that proves that using a mobile near a fuel tank will make it catch on fire. These warnings given out are just paranoia. No-one's proved it yet. Just like phones on planes will cause it to crash. Amazing that such things which supposedly endanger lives aren't researched.
There have been reports that pretty much EVERY fire is caused by static. There is NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENTED CASE that proves the mobile phone was the cause of the fire. The power transmitted by a phone is nothing compare to what can be generated by static as someone slides off their seat and out of the car.
If you thought there was a risk, don't you think this thing would be happening a lot more often? Don't you think a lot more people would be DEAD?
ABC's Mediawatch had great coverage of how fuel companies put up 'no mobile phone' signs because of the media stories that phones are dangerous BECAUSE companies put up 'no mobile phone' signs because of the media stories that said they're dangerous because ... etc etc, and around we go.
If a fire starts as a result of static discharge while refueling PUT THE GAS CAP BACK ON and step away from the car. The fire should snuff itself out.
Learned that in private pilot ground school...
I don't believe it. But what's even funnier is the stickers and signs that are on all the gas pumps now that say it... I was told that cell phones interefere with the navagational system. I have a hard time beliving that given my knowledge of cell phones and airplanes. On the other hand, stewardesses are supposed to know their stuff right? J
Yeah, that reminds me - your exhaust system, which isn't that far from the tank, is at a few hundred degrees C, and is emitting a LOT more than 1.5W of IR energy as a black-body radiator. Note also that IR is a higher frequency than RF as well, if one was compelled by that argument.
The funny part is that it took longer you to write that post full of lies than to actually lookup the truth that biodiesel is energy positive.
Biodiesel : domestic, renewable, clean, and in the fuel tank of my bone stock 2002 New Beetle TDI
Just remember that next time you crash and your car spills fuel all over the road, calling for help might blow you up ;)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Taking your CREDIT CARD out of your WALLET in your suit pocket to pay for the fucking gasoline. Maybe your hand would jostle a rare ivory pen in there at the same time. HORRORS!
And I've never been able to statically charge my cell phone (or any cell phone) rubbing it on fabric. It's not the right kind of material to really retain a static charge.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Be careful, cynics. Just because something sounds too good to be true does not mean it can't be true. Also, being cynical, especially on Slashdot, is far too easy. Wouldn't it be more mature to do a little research before bashing a positive idea ?
Biodiesel : domestic, renewable, clean, and in the fuel tank of my bone stock 2002 New Beetle TDI
Since static discharges due to scrubbing across the seat cushions *are* observed frequently and *are* thought to be responsible for fires at filling stations, wouldn't it be better for the auto manufacturers to fix their upholstery first and then see if we have any more fires? Just eliminating the nuisance of the occasional jolt would be worth a few bucks more, and if it turns out to be a safety issue then so much the better.
They're also more likely than men to wear static-friendly fabrics like Wool and Silk.
The other day at a gas pump my cell phone went off and I picked it up as I was pumping. This woman looked at me like I was going to die. She ran over and said, "you're really taking your life in your hands doing that. Where I come from there are all sorts of warnings on things, and I think it is against the law to do it."
I started laughing. She looked at me like I was an idiot. So I asked her why, knowing all the people that think this. "Cause it could cause a shock. And the cell phone waves can ignite the gas if the phone is faulty." I started lauging again. I told her we are standing underneath a radio tower that is kicking out so much power that you can hear it two states away.
She just got mad, and said "suit yourself."
I told her it was an urban legend and it is not the cause of pump fires.
People, if you payed attention in science class it really isn't that hard to figure out.
Do two things:
1. Always fill your gas can for the lawnmower on the ground. It has nothing to do with a cell phone. It has to do with the static charge in the car from rolling all the time. You don't want to ground the car through the gas can.
2. I always touch the gas pump. I figure when I am getting out of the car and it is time to get gas, just touch the grounded metal part od the nozzle holder when you pull out the nozzle, and charge that might have been there on you would be over with. It's probably stupid, but I do it anyway. Call me stupid, I guess.
I am not even sure of the science of this one, I just do it. But more people die from filling the lawnmower gas can on the back of their pickup. And even gas cans these days are plastic. I don't even think you can get a metal one in under five gallons.
So there you go.
...was filling his car with gasoline... :)
Which is why NJ is the safest place to buy gasoline. In NJ, it's illegal to pump your own gas, so the attendant has to do it for you. That way, when his cell phone rings, you'll be safely inside your car when it explodes
-- If you can read this, you are too close to my signature.
Indeed a (strong) RF signal can cause errors in sensitive electronic systems.
Yet essential systems like on aircraft have been pretty well protected against the type of influence a low power (typically 2 Watts) cell phone could have.
The Urban Legend in this case has been brought on by people not (or only partially) RTFM of the telephone company/ phone manufacturer.
Cell phones used at high altitudes are 'seen' by many base stations and can/will thus upset the system by occupying a particular frequency in many cells symultainously.
This defeats the sytem of *cell* telephony.
And at the same time as a frequent flyer I see it as a *great good* that cell phone use is not allowed in plane cabins.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
to make the battery spark, I was very dissappointed that mythbusters didn't try this.
I believe the point the previous poster was trying to make is that diesel, with a flash point of 125F, will not ignite below 125F, whereas gasoline, with a flash point of -40F, will ignite above -40F. The vast majority of fill-ups occur between -40F and 125F, making gasoline vapors dangerous and diesel vapors non-existent.
Biodiesel : domestic, renewable, clean, and in the fuel tank of my bone stock 2002 New Beetle TDI
No more talking on the cellphone at the gas pump for me!
Nosirreebob, I'll wait until I'm driving away and merging into traffic, where it's safe!
Its my imagination or in the report of fires at gas stations, a very big percent of the fires starts when a woman touches a nozzle to remove it from the car?
:(
Its not a joke, but when Im reading the descriptions of Incidents I find to much times:
"As she grabbed the nozzle to remove it, a flash fire occurred"
Sorry about my english
Mythbusters already busted this myth.
It is actually women's underwear that makes them more susceptable. Satin undies and nylon panty hose are huge sources of static.
Just my 2 bits.
Yes I do (pay attention to the signs) thanks for asking. I can't believe how widely this stuff is put forth as news... when I was 10 I understood that fuel vapor was combustible, it was interesting back then. I am older then that now. I understand that gas vapor is -supposed- to combust. That makes my car go, it turns on the lights and OF -course- it's potentially dangerous. This is just more cult of safety(tm) drivel designed to look dramatic and sell newspapers. Why slashdot is buying I don't know...
assert(expired(knowledge));
They tested this theory on Myth Busters and they concluded that you cannot.
It would never be the RF transmitted to cause a fire but simply pulling the plastic phone out of nylon case will generate electricity, a open or closing relay or switch within the phone could cause an arch. So yes a "phone" could cause the problem but its not going to be the "radio signal" itself that does it.
Just for general amusement:
... I swear I am not making this up! ... by dropping a burning rag into it. Among the things I learned from the years I dealt with that furnace (besides new ways to swear) was that under the right conditions (namely those that existed inside my furnace) cold kerosine is a remarkably effective substance to extinguish burning rags with.
Many years ago I owned an ancient mobile home with a furnace that was barely out of the stone age. Without going into detail on the technology involved, it involved piping kerosine into a metal pot-shaped combustion chamber and heating it to the point where the vapor could be burned when mixed with air. You lit this thing
I saw this show. All they did was call the phone. Ok, so a ringing phone won't blow up. But I can imagine some cheap ass flip device generating a spark when flipped open.
I live in NJ, it's illegial to pump our own gas here you insensitive clod!
# fuser -v
#
How about the guinea pig and the rabbit? I believe those were both domesticated more recently (by the Peruvian natives and the French) than 4000 years. Hm, and the turkey, perhaps?
Whether or not cell phones can ignite gasoline, they ought to be banned from filling stations anyway. I always thought that they were banned because they can cause a distraction. Although filling up your car safely is a relatively easy task, wouldn't it be a tad more dangerous if people were having animated discussions while doing so? Here in the UK driving while using a mobile phone is illegal for exactly the same reason. Maybe the urban myth of phones igniting vapour became so popular because it fits quite neatly with the fact filling stations have the no-cell-phone signs all over the place
you insensitive clod!
they already debunked this myth. it is all static electricity, and 80% of the cases of fire are women, because they are more likly to go sit in the car while the gas finishes pumping. but what self respecting geek doesnt go out and fill their gf/wife car up for her. (oh yeah this is the /. crowd after all. no one her has a gf)
bunk
Those of you who watch The Sopranos might recognize New Paltz as one of Paulie Walnuts' collection stops.
I've actually been there, nice little town.
Intercarve Networks, LLC
They reran it at 7PM last night, and will be playing it again tonight at 2AM, set your Tivo!
MythBusters Show Schedule
Remember Lexington Green!
The scary part about this joke is that someone actually thinks that pacemakers are made with on/off switches... I guess they come with a tattoo over the switch:
"please turn off when not needed to conserve energy"
come on fhqwhgads
I'm not an electrical engineer
You've got that right. Cellphones draw current in the milliamp range even at low voltages. If you were to try to step up the voltage to the point where it would make your ear tingle much less zap it would reduce the current to basically zero. That requires THOUSANDS of volts and some measure of current to provide adequate power.
Small colour LCDs use very little power, even with backlight (a colour display on your PDA uses probably less than 2 WATTS of power--a celphone probably much less than that). They work on less than 5VDC. They do NOT need voltage step-up. They do NOT need AC power.
IT'S A DAMN CELLPHONE...NOT a 17" desktop LCD with a mega-bright backlight! The ringer doesn't use AC power either. Hell most modern DESK phones don't really need it either...the ring is simulated with electronics and they all use low power displays. The only phones that needed high voltage AC are the old clunkers that had an actual metal bell and hammer in them!
As for the latest gas-station-cellphone incident it's pure hogwash. The cellphone chatter who got burned likely zapped himself on the car or the pump nozzle when he was fishing around to answer the phone or was otherwise distracted when using it. The whole issue is nonsense.
The battery in your car is higher voltage and puts out way more current than any cellphone. The electric fuel pump THAT IS *INSIDE* THE GAS TANK uses many times more electric energy than your phone. A cellphone is normally about the least risky thing to have on you when you fill up your car.
Of course if you use a cheap, defective LiIon battery and charge it improperly there's a BIT of a chance it'll heat up quite nicely and burn you, but you don't need a gas pump to help that along, and there'd be no kaboom that's for sure...
This is a story of how a spark can ruin your Porsche.
http://mby.pca.org/news.htm
Note that this is NOT CELLPHONE related. It was caused by static buildup and failure to ground the gas can before using it.
Static buildup is real, stay OUT of the car when you are fueling, ESPECIALLY if you have cloth seats.
"Do you pay attention to all those signs at the gas pump telling you to to make sure your car, cell phone, PDA, pacemaker, etc. are all turned off before you start pumping?"
I have to. Otherwise this loud voice comes in over the intercom and bitches at me. How embarassing...
They tried to reproduce this on Mythbusters and found it was nearly impossible to create a ball of fire this way.
They had to enclose the test area and get the perfect mixture of air and gasolinve vapors, and even go as far as putting an ignitor on the cell phone.
I'd worry less about women and more about comedians and musicians, notably Michael Jackson, Richard Pryor and any member of Great White.
You should also avoid thinking at the pump, as a great idea which causes that light bulb to appear over your head can ignite the gas vapors.
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
if these people would just go barefoot (thus insuring proper static discharge), they wouldn't have these problems would they?
"We are not tolerant people. We prefer drastically effective solutions"
Cell phones are not rated as being explosion-proof. To do so would cost money and add days, weeks, months... to the design costs. As cell phones need not be operated in explosive atmospheres, there is no compelling reason for manufacturers to get them certified as such. Moreover, if they WERE explosion-proof, they'd be the size and utility of cinder blocks.
Naturally, if it's electronic and not intrinsically safe for these atmospheres, there is the chance that it could ignite vapors. Given 6 billion people using who-knows-how-many cell phones, SOMEONE is going to misuse it in a manner that makes them do the fireball thing. What follows is a large and expensive lawsuit, as burns are prone to do. Simple solution: Post signs telling people not to use cell phones at the pump. Then it becomes the user's liability.
Problem solved.
It may not be the actual law, but in the UK it's a condition of the necessary license to sell petroleum spirit that "The licensee shall take all practicable steps necessary to prevent: [...] the operation of radio transmitting equipment, including Citizens Band radios and mobile telephones in the hazardous area, except for radio transmitting equipment not capable of inducing a current or charge which could ignite a flammable atmosphere as defined in BS 6656"
Pretty well all the filling stations I can recall using in UK have a prominent sign on display forbidding the use of mobile transmitting equipment (including mobile telephones) while refuelling. In fact I believe you're supposed to turn them off, but of course no-one does.
In fact, it's become quite common to see people chatting away as they fill up, especially since we are now banned from using handheld phones while driving.
STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHT TO TALK ON THE PHONE WHILE PUMPING GAS
Since it's been proven that it is practically impossible to ignite gasoline vapor merely with the presence of an operating cell phone, we should all show our opposition to these stupid restrictions by refusing to get off the phone should someone bug you about it. When they threaten you, tell them 'dick in your ass' and go on talking on the phone - what are they going to do, yank the phone out of your hand? Then you get to fuck them up hardcore for taking your phone.
I submitted this story last week (rejected). So now someone else gets the credit? Go ahead, mod me down for the first time in my life. I wouldn't be peeved but there's not even an "also submitted by" list.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
My 2 cents:
Several states have conducted studies and have proved that phones DO cause explosions at gas pumps, and have made using a cell phone while fueling illegal.
Big chains agree. BP Amoco is one example of a major chain that will SHUT OFF YOUR PUMP if they see you using your phone while fueling.
A guy in a township in my county blew up his car, you guessed it, answering a call on his cell phone while fueling. The fire chief, local newspaper, and even the guy who's car blew up all agree: it was the phone and nothing else. He didn't do anything that could have caused a spark, and the pattern of the explosion indicated it originated from the phone.
SNOPES.COM IS NOT GOD. It's made by people, and is occasionally wrong. This wouldn't be the first time.
I always gound myself when I get out of the car to avoid explosions and to get that inevitable nasty static shock over with as soon as possible -- and I use something less sensitive than my fingers to do so.
When I get out of my car, I make sure that the back of my leg hits the metal door frame, since a shock to my calf (through my pants leg) is less painful. If I forget to do that, I use a bent knuckle to tap the door since it too is less sensitive than my fingers.
I often tap a knuckle on the door when I approach my car, since I've gotten xapped that way, too.
I would have posted this sooner, but I've spent the morning at a large chemical plant (polyester resins and intermediates) doing fire extinguisher maintenance. When I'm out there, my cell phone stays in my car. Why? Because it's not intrinsically safe. No equipment that doesn't bear that designation is allowed anywhere near the process areas. The risk of microscopic internal spark/arc is there with any battery operated device, be it a cell phone, a flashlight, or an iPod. Check out the heavy duty flashlights used in industrial settings; they're rated Intrinsically Safe by MSHA (Mine Safety and Health Association).
So the short answer is, forget all this crap about which thingamjig resonates at 1.21 gigawatts; it's a simple fact that any electrically powered device can ignite flammable vapors unless specially designed not to, which is often by way of inner and outer layers of air tight casing.
Also, there's little doubt that common fabric-induced static is responsible for most gas pump fires. But to assume that proves that cell phones can't also ignite flammable vapors is silly.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Yes.. I leave it turned on. No, it has never rung while doing so...
~m
"Yes, I have a Disaster Recovery Plan. It's called my Resume"
Uh, maybe this is why they put STICKERS on the fuel pumps that say to TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONE. Duh. Next time try reading the signs.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I can't believe this. I'm from the UK and on several occasions have heard American's laugh at us calling these gadgets 'mobile phones' (and, in France 'handys'). Of course, they're a cell-phone... a name that obviously makes much more sense. Particularly as 99% of people (not just Americans) don't know that a phone transmitter is called a 'cell'.
Stupid Americans.
I do not think the RF signal could do that (for sure not)
... ..
....
... burned a hole in my pocket, and left a small burn on my leg (it was VERY close to my -you know what- :o )
BUT: cellphones are abused devices, sitting in pockets being dropped on the floor, sat on etc
so the battery can get loose,
I can easily imagine a small spark, when your battery gets in contact (after loosing contact for a split second) with the device again
chewing gum paper once made a fire in my pocket, when getting in contact with a spare cellphone battery
anyway it is illegal to use a cellphone at a gasstation in most countries due to security reasons
I've had just about enough of people referencing the television show Mythbusters as if this television show is the final authority on such things. It is, after all, merely a television show. As such, it is no substitution for science.
For instance, the fellas from Mythbusters never bothered to press the TALK button on their cellphone-in-a-box-full-of-fuel-vapor setup. That's a fairly major oversight, as far as I'm concerned. What they've done, at best, is prove that a cellphone ringer can't start a fire. They've proved nothing regarding a cellphone actually in use.
Jam your gas cap under the handle to prop it open! Just be sure to touch the gas pump away from the nozzle to discharge youeself before pulling the nozzle out when you are done...
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
There is a show on the learning channel that tested this myth out they found that it's impossible to start a fire using a cell phone in a room full of gas vapours, static works extremely well however.
~ All comments automatically moderated -1 since 2004 ~
who is slightly alarmed by the fact that gasoline is so flammable that all it takes is a little static electricity from sliding our asses across the seat to ignite the fumes? For chrissakes, oscillating fans were required to have grills on them years ago so we wouldn't do something dumb like sticking a body part into the blades (just to see how much it *might* hurt). I would just think there would be some special interest group that would be outraged & lobby against gasoline powered cars. Pffft, what are the inherent dangers associated with the operation & ownership of an electric car?
Yes, I have RTFA. Yes, I have a girlfriend. Yes, I'm new here. And no, I don't want a free iPod.
Several times in the last few years I have found myself screaming at some dumb ass SMOKING A FRIGGIN CIGARETTE while filling up with gas.
I'll just leave it at that.
If you are just standing there pumping, then you will probably look at their ads. But if you have something else to do, like making a call, then you might not be as influenced by their advertisements. You might not suddenly feel the impulse to eat 2 disgusting hotdogs for $.99.
Unless, of course, you were already feeling that impulse!
Are the real cause of the problem.
Before the use of plastic became prevalent in cars, the gas tanks were made of metal - from the tank all the way up to the fill pipe. Nowadays, the filler pipe is rarely made of metal - it's usually plastic or rubber.
Herein lies the problem: A metal filler pipe will ground the vehicle when the pump is placed in the opening; plastic won't. Normally, any static electicity buildup created by entering/exiting the vehicle would have been prevented by the pump grounding the vehicle. But with plastic filler pipes, the pump no longer grounds the vehicle, and hence, a static charge can build up on the vehicle as it is fueled.
Incidentally, ever time I leave my vehicle in cold, dry weather, I experience a rather substantial shock as I close the door - the friction with the seat builds up static electricity. I've often wondered what would happen if I left the door open (thus remaining staticly charged) and attempted to pump gas....
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I live in West Virginia and I can tell you from experience (though I never saw one blow up) that a much bigger threat here is people smoking at the gas pump...
Here is a WMV video of the incident
The Discovery Channel show "Mythbusters" did an item on this a while ago. They were unable to ignite a plexiglass enclosure filled with gasoline fumes by using a cellphone, and concluded that if anything, these accidents happen because of static electricy. They also mentioned that women are more likely to get this kind of accident, because more often than men, women get back in their car while refueling. The report mentioned above is particularly interesting in that regard, as the first few screenfulls exclusively mention people getting back in their car while refueling, and most of them are women.
Does hearing a ringtone for 30 seconds, once and awhile in your 75+ year life?
I always find myself wandering why cars and trucks and motorcycles (with their red hot exhausts, electric systems with bridges and fuses etc) don't cause more fires at the pump... Hmmm.
I think it is definitely NOT a Doppler effect issue. I have been traveling a lot on French High-Speed Trains ( TGV ) and using my cell phone on it. TGVs run as fast as 330 km/h i.e. about 183 mph, and cell phones work fine BUT you frequently lose contact, as
1) there are so many tunnels
2) you move from cell to cell so quickly.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
The show on the Discovery Channel called Mythbusters already proved this to be false. It's usually caused by someone re-entering their car and picking up a static charge, then discharging that near the pump.
that a cell phone disruppting the auto-pilot would be a bigger problem in the air.
Cell phones that begin to fall outside there design specification(through cheap parts, poor manufacturing, etc) can disrupt aircraft instrumentation, usually the auto-pilot.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Somebody out to tell this guy.
(Quicktime video linked above, wma available here.)
- Neil Wehneman
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
And because something does not happen 99 times out of 100, it does not follow that it can't happen, especially when theory and tests which date back to way before mobiles were invented show that the relevant RF power level does present an ingition hazard.
As for the effcets on aircraft, I am by profession an avionics designer (with a huge amount of safety, RF/EMC, even software, thrown in for good measure. I also have an honours degree in physics. I am well placed to know that all but the very latest aircraft have vulnerabilities in their systems because when they were designed, the threat presented by mobile phones on board, within the fusleage, did not exist. There have been a number of incidents involving uncommanded manoeuvers, and malfuntion of various systems, strangely in every case, the problems went away when the phone concerned was switched off, and returned when it was swithed on again. If that does not constitute proof, I do not know what does, and of course any uncommanded manoeuver could easily turn into a disaster.
For that reason, people who do not switch off their phones while on board aircraft should automatically receieve severe prison sentences, and fortunately at least one UK court agreed, I think the guy got 2 years.
References from The Source Of All (Or At Least Most) Wisdom:
Fuelish Pleasures
Static Quo
Does anybody here remember when gas pump handles were bare metal, not covered with rubber/plastic? I remember these, and while I don't know exactly why they switched, it probably had to do with comfort, most likely (to get more women pumping their own gas? to keep the sun's heat from making the handle unbearably hot?). Gas pumps are typically grounded anyhow, so when you reached for the pump, and static charge you had would be grounded away before you started pumping. However, when you pump gas now, you still have that possibility of having a charge, because the rubber/plastic on the handle insulates you...
So - why not a couple or three metal "knubbies" over the top outside of the handle, riveted or otherwise attached through the plastic to the grounded metal handle? You would still have the plastic to preserve comfort, and the nubs would act as a ground...
Now, this wouldn't stop other problems with static electricity (ie, the charge built up in the vehicle, or elsewhere), but it would definitely help in some manner. However, we are likely never to see it, unless required by law, or through a public outcry (and I doubt that is going to happen - this just doesn't affect enough people to mobilize others) - because it would eat into the bottom line...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I never pump my own gas. I couldn't even if I wanted to, which I don't. Isn't it this way in every state? Signed, An Oregonian
Hardly conclusive if there isn't enough oxygen in the chamber.
Calling atheism and agnosticism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
What is the deal with Nextel phones screwing with your car stereo when you use it? If I'm holding that thing next to my head and it's effecting an electrontric piece of equipment a few feet away I think there's something wrong.
"Do you pay attention to all those signs at the gas pump telling you to to make sure your car, cell phone, PDA, pacemaker, etc. are all turned off before you start pumping?"
Of course I do! I pay attention to everyone of them with a lit cigarette hang'n out of my mouth.
--HC
So I'm jump'n up and down screaming show me the money.
From the PEI Website
"PEI has been in contact with the fire marshall in New Paltz, NY to learn more about this incident. It turns out the initial reports were not accurate. Patrick Koch, the fire chief of New Paltz, NY offered PEI this statement:
"After further investigation of the accident scene and another discussion with the victim of the May 13 gasoline station fire in New Paltz, I have concluded the source of ignition was from some source other than the cell phone the motorist was carrying. Although we will probably never know for sure, the source of ignition was most likely static discharge from the motorist himself to the nozzle dispensing gasoline."
"
OK, so that's 13 events a year that this might be happening.
An average of 80 people a YEAR get hit by lightning.
(Source http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm)
AHHHH!!! Quick! I better biuld a bunker and live underground and never go outside! AHHHH! Wait! what if the roof falls in! AHHH! HELP!
F'ing joyless safety natzi's, go out to a bar, get drunk, smoke a pack of cig's, pick up some girl and take her home for the night.
You might die of alcohol posioning, cancer, or AIDS, but at least you'll have had some fun before you die. Your going to die sooner or later anyway, might as well have a good time before you do.
A cell phone that is broken in someway could casue enough of a spark to ignite, assuming the vapor was at the right 'mix'.
Likely? no. But if it was likely, people would be bursting into flames every hour.
I saw a news report where there was an incident were a gyu caught onto fire. They showed the security footage.
It went like this:
guy got out off car.
Opened gas the gas tank. This means he touched the car to open the flap, then again to remove the cap.
He inserts his card into the pump, pays.
Gets nozzel and puts it in tank, one hand resting on the trunk of the car.
Stands up, takes cell phone out of pocket to answeer it.
Arm bursts into flames. Someone standing nerby helps extinguish the flames.
The fact that him jumped back without the nozzle probably save his life.
Is this conclusive proof? no, of course not. But he did touch the car several times, which would discharge any potential. It certianly makes the cell phone a suspect.
I wish someone had thought to take a look at the cell phone and run some tests. Perhaps a short?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You dare defy the assembled wisdom of Slashdot? Heretic! Fool! Death by mogambo!
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
The FCC has publically stated that it is the overloading of land-based cell networks that causes problems, and this is why the FCC prohibits the use of cell phones while airborne. Note that this is not an issue that the FAA has any hand in! The FAA has never actually regulated the use of cell phones in aircraft, though they have conducted studies into possible instrumentation interference, etc.
To consider the magnitude of the problem, consider using a cell phone in any major metropolis. Yes you might reach 20 or even 50 cells, but airborne over that city you may recieve a signal from hundreds of cells!
Cell phones have been used from passenger flights numerous times, Sept. 11 is a good example that many othe posters mentioned. Doppler is not the issue.
1. The guy came running out because he was worried my phone would cause an explosion
2. I was using the phone to call a friend because I *forgot something*, so that I didn't have to drive a half an hour back and forth to my house.
How about "don't be an arse, shut your pie-hole I can us emy phone when I see fit" instead.
In the episode they also attempted to ignite the fuel using static electricity and failed miserably. They also varied the fuel/air mixture to the point of saturation in the chamber and still were not able to create an explosion.
Only until the very end of the segment when they employed a sparking device were they able to ignite the fuel.
Now, think about the concentration of evaporated fuel in the air surrounding your body as you fill a gas tank. It would be several orders of magnitude smaller than what was in the chamber that Jamie and Adam used in their experiment. I am not saying that it is not possible, just extremely unlikely. If Jamie and Adam could not get a chamber saturated with atomized fuel to ignite then there is even less chance that a minute concentration of evaporated fuel in the air around your body would ignite as well. This revelation is what sealed my conclusion.
Lastly, during the segment they also ran a clip of a fire department demonstrating quite effectively what static electricity will do when filling your tank.
The clip doesn't show it, because it ends too soon, but the pump and car all burn up because the fire is already in her gas tank (she removes the nozzle near the end of the video).
l ip %2002-13-04.avi
The girl returns to the front of her car and when she comes back to the handle it explodes in flame. Static electricity is the culprit. see for yourself.
http://www.trumbullct.com/videos/gas%20fire%20c
-pyrrho
Some guys should be Darwined out for the greater good.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
So, you're saying that:
1. Jamie and Adam were unable to use static electricity to ignite a high concentration of fuel, even more than what you'd see in real life; they failed miserably.
2. The fire department demonstrated quite effectively what static electricity can do when filling your tank (explosion and fire).
Hmm...did I not say that the Mythbusters' experiment wasn't conclusive? It appears they should test again but this time more carefully, including looking at many factors which could have been affecting their experiment the first time. They should at least get the normal amount of static electricity to ignite the vapor!
Assuming the cell phone worked properly, and there was sufficient fumes in the air, could a low voltage spark have set it off? After all, it's reasonable to assume such low voltage sparks while operating any electronics.
Here's an experiment. Try holding a light switch half way between on and off. Can you get electricity to arc within the switch? It's really not hard, it just takes a steady hand.
Any switch or button just has two pieces of metal that move from not touching, to making contact. When they are close to touching, there comes a point where the air simply doesn't put up enough resistance to prevent electricity from jumping the gap. The greater the voltage, the larger the possible gap.
I really doubt cell phones are designed with gas pumps in mind. They probably use the same button design as other electronics (flip phones just implement a switch or button, just another electrical contact).
My question is: could gas be ignited using a very low voltage, brief spark? That's what it really boils down to.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Someone mod the parent up.
Ok, the static thing is well established. That's why planes actually have a grounding cable connected to them before a fuel nozzle is brought anywhere near them. Any plane, any bowser, same procedure.
:-)
Mobile phones emit RF energy. So does a discman. So does the cable delivering power to the bowser. So does the CB on a passing truck. So do the fluorescent and other types of lighting all over the shop and even in some bowsers. So does your engine - are we to drive in and drive away without using our engines?
But hey, if you think the RF is a risk, it could put a whole new slant on "war driving"
-- All your bass are below two Hz
At least Mythbusters seems to think so.... :-)
turn off your cellphone, turn off your engine, put out all smoking materials, all for wimps! Wimps!
This sounds like BS. What pressure? Is the fuel system sealed when the cap is on? If so, what happens when fuel is pumped away and used as you drive? What happens when you drive the car out of a warm garage into a snowstorm and the air/vapour mix in the tank cools and contracts? How is the tank repressurised when the engine is restarted? I will be very impressed if I am proved wrong, though.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
The problem with cell phones at a gas pump is the electric moter in the phone that does the 'vibrate' function. As we all know, an electric motor makes sparks, which *could* cause a flash fire with the gas vapor.
By the way thats a really big could.
Easy, go take a modern car, start it and take the gas cap off. Leave it for a couple minutes and the CEL will turn on.
First thing any good mechanic will do who isn't trying to screw over the customer when they come in with a CEL is to check the gas cap is tight and if its not, clear the code and tell the customer to see if it comes back.
On my old car (2001 Audi S4) I had a seal on the gas cap go bad, and got a CEL until the dealer replaced the cap.
Fuel systems are, in fact, sealed when the gas cap is on, thats why they click and continue to turn now... it lets you know its tight. Go read you cap, it tells you to turn until it clicks.
The tank repressurizes via a vapor recovery system, modern cars have gas lines going from the engine, and back to the tank.
For what its worth, in less time than it took you to claim it sounds like BS you could've typed "gas cap check engine light" into Google and found pleanty of proof.
For all you pansies out there saying, "Don't do this, don't do that, you might blow yourself to bits,": I smoke while gassing up my car. If you don't like it, I'll be waiting for you in hell, nicely singed.
Jake
Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
Woman on cell phone: "Hey what are you up to? Oh me?....oh nothing much just sitting inside my car waiting for the gas pump thingie to finish. Hold on I think it's done let me just go outside and..." NO CARRIER...
A cell phone can generate a spark, which with fuel vapours can start a fire. Such a situation is unlikely, but it can happen. The spark could be generate either from A) the transmitter or B) a intermittent electrical connection. Such a intermittent connection may occur at the battery connections. I have observed such a situation - but not at a fuel station.
Is the Earth really round? Did the moon landings really happen, or was it all a hoax? Does anyone know a way to correctly identify witches who are possessed by demons? Are they supposed to be cured of their possession by being burnt at the stake, or is drowning preferable?
It's always good to have a forum to discuss matters of science.
C'mon, people... This horse died a lonnnnnnng time ago. It has been:
--Beat to death on 'Mythbusters...'
--Debunked on Snopes...
--Generally derided as an urban legend, with good reason.
I have absolutely no issue using my cellphone while fueling, because I know, as a tech, that there's no way the thing could generate even half the energy required to trigger a spark hot enough to ignite anything.
HOWEVER -- The one thing I absolutely do NOT do is get back into my car, slide across the seat while getting out again, and then touch the pump nozzle. That's a sure way to generate a dangerous spark.
Translation: RF energy is not the issue here. Static electricity is. If RF were an issue, we'd have police, fire, and other public-safety people causing explosions every time they had to use their mobile or portable radios while fueling up (and I can tell you from direct experience that said radios generate a heck of a lot more power -- anywhere from 3-5 watts for a portable to over 100 watts for a mobile) than any wireless phone handset (outputs of less than 100 milliwatts, typically).
Can we please bury this long-deceased equine? The smell is really getting nasty...
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
The point you are missing is that gasoline vapor forms an incombustible mixture (too rich) inside tanks at most temperatures we're interested in. You can ignite vapor spilling from the tank, but it cannot flash back into the tank and burning material put into the tank will just go out.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
The real reason is quite simple: They don't want you using cellphones MP3 players & walkman through the compulsory filght safety video and any potential warning messages during takeoff and landing. They want your full attention. This is why you are allowed to use their entertainment facilities - the ones they can turn off at the appropriate moments.
:v)
Vik
This isn't a problem elsewhere. We all know that cars in the US explode in a huge fireball even after a small crash. (I havn't been there, but have seen lots of US movies and TV.)
So why doesnt the US switch from gasoline to petrol? It could save many lives, and allow cell-phone use at the pump.
Right the 60K Volt Car Seat Slide
Yes, some low-grade retard politician got a law passed about using cell phones at gas stations.
Recently some sheep customer at a gas station came up to me and warned me that I had to turn off my cell phone or I might blow up the gas station.
I told him "I'm more likely to be struck by lightning WHILE having my leg bit off by a shark." He went off to complain to the station personnel that I was a terrorist or something. I don't think they cared.
I don't mind stupid people, per se. It's the fact that they don't KNOW they're stupid.
And yes, if you think my Nokia is going to blow up a gas station, you are stupid. I don't often "attack the messenger" that way, but this message requires that you be a dupe.
I wouldn't be so mad, but some jackwad passed a LAW. How can I have hope for the future of representative government when crap like this (and the "free air pumps at gas stations" law in California) gets passed.
Grrr...
I do not believe that cell phones can cause fires, so this is just in the interest of full disclosure.
In the Mythbusters episode, they basically go into it with the idea that the cell phone fire deal is nonsense (which it is), and they put forth the theory that static electricity is what causes the fires. They fill a chamber with vapor and call the cell phone inside the chamber, and there is no explosion. Ok, fine.
BUT, they then make this contraption to create static electricity. It rubs two materials together. One material that is common in clothes (nylon maybe?), and one material that is common in car seats. They choose the materials to get the most potential for static electricity. They put this gizmo in the chamber, and fill it with vapor. They turn the gizmo on, and guess what? NO EXPLOSION! So all they've proved is that their little chamber doesn't work!
They do eventually get an explosion by making a gizmo to light a match inside the chamber or something like that.
"Ya kanno due et, Cap'in. Its again' tha loughs o' physics."
There's this thing called "Intrinsic Safety" that states categorically that there is not enough voltage / current from a cell phone battery to ignite Hydrogen , let alone gasoline. Check out the chart on page 2 of this document on Intrinsic Safety. (Its the chart labeled Ignition Curves -- note that your 3.6V cell phone battery is off the chart to the left and doesn't have the 100A+ capability to intersect even the most explosive gas curve -- ever.)
There, now you all know better, so quit repeating the lie; cell phones don't, won't and can't torch gas stations!
to the Engineer, the glass is neither half full nor half empty. Its just two times too big.
Kind of ironic, I think, considering that quite a few UK petrol stations actually house mobile-phone antennae in their petrol price displays.
Look, there is this little thing called "intrinsically safe equipment". It refers to a device that has be well tested and designed to ensure that it cannot cause any type of spark when in normal operation. These devices are used in all kinds of potentially explosive environments such as mines and areas with fuel leaks by cleanup teams. It's a well developed industry, and I've use such equipment all the time. Normal electronics are not so well designed. It's not the act of ringing, nor is it the cell phone signal that can start a fire, it's things like relays and switches and metal on metal contact which are the problem. A flip phone has a switch that can spark when you open it, plain and simple, no argument.
Yes, static electricity is a much more likely cause on average, but don't play armchair fire chief and think you know more about something just because you read slashdot and watch TV. *sigh*
Check it out. I was reading this thread yesterday, and then I find this story on the local newstation website.... A woman, getting in and out of the car while gas was pumping causes a static-spark and FFFWWUFFF!!!!!! http://www.nbc10.com/news/3322888/detail.html
Sorry... here's that link again, tagged this time... NBC 10 News
My Nokia phone has the option to vibrate as well or instead of ringing. This vibration is provided by a small motor with an eccentric weight on it. This motor is about 1 cm long, diameter of a pencil and a brushed DC motor. A well built DC brushed motor should not spark much, if at all, but as time goes on and wear develops etc, I would be more worried about this than any other possible ignition source in the phone.
The plane's speed doesn't have anything to do with the ability to call. You've forgotten that cell-phone use on planes wasn't banned until mid 1993. Lots of people had been using them on planes just fine before that -- Myself included. You are incorrect if you think there are technical reasons for the ban. The ban exists for economic reasons only. 1) Airlines want you to use their Air-Phones 2) Cell Companies worry they couldn't track the usage 3) Airlines and Boeing worry about crashes and lawsuits initiated by the type of moron who thinks he's got a chance at the legal system jackpot.
Also - perhaps you've forgotten the details of 9/11. Those planes were actually travelling FASTER than their normal cruising speed.
Speaking of old people, my dad was called to an old folks home because the residents were complaining of getting electrical shocks from the radiators....yep, that's right, old people shuffling around, charging themselves like wrinkly little capacitors and then touching the radiators.