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
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!
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
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
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
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.
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.*
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!
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...
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
...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
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.
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.
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.
Sorry, you've got it wrong. The gas grill ignitor uses a spring and energy input from the user the smack a peizoelectric crystal, generating enough electricity to create a spark. A peizoelectric speaker is essentially the same thing, only in reverse. Put electricity in, and the crystal vibrates, creating sound. So, I don't beleive that the cell phone buzzer will ignite gasoline vapors. Well, maybe if you removed it from your phone, adjusted it's lead to create a suitable spark gap, and then hit the peizo with a hammer...
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.
Of course, it's up to you whether you choose to accept this study.
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
Oh my god. Im am suprised you cant work that one out for yourself. I pray i never have to fill up my car next to you.
If you dont know better, WHY DONT YOU READ THE WARNING SIGNS?
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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!
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 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"
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 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