Mobile Phones at Petrol Stations

crescent

Static electricity is a considerable problem in industry when decanting any flammable liquids. Even the friction from the fluid flowing through the hose can generate a static charge of sufficient energy to ignite any vapours that escape during the process. It's quite normal to use additional earth connections to ensure that a spark cannot occur between the conductive components of the hose and the conductive surfaces of the tank. I've witnessed it on a couple of occasions and it is scary stuff. I believe the rubber hoses in petrol stations are designed to be anti-static but it certainly crosses my mind when I am refuelling and is certainly more of a hazard than mobile phones/batteries which, in my opinion, are still a hazard.
I seem to recall the energy required for a spark to ignite flammable vapour is 20 microJoules - we've definitely tapped a rich vein of sadness here.
I remember working at a place where they used a material (carbon disulphide I think) that was so volatile they used to have to park the tanker in a small custom built reservoir of water and have two fire engines standing by. So there!

Ron Stuart

Forget all this technical toss, is it not possible for the great British public to do without the use of a ruddy mobile for the time it takes to re-fuel a motor vehicle :?: :?: :?: :?:

corkyballs

Mythbusters did this one years ago - twice and the myth was busted on both occasions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2003_season)#Cell_Phone_Destruction

Escadrille Ecosse

Ron Stuart wrote:

Forget all this technical toss, is it not possible for the great British public to do without the use of a ruddy mobile for the time it takes to re-fuel a motor vehicle :?: :?: :?: :?:

"And I said...and then she said...so I said.....and she said....yes, I'm in the petrol station....so she said.....and I said....so she said....then he said....yes raining here too...so she said...oh hang on just run someone over walking across the forecourt, right you were saying?....the she said.....so I said.....ye,s I've got the milk.....so they said this I said....yes I'll be back for X-Factor...if you make me a cuppa now it'll be cool enough to drink by the time I get there....so then she said..........."

Ron, in answer to your question...no

Ron Stuart

Escadrille Ecosse wrote:

Ron Stuart wrote:

Forget all this technical toss, is it not possible for the great British public to do without the use of a ruddy mobile for the time it takes to re-fuel a motor vehicle :?: :?: :?: :?:

"And I said...and then she said...so I said.....and she said....yes, I'm in the petrol station....so she said.....and I said....so she said....then he said....yes raining here too...so she said...oh hang on just run someone over walking across the forecourt, right you were saying?....the she said.....so I said.....ye,s I've got the milk.....so they said this I said....yes I'll be back for X-Factor...if you make me a cuppa now it'll be cool enough to drink by the time I get there....so then she said..........."

Ron, in answer to your question...no

So True.... love it

desweller

Crescent wrote:

Static electricity is a considerable problem in industry when decanting any flammable liquids. Even the friction from the fluid flowing through the hose can generate a static charge of sufficient energy to ignite any vapours that escape during the process. It's quite normal to use additional earth connections to ensure that a spark cannot occur between the conductive components of the hose and the conductive surfaces of the tank. I've witnessed it on a couple of occasions and it is scary stuff. I believe the rubber hoses in petrol stations are designed to be anti-static but it certainly crosses my mind when I am refuelling and is certainly more of a hazard than mobile phones/batteries which, in my opinion, are still a hazard.
I seem to recall the energy required for a spark to ignite flammable vapour is 20 microJoules - we've definitely tapped a rich vein of sadness here.
I remember working at a place where they used a material (carbon disulphide I think) that was so volatile they used to have to park the tanker in a small custom built reservoir of water and have two fire engines standing by. So there!

I used to work on production truck fuel injector test machines. We used to pipe the high temperature injected oil back to the tank with PTFE hoses supported by steel braid. Pretty standard stuff really.

The static charge built up in the fuel would sometimes get high enough to discharge across the PTFE to the steel braid. If you ran the machine hard with the doors open (apparently :oops: ) you could see the sparks around the fuel lines... Of course, once you started getting leaks you had a 60-bar kerosene line with a load of microscopic leaks in it; pretty good way of filling the entire cabinet with an oil vapour cloud... The 45HP (!) motor was in that cabinet too.

How we didn't have a fire or explosion is completely beyond me.

mfin

Funnily enough, smoking itself is very unlikely to cause a fire with petrol. Only the saltpeter in the cigarettes can potentially burn at a temperature that his the flashpoint of petrol. But its unlikely. The flame off a lighter will do it though cos a naked flame doesn't have to hit flashpoint, something like that.

You can get a bucket of petrol and throw a lit cigarette in it and what happens, it goes out... was at a fire safety thing years ago watching someone try to make it happen on a summers day, tried a few times, didn't happen.

I don't know any of the tecnhical side of things but if you don't reach the flashpoint temp to set petrol vapour on fire then you need a naked flame, that's how I understand it.

You can put petrol behind a running exhaust and if you're lucky/unlucky you can get it to light, but the exhaust has to spit out particles beyond the flashpoint temperature.

Im not saying any of these things are safe!!!!

Loretta Damage

Bloke I know manages a petrol station. He told me that the main concern with mobile phones is that there is the potential for the signal when receiving/transmitting can interfere with the digital read-out on the pump, resulting in an incorrect total cost.

MattC59

mfin wrote:

Funnily enough, smoking itself is very unlikely to cause a fire with petrol. Only the saltpeter in the cigarettes can potentially burn at a temperature that his the flashpoint of petrol. But its unlikely. The flame off a lighter will do it though cos a naked flame doesn't have to hit flashpoint, something like that.

You can get a bucket of petrol and throw a lit cigarette in it and what happens, it goes out... was at a fire safety thing years ago watching someone try to make it happen on a summers day, tried a few times, didn't happen.

I don't know any of the tecnhical side of things but if you don't reach the flashpoint temp to set petrol vapour on fire then you need a naked flame, that's how I understand it.

You can put petrol behind a running exhaust and if you're lucky/unlucky you can get it to light, but the exhaust has to spit out particles beyond the flashpoint temperature.

Im not saying any of these things are safe!!!!

I think you've misunderstood flash point. It's the minimum temperature at which a liquid produces enough vapour to form a flammable fuel/air mixture.
Liquid petrol, as you mention, doesn't necessarily burn, but when you introduce a flame, or were to hold a cigarette close enough to heat the fuel, it will then produce vapour. This ignites, heats the rest of the fuel above the flash point, more vapour is produced and so on.....

A lit cigarette thrown into petrol is simply extinguished because you need the oxygen in the air as well as the fuel vapour.

MattC59

Loretta Damage wrote:

Bloke I know manages a petrol station. He told me that the main concern with mobile phones is that there is the potential for the signal when receiving/transmitting can interfere with the digital read-out on the pump, resulting in an incorrect total cost.

Unfortunately, he's wrong.

mfin

MattC59 wrote:

mfin wrote:

Funnily enough, smoking itself is very unlikely to cause a fire with petrol. Only the saltpeter in the cigarettes can potentially burn at a temperature that his the flashpoint of petrol. But its unlikely. The flame off a lighter will do it though cos a naked flame doesn't have to hit flashpoint, something like that.

You can get a bucket of petrol and throw a lit cigarette in it and what happens, it goes out... was at a fire safety thing years ago watching someone try to make it happen on a summers day, tried a few times, didn't happen.

I don't know any of the tecnhical side of things but if you don't reach the flashpoint temp to set petrol vapour on fire then you need a naked flame, that's how I understand it.

You can put petrol behind a running exhaust and if you're lucky/unlucky you can get it to light, but the exhaust has to spit out particles beyond the flashpoint temperature.

Im not saying any of these things are safe!!!!

I think you've misunderstood flash point. It's the minimum temperature at which a liquid produces enough vapour to form a flammable fuel/air mixture.
Liquid petrol, as you mention, doesn't necessarily burn, but when you introduce a flame, or were to hold a cigarette close enough to heat the fuel, it will then produce vapour. This ignites, heats the rest of the fuel above the flash point, more vapour is produced and so on.....

A lit cigarette thrown into petrol is simply extinguished because you need the oxygen in the air as well as the fuel vapour.

Ah, I get it.

ben@31

corkyballs wrote:

Mythbusters did this one years ago - twice and the myth was busted on both occasions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2003_season)#Cell_Phone_Destruction

Here's the episode "Does Cell Phone Destroy Gas Station?" part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABfIcmIjD0U
part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdAKqogebPM

In the USA, vehicles are refuelled 12 billion times a year and there has only been 152 fires since the early 90's. Most caused by Americans getting in and out the car while refuelling (as mentioned previously).

Quote " Sigh, how hard can it be to blow up a room full of gasoline :-( " unquote.

tiredofwhiners

ben@31 wrote:

In the USA, vehicles are refuelled 12 billion times a year and there has only been 152 fires since the early 90's.

Yeah, because the 12 billion times a year are done by folks not actually using a mobile phone while refuelling.

If there were 12 billion uses of mobile phones each year, while refuelling, do you imagine there would be no incidents ?

ben@31

tiredofwhiners wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

In the USA, vehicles are refuelled 12 billion times a year and there has only been 152 fires since the early 90's.

Yeah, because the 12 billion times a year are done by folks not actually using a mobile phone while refuelling.

If there were 12 billion uses of mobile phones each year, while refuelling, do you imagine there would be no incidents ?

Watch the video posted previously. It proves there would be no incidents if there were 12 billion uses of mobile phones each year. The only plausible cause is static, by getting in and out the car as the pump is left latched on.

Also don't forget we are talking about Americans after all! A land so safe and so full of common sense, they sell rifles opposite the frozen peas in Walmart and sue McDonalds for making them fat. Do you really think they all put their mobile phones away?

essjaydee

Wow.........some health and safety explanations that make sense and are useful
Glad to see there are others here that work in the H&S area, and occasionally pop their heads above the parapit

I think in the early days of mobile phones, there was a lot of misconception surrounding the radio transmissions and this was thought to be dangerous and harmful, with little evidence or factual information to support these claims. This is probably still true in a lot of business areas, including mine (aviation).

Static electricity is probably the main cause of concern at petrol stations, and there are so many variables with this that it makes sense to have restrictions in place.

With regards to car electrical systems, these will be suitably earthed, as depicted by the relevant regulations that the manufacturers have to comply with.

tiredofwhiners

ben@31 wrote:

Watch the video posted previously. It proves there would be no incidents if there were 12 billion uses of mobile phones each year.

With the greatest of respect, it does nothing of the kind. It proves nothing.

It suggest a bit, but to extrapolate from one extremely limited sample to a 12 billion event count is less than analytical and certainly not statistical.

The point is that its an easily avoidable risk wheras clingy clothing and static isn't an avoidable circumstance.

ben@31

So if a television documentary that tested a mobile phone in a room full of gasoline vapour fails to make you believe mobile phones do nothing, what will?

Only 152 cases out of 1,000,000,000's. You can't argue with them figures.

It's an easily avoidable risk, because there is no risk in the first place.

marz

tiredofwhiners wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

In the USA, vehicles are refuelled 12 billion times a year and there has only been 152 fires since the early 90's.

Yeah, because the 12 billion times a year are done by folks not actually using a mobile phone while refuelling.

If there were 12 billion uses of mobile phones each year, while refuelling, do you imagine there would be no incidents ?

I've yet to see someone to be NOT using their mobile phone will refueling.

The ban that seems to persist is based on nanny-state science rather than any actual facts.

tiredofwhiners

ben@31 wrote:

So if a television documentary that tested a mobile phone in a room full of gasoline vapour fails to make you believe mobile phones do nothing, what will?

So if you see man throw a coin in the air and it ends up 'heads' does that mean that all coins when thrown in the air will be heads ? No, it doesn't. All your shows is that one phone in one scenario, once has one outcome.

ben@31 wrote:

Only 152 cases out of 1,000,000,000's. You can't argue with them figures.

You are unable to read. Its 152 instances out of the unknown number of instances of people using phones while refuelling.

13 billion instances of refuelling WITH SIGNS SAYING NOT TO USE YOUR PHONES WHILE REFUELLING WHICH IS WHAT 99.999% DO

You are claiming that all refuelling is done on the phone and there are only 152 events. I am saying that for all you know, there could have been 152 instances of people on the phone - and you have no idea in the slightest how many people refuel while using a phone.

tiredofwhiners

marz wrote:

I've yet to see someone to be NOT using their mobile phone will refueling.

Put simply, thats a bare faced lie.

MattC59

tiredofwhiners wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

So if a television documentary that tested a mobile phone in a room full of gasoline vapour fails to make you believe mobile phones do nothing, what will?

So if you see man throw a coin in the air and it ends up 'heads' does that mean that all coins when thrown in the air will be heads ? No, it doesn't. All your shows is that one phone in one scenario, once has one outcome.

ben@31 wrote:

Only 152 cases out of 1,000,000,000's. You can't argue with them figures.

You are unable to read. Its 152 instances out of the unknown number of instances of people using phones while refuelling.

13 billion instances of refuelling WITH SIGNS SAYING NOT TO USE YOUR PHONES WHILE REFUELLING WHICH IS WHAT 99.999% DO

You are claiming that all refuelling is done on the phone and there are only 152 events. I am saying that for all you know, there could have been 152 instances of people on the phone - and you have no idea in the slightest how many people refuel while using a phone.

But what you seem to be forgetting, is that of the 152 forecourt fires where there has been someone one the phone, not a single fire has the ignition source attributed to the phone.

ben@31

tiredofwhiners wrote:

You are unable to read. Its 152 instances out of the unknown number of instances of people using phones while refuelling.

13 billion instances of refuelling WITH SIGNS SAYING NOT TO USE YOUR PHONES WHILE REFUELLING WHICH IS WHAT 99.999% DO

You are claiming that all refuelling is done on the phone and there are only 152 events. I am saying that for all you know, there could have been 152 instances of people on the phone - and you have no idea in the slightest how many people refuel while using a phone.

Yes there is an unknown number of instances of people using their phones while refuelling. It could be a lot? Who knows?
What I'm thinking is vehicles are refuelled 13 billion times... per year... just in the USA alone. If only 1% sent a text message whilst waiting inline, which I think is realistic, thats 130 million cases. Or if we use your figures 00.001% is still 130 thousand cases? Yet there has only been 152 fires.

Escadrille Ecosse

MattC59 wrote:

But what you seem to be forgetting, is that of the 152 forecourt fires where there has been someone one the phone, not a single fire has the ignition source attributed to the phone.

Nailed it Matt

Aerozine50

The same reason exists as to why you are not allowed to take a mobile phone into an HSE licenced explosives magazine either!!
I.e. it comes from the ATEX/DSEAR and MSED regulations.

Somebody somewhere has proven through mathematics that petrol and other flammable/energetic items are susceptible to Radio Frequency stimulation.

Thus the law is as it is.

Regards

Paul

marz

tiredofwhiners wrote:

marz wrote:

I've yet to see someone to be NOT using their mobile phone will refueling.

Put simply, thats a bare faced lie.

Really? I didn't realize you lived in the states too. Next time I'm refueling I'll take a picture using my blackberry of other folks using their phone. The best ones are those who drive onto the forecourt while making a phone call, continue the call while they refuel and then carry on that call as they drive off.

Monkeypump

marz wrote:

tiredofwhiners wrote:

marz wrote:

I've yet to see someone to be NOT using their mobile phone will refueling.

Put simply, thats a bare faced lie.

Really? I didn't realize you lived in the states too. Next time I'm refueling I'll take a picture using my blackberry of other folks using their phone. The best ones are those who drive onto the forecourt while making a phone call, continue the call while they refuel and then carry on that call as they drive off.

But EVERY person you've EVER seen filling up at a fuel station has been on the phone at the time?

Really? :?

MattC59

Aerozine50 wrote:

The same reason exists as to why you are not allowed to take a mobile phone into an HSE licenced explosives magazine either!!
I.e. it comes from the ATEX/DSEAR and MSED regulations.

Somebody somewhere has proven through mathematics that petrol and other flammable/energetic items are susceptible to Radio Frequency stimulation.

Thus the law is as it is.

Regards

Paul

Not quite, but along the same lines.

marz

Monkeypump wrote:

marz wrote:

tiredofwhiners wrote:

marz wrote:

I've yet to see someone to be NOT using their mobile phone will refueling.

Put simply, thats a bare faced lie.

Really? I didn't realize you lived in the states too. Next time I'm refueling I'll take a picture using my blackberry of other folks using their phone. The best ones are those who drive onto the forecourt while making a phone call, continue the call while they refuel and then carry on that call as they drive off.

But EVERY person you've EVER seen filling up at a fuel station has been on the phone at the time?

Really? :?

OK, I've not documented ever occasion and apologies for using an absolute. But if asked to bet a tenner on whether the next person I see at petrol station is using their phone, I'll take that bet.

ben@31

marz wrote:

OK, I've not documented ever occasion and apologies for using an absolute. But if asked to bet a tenner on whether the next person I see at petrol station is using their phone, I'll take that bet.

Does sending text messages whilst sat waiting in the queue count? I bet at least one person can't survive 5 minutes without sending a text message or looking on that facebook thing.

bernithebiker

tiredofwhiners wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

At airports, some aircraft are refuelled with the engines still running and radios transmitting. Not a problem.

Jet fuel, not petrol. Irrelevant example.

You might want to look up the difference as you can extinguish a match in diesel fuel.

Er, you are wrong here buddy. I was the Head of Jet Fuel Trading for Total.

Jet is much more volatile than diesel - Jet flash point = 38'C min, Diesel = 55'C min.

Jet is actually quite similar to gasoline in it's volatility. The US Military uses a slightly different jet for it's a/c carriers with a higher flash (safer).

And as for the phone thing, it's like planes isn't it? Of 200 people on the flight you can bet your ass that at least 10% have left their phones on in their bags. But the plane doesn't fall out of the sky in sheets of flame does it?