DescentBB

Posted: **Sun May 23, 2004 9:06 pm**

no, it's an urban myth that news agencies love to repeat over and over.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transc ... 911863.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transc ... 931660.htm

http://www.snopes.com/autos/hazards/gasvapor.asp

but hello hello CBS just reported yet "another" supposed incident, may14, this is fresh news ppl.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/ ... 7547.shtml

Phone Ignites Gas Station Fire

NEW PALTZ, N.Y., May 14, 2004

(Photo: AP / CBS)

"Don't use their cell phones when they're pumping gas. Really, it's deadly."
fire chief Patrick Koch

(CBS/AP) Flames shot up around a 21-year-old college student whose cell phone rang while he was pumping gas.

Firefighters said Matthew Erhorn, a SUNY New Paltz student, received minor burns at a Mobil station near the New York State Thurway (Interstate 87) Thursday night.

"I'm very surprised," Erhorn said.

He shouldn't have been. There's a sign at the pumps at the New Paltz gas station warning that cell phones should be turned off for safety while pumping gas.

Firefighters believe the cell phone ignited vapors coming from the car's fuel tank as it was being filled.

It doesn't take much of a charge to ignite gasoline vapors, New Paltz fire chief Patrick Koch told WCBS-AM's Peter Haskell. "Anything, really. Women's nylon stockings when they get out of a vehicle, that can cause a spark, too."

That's why motorists are told "don't use their cell phones when they're pumping gas. Really, it's deadly," Koch said.

The fire was immediately put out by the service station's fire suppression system, using an oxygen-killing powder. That covered other cars in the gas station parking lot as well as nearby trees.

The station will remain closed until the system can be recharged.

New Paltz is about 75 miles north of New York City.

Â©MMIV CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

so what do ya think?
personally, from what i've seen about it, i think that this is yet another bogus news story.
but i'm gonna try to look into it, do some PI work

(i imagine i won't be the only one).

Posted: **Sun May 23, 2004 10:34 pm**

they can indeed cause explosions/fires. i was a night shift manager at a gas station for a few years, and it happened while i was working. someone was talkin on the phone, they laid it on the hood and went to the back of their suv to get a gas can, leaving the nozzle on but hanging in the air (not pumping at the time, but on) and poof, the nozzle erupts in a ball of fire and it runs straight up the hose. luckily it didnt spread, it kind of just fizzled out, but it was scary as hell seeing the thing catch fire.

it may or may not have been the phone, but i don't know what else could have caused it. the firemen said it was the phone. i believed them, but i really can't offer any scientific proof other than a guy who puts out fires for a living said it was the cell phone. thank god for those safety thingymahbobs they stick on the ends of the hose or there might have been a huge explosion

Posted: **Sun May 23, 2004 10:39 pm**

I saw a show on this not to long ago. It's been proven that women are the worst for this as they talk more on the phone while pumping gas and it has to do with the static electricity in the phone and the carpet in the car or the car seat.

Posted: **Sun May 23, 2004 11:12 pm**

kurupt wrote:went to the back of their suv to get a gas can

Trying to fill a metal gas can is very dangerous unless the gas can is on the ground, and the metal of the nozzle and the can itself are touching.

Posted: **Sun May 23, 2004 11:49 pm**

Static has been proven to spark gasoline at the pump (this is one reason they tell you not to get back in your car while the gas is pumping -- you build up static, and when you get out, you have a tiny but nonzero risk of setting off the fumes.)

Do cell phones act as a conduit for such static? I don't see why they shouldn't.

Should you feel like you're risking your life if you talk on a cell phone at the gas pump? Probably not -- but it can't hurt to leave your phone in the car.

Plus, I wouldn't mind if people turned their phones off more often... even a bogus excuse is good enough for me ;)

Posted: **Mon May 24, 2004 2:17 am**

It's a combination of Static electricity, cheap vibrator motors

and ionized gas, combined with the wonderful RF skin effect Microwave frequencies exhibit.
http://www.fact-index.com/s/sk/skin_effect.html

At ~ 900 MHZ and on up a radio antenna can almost be anything a stick of wood may even work with enough moisture in it.

The antenna radiates RF energy, which is an Ionizing energy (like in a neon tube).

Getting out of a vehicle that has a signifcant static charge already built onto it, combined with a cell phone ionizing a good deal of petrochemical soaked air around it starts sounding ugly to me.

Perhaps just adding that extra little charge of RF ionizing energy from a Class 4 cell phone into the mix, and most likely a vibrating motor, (vibe mode on) caused the sparks for ignition.

My 2Â¢

Posted: **Mon May 24, 2004 12:41 pm**

if you've ever seen an electric motor running at speed, you'll see a small blue arc inside when you look through the ventilation holes. spark + gas vapors = fire or boom.

Posted: **Mon May 24, 2004 10:04 pm**

ABC (america, not australia) news is going the "it's just an urban myth" side.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/Busi ... 517-1.html

Experts believe that it was static electricity â?? not the cell phone â?? that caused the fire. Static fires at the pumps are rare events, but they do happen. The Petroleum Equipment Institute reports on its Web site it has counted 158 reports to date of gas pump fires attributed to static electricity.
...
No one who GMA talked to is aware of a single documented case of a cell phone starting a fire at a gas pump.

mediawatch found the same thing in their research (read the links in the initial post), no-one had a documented case of a mobilephone causing a fire. the storys are passed around in circles but you can never trace them back to an actual event, it's all heresay that folds over when you look into it.

however, if a vibrating phone has a brushed motor then i can see your point ferno. i wonder if phones just use solenoids to vibrate.

Posted: **Mon May 24, 2004 10:12 pm**

....um.... has anyone been able to replicate this in a controlled environment?

Posted: **Mon May 24, 2004 10:21 pm**

roid, "static electricity, and therefore not cell phones" is not the proper conclusion. "Static electricity, which may or may not be contributed to by cell phones" is the proper conclusion. Are the things storing static, or vibrating and contributing to it? If so, they certainly could contribute. If not, then it's an urban legend. We know it's static -- so now the question is, do the cell phones contribute?

So far, nobody has said "there's no way it's the cell phones" -- just "we don't have any specific evidence that it is the cell phones." No evidence is not the same as evidence against, especially in the case of an event as rare as a gas pump fire. It's hard to compile statistics on events that happen only a few times a year worldwide.

Duper brings up a good point -- it should be tested in a controlled environment. As far as I know, nobody has tried. But then, do *you* want to be the guy standing there trying to get the gas pump to ignite? What should be tested, though, is whether or not cell phones store static, increase levels of static, and/or release static (specifically, if they do so differently when they're "on" than when they're "off".) Knowing this would make it clear whether or not turning your cell phone off would help.

Posted: **Mon May 24, 2004 10:35 pm**

Roid asked if they use solenoids to vibrate phones... nope.

Cheap electric motors with a concentric weight attched to the end of the shaft.

Sparkage galor, sealed motors are very, very expensive.

http://www.leuze.de/english/index.html? ... /p_06.html

A great read on explosion proof systems.

Posted: **Mon May 24, 2004 11:21 pm**

on one of those articles (perhaps the latest one) it mentions mobile phone manufacturers often mention studys that were done that say that mobile phones are not an issue.

it wouldn't be hard to test it in a controlled environment, just wear a burnsuit or whatever they are called. (like the guy that did the test for GMA did)

Posted: **Tue May 25, 2004 8:38 am**

I would imagine, with all the fools with cellphones, there would be many, many more gas fires started due to cellphones. There must be at least 1000 people a day who are pumping gas when the phone in their pocket goes off. Probability would come in to play and there would be a noticable increase in gas station fires. There aren't.

Posted: **Thu May 27, 2004 5:40 am**

Amen Testi.

Gas is VERY hard to ignite. Ever tried to pour a trail of gas and light it by throwing a lighter or a cigarette on it? You'll be standing there all day, chucking stuff on the gas. Hollywood is so full of bullsh!t.

However, in the right circumstances it often surprises people.

Cellphones though? Yeah - right. They'll make your 747 crash too. Oh, and they'll also fry your brain when you're talking on them because of the Electro-magnetic radiation.

Posted: **Thu May 27, 2004 7:59 am**

I thought the radiation concern was a valid one?

Posted: **Thu May 27, 2004 8:58 am**

Duper wrote:....um.... has anyone been able to replicate this in a controlled environment?

there was a TV show on UK TV called "Brainiac" - it was actually quite good... the lazy man's approach to science!

one of the skits.. er.. experiments was to see if indeed mobile phones could start a fire. They filled a caravan with 100 gallons of gasoline, and placed a single cellphone in there. called it, and nothing.
they put 10 phones in there, and still nothing.

so, just for the fun element, and so that all that gas wasnt for waste, they got one of the guys to dress in a track suit (PVC or something.. uhh..) and made him run on the spot so that he would up static, they'd already had a wire running from the caravan, and then fused it to the guy and.. BOOM! mwuahaha

-- just to be o/t, another skit was to see if it was true that staring at a fine woman's chest for 30mins was the same as a 30min workout... heehehee

Posted: **Thu May 27, 2004 9:01 am**

Testiculese wrote:I thought the radiation concern was a valid one?

yeh, its been known for having a phone in your pocket can be blamed for teste cancer... /me pulls phone from pocket...
radiation/microwaves can be blamed for such illnesses, but i guess it's just hit or miss...

Posted: **Thu May 27, 2004 9:34 am**

thats y i allways touch my car befor touching aney part of the gas pump to discharge the static.

Posted: **Thu May 27, 2004 2:11 pm**

Testiculese wrote:I thought the radiation concern was a valid one?

Its not. The core of our planet puts out more radiation than any cordless telephone will. You're exposed to more radiation from our planetary core in one day than you'll get from your cell phone in a long ass time.

Going back to the topic here, its not possible at all for a cell phone to set off an explosion at the fuel pump. Thats caused my stupid people that don't ground themselves off by touching their vehicle before touching the nozzle.

Merlin: That'd be Mythbusters. Funny thing is, they literally filled that chamber with gas and called repeatedly and the damn thing never blew.

Posted: **Sat May 29, 2004 7:58 am**

thats why there's no self serve in Oregon. also we create more jobs that way

low paying jobs but jobs none the less, and our gas is still cheaper than it is in Washington right across the Columbia where they have self serve. plus when its 30 friggin degree's and raining out side I can stay in my nice warm car and pay the station attendant to fill it for me

everytime they try to pass a self serve measure they bring up the woman spilling gas on herself and the risk of her catching on fire

Posted: **Sat May 29, 2004 9:18 am**

Mobius wrote:Gas is VERY hard to ignite. Ever tried to pour a trail of gas and light it by throwing a lighter or a cigarette on it? You'll be standing there all day, chucking stuff on the gas. Hollywood is so full of bullsh!t.

However, in the right circumstances it often surprises people.

You seem to underestimate the threat. I used to think like you, working on my car, disconnecting fuel lines and having gas spill all over the floor... So I roll the car away, and decided to see how flammable it was. It was almost all dried up in the sun. I threw in a match and it just blew up in my face. I was surprised because I didn't expect such an ignition, but it really is very flammable. Especially when spilled.

You try. Take a spoonful of gas, throw it on the pavement and light it up. You'll be surprised.

As far as the cellphones go, I don't think they cause any more risk of fire at the gas station than rubber shoe soles. I agree, static electricity can cause a spark when the charge moves. But a cellphone does not use static electricity and does NOT ionize anything when operating.
Someone made the reflection in a local newspaper that calling while filling up is just as dangerous as filling up with a lighter in your pocket.

Also, what testi said.

Posted: **Sat May 29, 2004 2:09 pm**

If a cell phone put out enough RF energy to ignite fuel vapors, those with cell phones would have much bigger things to worry about.

Posted: **Sat May 29, 2004 5:17 pm**

Tri, he meant by anything other than direct flame.

Posted: **Sat May 29, 2004 6:17 pm**

you guys realize it's the gas vapors that are explosive right?

Posted: **Sat May 29, 2004 8:01 pm**

No really? I had no idea.

They decided on mythbusters that it was actually static electricity from people getting back into and then out of their car while pumping gas. And they showed firemen demonstrating it plain as day.

Posted: **Sun May 30, 2004 1:39 am**

Perhaps having the cell phone radiating near ionizing frequencies, pushing electrons into a higher orbit, then having a substantial static electricty charge, (such as a vehicle can build up on a highway trip) boost those electrons into an orbit up to a point where ionization occurs.

Vapors ignite easily.

My bet is that when you set the phone to vibrate sparks occur in the vibe-motor when the unit rings, and most likey are a source of ignition.

Posted: **Sun May 30, 2004 1:15 pm**

Canuck wrote:Perhaps having the cell phone radiating near ionizing frequencies, pushing electrons into a higher orbit, then having a substantial static electricty charge, (such as a vehicle can build up on a highway trip) boost those electrons into an orbit up to a point where ionization occurs.

Umm...its not possible for a cell phone to set off a fuel pump. Those fuel fires were caused by static electricity, not flying electrons or RF output from the transmitter on the phone. Please try and think about it for a second here. If a cellphone can set off fuel fires, don't you think that they would have been banned by now? Don't you think that terrorists would have attempted to use them to set off fuel pumps?

My bet is that when you set the phone to vibrate sparks occur in the vibe-motor when the unit rings, and most likey are a source of ignition.

You have seen the inside of one of these vibrator batteries....right? All it is, is just a itty bitty motor spinning a little wheel offset so that it produces a vibration. NO SPARKS ARE INVOLVED HERE. Its just a little dinky DC motor. Its not like a third rail on a subway track.

Posted: **Sun May 30, 2004 1:35 pm**

Third rail is DC.

But you're right, those sparks are caused when the shoe stops riding on top of the rail for a bit and the current arcs between the potential differences.

Interestingly enough, I've never seen Amtrak catenary (25000 VAC) spark, but of course subway tracks (600 VDC) spark all the time. Maybe because the pantographs never slip.

Posted: **Wed Jun 02, 2004 1:09 am**

MD, I said static discharge is the trigger and or sparks from a motor.

I dont care how itty bitty a vibe motor is, it makes sparks when it rotates.
Here's a breakdown of one
Clickage

And RF systems do generate electrostatic voltages on their surfaces that can discharge... look it up.

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/whyantradiates.html
http://www.tpub.com/content/neets/14182 ... 182_63.htm
http://www.priorartdatabase.com/IPCOM/000005783/
http://www.repeater-builder.com/rbtip/buster.html
http://powerweb.grc.nasa.gov/pvsee/publ ... light.html

Posted: **Wed Jun 02, 2004 7:33 am**

I was on my cell phone once while pumping gas, and an annoying gas attendant at 7-11 told me to get off. God, was I pissed. So pissed I did tonnes of looking stuff up on the internet to find out exactly why they would make such outrageous claims. No, it's not the electromagnetic radiation that the cell phone emits (like the gas attendant told me)... it's actually the fact that Cell phones have high voltage batteries on them. If someone was to... BY CHANCE... drop their cell phone, it COULD (not likely) cause a spark if the cell phone's battery pack broke in just the right way. The same article mentioned that there's more of a chance of someone starting a fire at a gas station through use of a cell phone, by running into a gas pump while talking on a phone and driving at the same time. (there's no sitation cause it was a while ago that I read this) I also might add, that someone's built up static electricity in their pants is a more likely situation as well, but you don't see them banning pants at gas stations, or any pieces of clothing for that matter. I still can't decide if I want them to either.

Oh, btw... this is my first posting...

Posted: **Wed Jun 02, 2004 8:11 am**

Congrats, and yes, the whole cellphone gas pump fire thing is ridiculous.

Posted: **Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:35 pm**

Johnny M wrote:but you don't see them banning pants at gas stations

Thank god!

Posted: **Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:21 pm**

Canuck wrote:MD, I said static discharge is the trigger and or sparks from a motor.

I dont care how itty bitty a vibe motor is, it makes sparks when it rotates.
Here's a breakdown of one
Clickage

Did you even READ that site?

Long-lasting as lessened abrasion of the brushes is less likely to generate sparks.

less likely != actively generate

And RF systems do generate electrostatic voltages on their surfaces that can discharge... look it up.

And yet not a single one instance has been recorded of such discharges ever starting a fire at a fuel pump. Most of the time, those fires were started by people starting to pump fuel into their vehicle, getting back into the vehicle, and then getting back out later without touching the outside of the vehicle to ground them out. Then they grab the nozzle, which would cause the individual to deliver a charge and ignite the vapors which starts the fire. I could sit there all damn day chattering away on a cellphone and it won't do a damn thing other than tire my jaw out and use up all my minutes for the month.

Posted: **Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:41 pm**

MD can you honestly say that out of perhaps 100's of millions of devices with these products that even 1 can spark?

Take a chill pill and say maybe.

Posted: **Mon Jun 07, 2004 11:55 am**

Canuck wrote:MD can you honestly say that out of perhaps 100's of millions of devices with these products that even 1 can spark?

Take a chill pill and say maybe.

Ok fine, lets say just for the sake of the arguement that they produce a buttload of them. How the hell are they going to start a fire when they're in a SEALED UNIT? They're not inside the phones, but inside the battery itself. Don't believe me? Go look them up on google. I see vibrating batteries all the time at booths in malls.

My phone
My phone (2)

As you can clearly see, the battery is on the right, back cover in the middle, and phone on the left (opened in first pic). The battery has a vibrator motor inside. I know this because I can shake it a certain way and feel the motor moving slightly.

The only possible way for a cellphone to set off a fire at the pump is if:

1. The static charge was passed through the phone from you to the nozzle (how many people reach for the nozzle with their phone in the same hand?)

2. The user dialed a number to set off an explosive of some kind (C-4, etc) which was planted there at an earlier time.

Are you done grasping at straws yet Canuck?

Posted: **Mon Jun 07, 2004 3:37 pm**

Fact: the DC motors in cell phones do arc. The way the magnetic field in the rotor cycles is by means of machanical brushes. Every time any sort of mechanical system closes a circuit, you get and arc. (no matter how small it may be) These brushes open and close the circuits for different coils in the motor. There are brushless DC motors, but these have a PM (permanent magnet) in the rotor, and coils in the stator- this requires intellegent control (I.E. circuits dedicated to the timing the coils), and are ALOT more expensive.

Fact: those motors are in a fairly airtight container- it would be very unlikely that the fumes would seep into the phone to the motor in such a manner that a flame would manage to get out of the phone.

I havn't heard of and such thing as the emissions ionizing the air, though it is completely possible. I doubt that this would greatly effect one's static state, regardless- vandegraph machines are the most effective things we know of at making a static charge, and they function on mechanical methods.

The point about cell phones getting dropped is very valid. If the battery falls out, it is highly likely to arc.

I would say the main problem with gassing up while on the phone is the same problem that exists with driving while talking- it distracts you from what you are doing. Thats my 2c.

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:34 am**

Holy scneiky MD, your vibrator is in the battery?
That means every cellphone's vibrator must be in the battery then?

Dude I fix the suckers, believe me they are not sealed, and not all in the battery.

Get a job.

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2004 1:50 am**

MD, Canuck's an electronics repair technician. Don't pretend to know more than he does because you don't.

So STFU.

Posted: **Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:45 pm**

Hehe thanks JD, I don't think he realized that.

Anyways here's a few points to ponder;

1) Cellphones are not hermetically sealed units
2) Electrostatic charges DO build up on the surface of the phone/antenna
3) There are unsealed brushed DC motors in many of these devices
4) Cellular Phones, (most importantly and most likely to cause ignition) use high current batteries to deliver good uptime.

Fully 3/4 of cellphone problems are poor contacts, many at the charge/plug points.

Don't tell me that a contact that's loose on the phone PCB or battery housing isn't going to make a spark.

Posted: **Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:26 am**

maybe Canuck.. also I think he failed science class.

DescentBB

can mobile phones REALLY cause fuel pump fires?

can mobile phones REALLY cause fuel pump fires?

Hmm sparkage

Cell Phones CAN ignite gasoline fumes

Re: Cell Phones CAN ignite gasoline fumes

Hmm sparkage

Re: Hmm sparkage

Points to Consider: