May 20, 2004 | Vol. 54, No. 10
Posted on 05/20/2004 1:16:23 PM PDT by Constitution Day
May 20, 2004 | Vol. 54, No. 10
There was a fire at an ExxonMobil service station May 13 in New Paltz, New York, that has received a great amount of media attention because it was initially reported that the source of ignition was the motorist's cell phone that was answered while he was refueling. The story gained momentum after an ExxonMobil spokesperson was misquoted in the May 15 New York Daily News saying "the cell phone could act as a source of ignition—similar to static electricity—on a phone call received and a phone call going out" and in petroleum marketing trade association newsletters explaining "the company believes this was a case of a cell phone's operation 'igniting sparks' and causing a fire." We talked with the New Paltz Fire Chief this week about the accident and he offered two new pieces of information about the fire that were discovered after a more extensive investigation of the scene and another interview with the victim. First, although the motorist said that he chocked the nozzle open with his gas cap (latch-open devices are not allowed at the station in New Paltz), no gas cap was found at the scene. However, a full Bic lighter was discovered two feet from where the car was fueled. Furthermore, the motorist later stated that he reentered his 1994 Isuzu Rodeo during the refueling process to look at his odometer and then slid out of the vehicle to complete the dispensing process immediately prior to answering his cell phone. In light of this new information, the New Paltz Fire Chief issued the following statement about the fire: "Upon 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 the gasoline." PEI has been studying the issue of refueling fires and static electrical discharge at the gas pump since 2000. We have never received a confirmed incident implicating a cell phone at a gasoline station anywhere in the world. Go to www.pei.org/static for our full, updated report and related links.
Student's Ringing Cell Phone Sparks Fire While Pumping Gas
WNBC ^
Posted on 05/14/2004 11:04:50 AM EDT by esryle
NEW PALTZ, N.Y. -- Flames shot up around a 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 Interstate 87 Thursday night.
Firefighters believe the cell phone ignited vapors coming from the car's fuel tank as it was being filled. They used an oxygen-killing white powder and extinguished the fire immediately.
New Paltz is about 75 miles north of New York City.
CD
Cool..
The cell phone thing sounded hokie to me. But ignition source such as a lighter wouldnt have made the news....
I could have told them that. This would be easy to study and replicate in the lab if it were possible at all.
> 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
> the gasoline."
Sliding off the seat (and building a static charge),
and then creating a spark in a fume-rich environment,
is exactly the gas-pump scenario that was proven to
be at least possible on the TV show "Mythbusters".
Of course that hasn't stopped the government from forcing gas station owners to post warning signs on all pumps, "Turn off all cell phones before dispensing gas."
If the Bic lighter was full, then it was not the cause of the fire.
Secondly, getting in and out of a car can generate a small amount of static shock, but obviously not enough to cause an explosion.
What's left? Look to Occam's razor. Whatever is left, no matter how impossible, must be the cause.
To say that a cell phone could not have caused the explosion is laughable. A cell phone has a strong electric charge in its battery. To say that I am supposed to believe the "Petroleum institute" on this subject is even more laughable.
I don't really know the answer, except that I think the cell phone possibility has got to be taken seriously.
Cell phones do not have that capability under any circumstances.
The old phones uses as much as 90vdc to ring the bell.
Ignition temperature of gasoline is over 1000 degrees F- so what ever sparked the ignition had to be as hot as an open flame- I think it is highly unlikely the cell phone was the cause of the fire.
The conclusion was static electricity caused by getting back into the car.
I can't post a link to it because I received it in a company safety email.
I've seen that very video. Pretty amazing stuff!
Cell phones don't make sparks. Getting in and out of your car and building up static on your person via your pants makes sparks though.
The guys on Myth Busters tested the cell phone thing a while back. Even under optimal conditions, with more fuel vapors than you'd ever get from pumping gas, they couldn't get the thing to blow up.
Read!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.