CB Radios, Cellphones and Gasoline Vapor Ignition

  • Thread starter John Michael Williams
  • Start date
J

John Michael Williams

Guest
Claims that people have started fires by using
their cell phone while refueling a car apparently
are false: See
http://www.snopes.com/autos/hazards/gasvapor.asp
and other sites.

However, the first radios transmitted
sparks, so in principle it should be possible to
transmit near a long wire separated by a small gap from
ground or another wire and get a small spark. So, I
decided to try an experiment.

I don't use a cell phone, so I assumed a CB radio
transceiver would be a reasonable substitute: The
power output of a nominal 5 W CB also is consistent
and nonadaptive, so a possible unknown (actual output
power) is avoided. Cell phones are adaptive and
not very consistent in power output, so power
should be monitored during a cell phone experiment.

5 W is considerably more than the 0.2 to 2 W typically
possible from a cell phone; the power should be the
important factor, although maybe someone should repeat this
experiment with a cell phone, which would operate at
a much higher frequency.

I used a Radio Shack TRC-231 handheld (stock #21-1675)
with xmit power on high and set on Channel 40.
The antenna was the one that came with it (about 25 cm
long). I set the volume to max and the squelch at min
to be able to detect anyone else trying to use the
channel; this was just to be sure that my brief, silent
transmissions would not interfere with anyone.

I used the CB indoors, in a mostly metal-shielded
room. Because CB wavelength is around 10 m, everything I
did was in the near field; however, the inverse square law
for power still holds, allowing that the CB antenna is more
of a line than a point source under my conditions below.


The first thing I noticed was that every time I keyed the
transmit button, the CB would switch the
light level of a nearby touch-dimmed lamp, and it
made a Microalert microwave detector scream. I unplugged
the lamp and turned off the Microalert.

Then, I tried to light a 120VAC indicator neon lamp attached
to two solid copper switchback wires totalling about 1 m
long, so the lamp was in the middle effectively of a dipole
antenna. I tested the lamp and found it would light with
10 microamps current. The CB had no effect, even if held
parallel to, and almost touching, the wires. Thus, the near
field of a 5 W CB radio can not supply about 90 V at even
10 uA, under these conditions.

I then attached a 1.2 m monopole antenna to an oscilloscope.
This antenna has a Schottky hot carrier diode and impedance
matching resistors builtin. It's home made, but it's probably
as good as any other wire about that long. I hooked
the antenna coax to an oscilloscope: With the CB transmitting,
and its antenna parallel and 1 m away from the monopole,
the amplitude was about 100 mV p-p, at 27 MHz or so. I could
not get more amplitude no matter how close I held the CB,
or at what angle. Touching the bare monopole wire increased
the amplitude by no more than 10%.

So, first conclusion: To get even a 1 V spark would take a
wire at least 9 m long, all somehow kept within 1 m of the
transmitter. Thus, it appears it is not feasible to create a
hazardous spark with a CB at a gas station.

Just to be sure, I taped a 1 m wire to a table top in the dark
and slowly brought it closer and closer to another wire
plugged into a wall socket 3rd wire ground (yes, I verified
that the socket was wired to ground first!). At each distance, I
briefly keyed the CB. I could not see any spark, even after
dark-adapting my eyes for 10 min and letting the wires touch.
I might have dark-adapted longer, but I don't know whether
I should have been able to see a 50 mV spark or not.

So, I think sliding over on a car seat, and thus generating a
possible static charge, would be more likely to ignite gasoline
vapor than talking on a cell phone while refueling. However, it
would be useful for someone to repeat this kind of test with an
actual cell phone, as opposed to a CB radio. The wires should
be shorter, for one thing . . ..

I'm cross posting to an antenna group, looking for criticism.

John
jwill@AstraGate.net
John Michael Williams
 
I was struck by a thought when I heard the latest Palestinian
terrorist trick is to send a kid through the border with a back-pack
bomb triggered by a cell phone....

The Israelis should get a telemarketer's speed dialer and constantly
dial away... boom... boom... boom...

ROTFLMAO!

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

John "Peace for our Time" Kerry, Neville Chamberlain of this Century
 
"John Michael Williams" <jwill@AstraGate.net> wrote in message
news:4032bf27.0403171202.f93e639@posting.google.com...
Claims that people have started fires by using
their cell phone while refueling a car apparently
are false: See
http://www.snopes.com/autos/hazards/gasvapor.asp
and other sites.

However, the first radios transmitted
sparks, so in principle it should be possible to
transmit near a long wire separated by a small gap from
ground or another wire and get a small spark. So, I
decided to try an experiment.

I don't use a cell phone, so I assumed a CB radio
transceiver would be a reasonable substitute: The
power output of a nominal 5 W CB also is consistent
and nonadaptive, so a possible unknown (actual output
power) is avoided. Cell phones are adaptive and
not very consistent in power output, so power
should be monitored during a cell phone experiment.

5 W is considerably more than the 0.2 to 2 W typically
possible from a cell phone; the power should be the
important factor, although maybe someone should repeat this
experiment with a cell phone, which would operate at
a much higher frequency.

I used a Radio Shack TRC-231 handheld (stock #21-1675)
with xmit power on high and set on Channel 40.
The antenna was the one that came with it (about 25 cm
long). I set the volume to max and the squelch at min
to be able to detect anyone else trying to use the
channel; this was just to be sure that my brief, silent
transmissions would not interfere with anyone.

I used the CB indoors, in a mostly metal-shielded
room. Because CB wavelength is around 10 m, everything I
did was in the near field; however, the inverse square law
for power still holds, allowing that the CB antenna is more
of a line than a point source under my conditions below.


The first thing I noticed was that every time I keyed the
transmit button, the CB would switch the
light level of a nearby touch-dimmed lamp, and it
made a Microalert microwave detector scream. I unplugged
the lamp and turned off the Microalert.

Then, I tried to light a 120VAC indicator neon lamp attached
to two solid copper switchback wires totalling about 1 m
long, so the lamp was in the middle effectively of a dipole
antenna. I tested the lamp and found it would light with
10 microamps current. The CB had no effect, even if held
parallel to, and almost touching, the wires. Thus, the near
field of a 5 W CB radio can not supply about 90 V at even
10 uA, under these conditions.

I then attached a 1.2 m monopole antenna to an oscilloscope.
This antenna has a Schottky hot carrier diode and impedance
matching resistors builtin. It's home made, but it's probably
as good as any other wire about that long. I hooked
the antenna coax to an oscilloscope: With the CB transmitting,
and its antenna parallel and 1 m away from the monopole,
the amplitude was about 100 mV p-p, at 27 MHz or so. I could
not get more amplitude no matter how close I held the CB,
or at what angle. Touching the bare monopole wire increased
the amplitude by no more than 10%.

So, first conclusion: To get even a 1 V spark would take a
wire at least 9 m long, all somehow kept within 1 m of the
transmitter. Thus, it appears it is not feasible to create a
hazardous spark with a CB at a gas station.

Just to be sure, I taped a 1 m wire to a table top in the dark
and slowly brought it closer and closer to another wire
plugged into a wall socket 3rd wire ground (yes, I verified
that the socket was wired to ground first!). At each distance, I
briefly keyed the CB. I could not see any spark, even after
dark-adapting my eyes for 10 min and letting the wires touch.
I might have dark-adapted longer, but I don't know whether
I should have been able to see a 50 mV spark or not.

So, I think sliding over on a car seat, and thus generating a
possible static charge, would be more likely to ignite gasoline
vapor than talking on a cell phone while refueling. However, it
would be useful for someone to repeat this kind of test with an
actual cell phone, as opposed to a CB radio. The wires should
be shorter, for one thing . . ..

I'm cross posting to an antenna group, looking for criticism.

John
jwill@AstraGate.net
John Michael Williams
It's a bit of a stretch to think that cell-phones are a problem, whereas the
car driving off next to you, with a set of spark plugs going for their
lives, is not. Hmmmm.

Ken
 
John,
It's also possible to start a fire rubbing two sticks
together, but it isn't as likely to be an accidental thing.
I would tend to doubt any claims about cell phones starting
accidental fires unless there has been some modification
to the phone, or other unusual circumstance. Turning off
cell phones and radios seems like a reasonable precaution
while fueling, I don't have a problem with that. I also
don't understand why anyone else would either. Do I turn off
my two way radio when fueling? Yes, but mainly because of
how it's connected (ignition switch).
If fuel vapor liable to ignite because of RF? Not unless
the RF field is very strong, or the antenna arcs for some
reason. Very likely? Not really. Possible? Sure. So using
a little common sense... what's the problem?
'Doc

PS - Cross posting is a sure way of causing misunderstandings.
 
I noticed that the appearance of the no cell phone signs came around the
same time that gas stations started running audio commercials through
speakers at the pump.
 
"John Michael Williams" <jwill@AstraGate.net> wrote:

Thus, it appears it is not feasible to create a
hazardous spark with a CB at a gas station.

So, I think sliding over on a car seat, and thus generating a
possible static charge, would be more likely to ignite gasoline
vapor than talking on a cell phone while refueling.
Excellent set of experiments! I heartily approve of anyone who
does an experiment rather than taking someone's word.

Your methodology seems sound to me.

You might try putting a couple of drops of gasoline on a ceramic
plate and seeing if your wire is making a spark too small to see
but large enough to ignite the gasoline.

Another way of looking at it is with statistics. How many people
talk on cell phones while refueling? How many fuel fires occur?

---------------------------------------------------------------

|'Doc <w5lz@cwis.net> says...

|>Turning off cell phones and radios seems like a reasonable
|>precaution while fueling, I don't have a problem with that.
|>I also don't understand why anyone else would either.

You don't understand why someone might be unwilling to miss
an incoming call when there is no apparent benefit?


--
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like
Doc Brown can solve? My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/
 
"Dave Shrader" <david.shrader@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xu36c.33004$po.292953@attbi_s52...
John Michael Williams wrote:

SNIP

However, the first radios transmitted
sparks, so in principle it should be possible to
transmit near a long wire separated by a small gap from
ground or another wire and get a small spark. So, I
decided to try an experiment.

SNIP

There is one other potential source for a spark that you did not
investigate.

A make/break contact in a switch causes sparks when opened. The US
Military specifies special shielded switches for their explosive, gas
vapor, etc., environments.

So, it is possible that pressing the PTT or the ON/OFF switch causes the
necessary spark. Remember the Apollo ground fire. A switch/spark caused
an oxygen explosion.
I wouldn't call it an "oxygen explosion" but a small fire that grew rapidly
due to the pure-oxygen atmosphere.
 
Jim Thompson wrote:

I was struck by a thought when I heard the latest Palestinian
terrorist trick is to send a kid through the border with a back-pack
bomb triggered by a cell phone....

The Israelis should get a telemarketer's speed dialer and constantly
dial away... boom... boom... boom...
If they could figure out from whom they're buying all
them pre-paid cellphones (in order to generate the number
lists), it could work. Just keep it running 24/7 with a
"Sorry, wrong number" message in case an innocent (or
unfinished bomb) answers.

I figure eventually they'll run out of suicide-bomb
volunteers. Might as well help if it can be done without
blowing anyone else up.

Mark L. Fergerson
 
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:08:33 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

I was struck by a thought when I heard the latest Palestinian
terrorist trick is to send a kid through the border with a back-pack
bomb triggered by a cell phone....

The Israelis should get a telemarketer's speed dialer and constantly
dial away... boom... boom... boom...

ROTFLMAO!
Yes, I'm rolling on the floor laughing at all these deaths, too, as
I'm sure we all are.
--

The BBC: Licensed at public expense to spread lies.
 
"Paul Burridge" wrote
: Jim Thompson wrote:
:
: >I was struck by a thought when I heard the latest Palestinian
: >terrorist trick is to send a kid through the border with a
back-pack
: >bomb triggered by a cell phone....
: >
: >The Israelis should get a telemarketer's speed dialer and
constantly
: >dial away... boom... boom... boom...
: >
: >ROTFLMAO!
:
: Yes, I'm rolling on the floor laughing at all these deaths, too,
as
: I'm sure we all are.

Huh?
He seemed to be laughing at the lame Idea! I also thought it
funny that anyone would try something which would almost totally
wipe out the cellular phone service for the entire country... All
to provide a SMALL measure of confidence that no one had a bomb
attached to a phone. Like it would even work!
WTH are you referring to? GAL!
 
Better not open your door or have someone else open theirs next to yu then.
That dome light switch might get you.
"Dave Shrader" <david.shrader@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xu36c.33004$po.292953@attbi_s52...
So, it is possible that pressing the PTT or the ON/OFF switch causes the
necessary spark. Remember the Apollo ground fire. A switch/spark caused
an oxygen explosion.
 
CW <clinton.magers@comcast.net> says...

Better not open your door or have someone else open theirs next
to yu then. That dome light switch might get you.
:)

The Petroleum Equipment Institute reports that there have been 150
US pump fires in the last 10 years. (fires, not deaths. Most pump
fires don't kill anyone) Compare that to the roughly 500,000 auto
accident deaths, roughly 500,000 medical error deaths, and roughly
300,000 influenza deaths during that same period.




--
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like
Doc Brown can solve? My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/
 
"Ken Taylor" <ken123@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
It's a bit of a stretch to think that cell-phones are a problem, whereas the
car driving off next to you, with a set of spark plugs going for their
lives, is not. Hmmmm.
Quite. Not only that, but a petrol station I used to live near had an
in-store bakery.


Tim
--
Love is a travelator.
 
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna,

( I suppose this is on RRAA because cell phones have antennas )

sci.electronics.design,sci.electronics.basics, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

I was struck by a thought when I heard the latest Palestinian
terrorist trick is to send a kid through the border with a back-pack
bomb triggered by a cell phone....
Call phones have become the trigger of choice for terrorist bombs.

The Israelis should get a telemarketer's speed dialer and constantly
dial away... boom... boom... boom...
This might already be illegal there (not that that would stop a
government). I've heard that various parts of Europe have much
stronger privacy laws than the US, so there's little or no
telemarketing.

ROTFLMAO!
Of course, in the USA, one could put the cell number on the
national DO-NOT-CALL list, then only an "illegal" telemarketer would
trigger the bomb.

Bombers might figure ways around this (especially if they search
Usenet), such as a cellphone answering circuit and a "dee tee em eff"
decoding circuit. I wouldn't want to spell it out for them...

...Jim Thompson
-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
 
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:02:37 +1300, "Ken Taylor" <ken123@xtra.co.nz>
Gave us:

snipped previous

It's a bit of a stretch to think that cell-phones are a problem, whereas the
car driving off next to you, with a set of spark plugs going for their
lives, is not. Hmmmm.
Yes, I agree. At 40kV these days too, and sure... none of that
closed system leaks anywhere.... sure. It is ten orders of
magnitude more dangerous than any handheld (or ear held) transmitter
is to flammable liquid vapors.

One should turn one's engine off whenever not using the car, let
alone at fuel pump islands. Always!

The old adage that it costs more to restart an engine than to leave
it running is bullshit today. Fuel injected (or throttle body)cars do
not suffer the idle mixture swings or flooding risk of old carbureted
engines. Unless you are in a very very cold place, turn your friggin'
engine off when you aren't driving the friggin' car!
 
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:26:54 -0500, "Dave VanHorn"
<dvanhorn@cedar.net> Gave us:

I noticed that the appearance of the no cell phone signs came around the
same time that gas stations started running audio commercials through
speakers at the pump.

Interesting observation.
 
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 21:33:43 GMT, Dave Shrader
<david.shrader@comcast.net> Gave us:

So, it is possible that pressing the PTT or the ON/OFF switch causes the
necessary spark.
Both in handheld radio transceivers, and cell phones, there are NO
switches that pass any power level that causes a spark to exhibit upon
contact or release.

Sheesh.

Remember the Apollo ground fire.
It was a pure oxy environment. There was, as a rule nothing
flammable on board. The problem was that materials were not tested
for their flammability in such an oxy rich environ. The kapton tape
is what was set afire by the spark, and that fire grew ferociously in
the oxygen. The oxygen was the oxidizer, not what burned.

A switch/spark caused
an oxygen explosion.
Are you sure you aren't just pulling that one out of you ass as
well? I was taught that it was the spark caused by a dropped wrench,
and that tape is what burned. An explosion would have blown the craft
open from the inside. That did not happen.

One would think that all the switches on Apollo were already gas
tight.
 
IIRC, the Apollo capsule wire insulation was FEP, and was ignited when the
power conductor it insulated was mechanically pinched and shorted to ground.
It overheated enough from fault current to ignite before the breaker
tripped.

Kapton tape was blamed in the Swissair 400(?) cockpit fire and crash in
Newfoundland(?) a few years back.

Gasoline vapor fuel fires were ignited by early pagers and first generation
cell phones which used tiny universal motors with eccentric weights as
silent ring annunciators. Find one of those old beasts and try running that
motor in a flammable environment.

The technical basis of this is covered in a text: "Intrinsic Safety" by
Redding, published by Mc Graw Hill.

--

Crazy George
Remove N O and S P A M imbedded in return address
"DarkMatter" <DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:n85i50lhc42a5dl69ermlinlaed45ua18p@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 21:33:43 GMT, Dave Shrader
david.shrader@comcast.net> Gave us:


So, it is possible that pressing the PTT or the ON/OFF switch causes the
necessary spark.

Both in handheld radio transceivers, and cell phones, there are NO
switches that pass any power level that causes a spark to exhibit upon
contact or release.

Sheesh.

Remember the Apollo ground fire.

It was a pure oxy environment. There was, as a rule nothing
flammable on board. The problem was that materials were not tested
for their flammability in such an oxy rich environ. The kapton tape
is what was set afire by the spark, and that fire grew ferociously in
the oxygen. The oxygen was the oxidizer, not what burned.

A switch/spark caused
an oxygen explosion.

Are you sure you aren't just pulling that one out of you ass as
well? I was taught that it was the spark caused by a dropped wrench,
and that tape is what burned. An explosion would have blown the craft
open from the inside. That did not happen.

One would think that all the switches on Apollo were already gas
tight.
 
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:08:33 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

I was struck by a thought when I heard the latest Palestinian
terrorist trick is to send a kid through the border with a back-pack
bomb triggered by a cell phone....

The Israelis should get a telemarketer's speed dialer and constantly
dial away... boom... boom... boom...

ROTFLMAO!

...Jim Thompson
Had the liberals not f'd everything up, this would've been a common
counter-terror measure. You place radio transmitters at sensitive
locations to blow up car bombs before they got close enough to do
damage. The theory is that if the tango pusses out, another tango
remote detonates the bomb, so all bombs have a radio failsafe.
--
Best Regards,
Mike
 
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:35:02 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

I was struck by a thought when I heard the latest Palestinian
terrorist trick is to send a kid through the border with a back-pack
bomb triggered by a cell phone....

The Israelis should get a telemarketer's speed dialer and constantly
dial away... boom... boom... boom...

If they could figure out from whom they're buying all
them pre-paid cellphones (in order to generate the number
lists), it could work. Just keep it running 24/7 with a
"Sorry, wrong number" message in case an innocent (or
unfinished bomb) answers.

I figure eventually they'll run out of suicide-bomb
volunteers. Might as well help if it can be done without
blowing anyone else up.

Mark L. Fergerson
Do you all think that tangos are dumb enough to trigger the bomb
with the ringer or would the detonator answer first and listen for a
DTMF sequence. Hmmm? Achmed the bomb maker gets a wrong number just
as he's connecting the thing.
--
Best Regards,
Mike
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top