Couldn't get petrol untill I stopped mobile phonecall

Guy:Incognito

ned78 wrote: »

Don't be such a conceited prick. And I'll thank you not to make assumptions about my personal self worth either.
.

Prick.

Del2005

The reason you can't use your phone at a petrol pump is cause they aren't intrinsically safe and there is a slight chance that they can spark. Mythbusters aren't always correct. I heard of a person pumping petrol and using a phone that did cause a fire, was shown at a mechanics safety course. What the problem with the mythbusters and all was that the petrol wasn't under pressure, when pumping petrol there is a lot of pressurised out gassing and this can be highly explosive given the correct conditions. TBH what call is so important that you can't wait 10 min to fill the car with petrol.

Zulu

daedalus2097 wrote: »

As an aside, I'm well aware that there's a tiny risk to an aeroplane, but it still annoys me no end when people have their phones on while landing and taxiing. Can they not survive an extra 10 minutes, no? They'll probably be queuing at passport control for 20 minutes anyway...

It's not a tiny risk - it's "no" risk. And it's not about "surviving an extra 10 minutes", it's an inconvenience I shouldn't have to take. There is no reason for it, so why should I?
As for it "annoying you no end" - why? Do you normally get annoyed when someone switched on or off and electrical device?

daedalus2097

No, it's basically because there's a rule there which is there for the reason of safety and people flout it the whole time for God know what reason. Whether or not it is a real risk, it's a rule which people don't take seriously. It doesn't affect me personally, but that kind of thing annoys me, like people sitting in the overtaking lane for no good reason.

TBH what call is so important that you can't wait 10 min to fill the car with petrol.

Same applies for when a plane's landing. Okay, maybe one or two people have a really tight schedules and need to make arrangements quickly, but the majority of the plane just turn on their phones to see if they got any juicy text messages during the flight, and can't stand to be without it. It seems to be an addiction - people feel "wrong" not having their phone on. Maybe I'm alone here but I simply don't understand that. Or maybe it's just I don't have an addictive personality?

seamus

Del2005 wrote: »

The reason you can't use your phone at a petrol pump is cause they aren't intrinsically safe and there is a slight chance that they can spark. Mythbusters aren't always correct. I heard of a person pumping petrol and using a phone that did cause a fire, was shown at a mechanics safety course. What the problem with the mythbusters and all was that the petrol wasn't under pressure, when pumping petrol there is a lot of pressurised out gassing and this can be highly explosive given the correct conditions.

How so? Gas at a higher pressure naturally has more temperature, but then it's at pressure within the pump. Once it's out of the pump, some fumes escape, but the pressure is gone. Petrol isn't flammable in its liquid form, so you can't ignite the hotter pressurised petrol inside the pump, you can only ignite the vapours which escape. Mobile phones don't produce anything approaching enough heat to ignite petrol and they're electronic, not electric. Electronics don't spark.

TBH what call is so important that you can't wait 10 min to fill the car with petrol.

Why wait? There's no risk whatsoever. None.

It's the same as some people thought that microwaves were really dangerous when they first became big and that putting something metal in them would cause them to explode. Nonsense. It's the word "radiation" that has people imagining Hiroshima and completely overreacting.

deman

thewing wrote: »

I often leave my phone on while flying...always forget..

How can you forget? Are you deaf as well as forgetful? They always tell you as you taxi to take-off to switch off all electronic devices.

L1011

I've been stared at with the utter evil eyes by the person behind the counter in Esso in Laghey for making a phone call, particularly as I was pacing around the forecourt trying to make the 1-bar Meteor reception fall over so I could roam on to Vodafone...

Potential-Monke

Here's the link to the brainiac myth test, which comes up negative, and Myth Busters done a thing on it too, and they too found out that it's a load of crap. Nokia and the like say that you shouldn't use phones while filling just to cover their own arses.

cpoh1

seamus wrote: »

How so? Gas at a higher pressure naturally has more temperature, but then it's at pressure within the pump. Once it's out of the pump, some fumes escape, but the pressure is gone. Petrol isn't flammable in its liquid form, so you can't ignite the hotter pressurised petrol inside the pump, you can only ignite the vapours which escape. Mobile phones don't produce anything approaching enough heat to ignite petrol and they're electronic, not electric. Electronics don't spark.
Why wait? There's no risk whatsoever. None.

It's the same as some people thought that microwaves were really dangerous when they first became big and that putting something metal in them would cause them to explode. Nonsense. It's the word "radiation" that has people imagining Hiroshima and completely overreacting.

Oh holy mother of god! I think we need to rewrite the laws of physics my man because if what you have just written is true it bears no resemblence to how things work in reality. Petrol is not flammable in liquid form??? Electronics dont spark??? You can only ignite the vapours that escape??? I dare you to throw a match or cigarette at the fuel coming out of the pump next time you get petrol and come back on here with the results :rolleyes:

Of all the people who posted on here DEl2005 is the only one who is right in this case. There is a potential in minute circumstances that a mobile phone could cause the fuel to ignite.

homah_7ft

MYOB wrote: »

I've been stared at with the utter evil eyes by the person behind the counter in Esso in Laghey for making a phone call, particularly as I was pacing around the forecourt trying to make the 1-bar Meteor reception fall over so I could roam on to Vodafone...

I don't think you should walk about while refueling.

EDIT: Sorry just realised you weren't refueling.

L1011

homah_7ft wrote: »

I don't think you should walk about while refueling.

EDIT: Sorry just realised you weren't refueling.

The hoses aren't that long!

I'd refuelled and paid and was taking a scenic route back to the car. As its a massive petrol station, at 11pm, I doubt he was staring at me for taking up one of the ~12 pumps as the rest were empty...

wil

right this thread is starting to get a little bit silly so it's time to mention some harsh realities:rolleyes:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/08/nokia_battery.html
So basically, if you happen to be recharging your defective Nokia in the car I would suggest you contact the fire department before filling up.;)

If however you are driving the Caparo T1 you will have caught fire long before getting to the filling station.:(
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/EDITORIAL/car_page_content/36853.html

If you attempt to bring a Dell laptop on a plane you should do some time in Guantanamo Bay:D
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/08/laptop_batteries.html

artanevilla

I always leave the phone in the car, more than likely still will, despite reading all this.

DJ_Spider

Alun wrote: »

Well, if that's the case they should ban cars from garage forecourts then as well. Plenty of potential spark causing stuff in an average car as well. Not to mention nylon underwear

Found the best bit from the Brainiac mobile phone vs petrol experiment!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnl4bK_veg0

So all those scousers who fancy a weekend in Dub better leave the shellsuits at home!

DJ Spider

cyrusdvirus

The arrogance dislpayed by certain people on this thread is breathtaking. The very same people would be up in arms about someone behaving in as ingnorant a manner on the roads, with the same shoddy disregard for the laws and rules that are there for peoples safety.

never turn off my phone on an airplane... always forget? The poster who asked were you deaf or forgetful forgot the most salient point. You are just pure ignorant. Look at me, I'm a rebel, a rule breaker, too cool for your school.

So what if it's been proven that it doesn't really put the plane or the 100 odd other people on board at risk, there's a reason for that rule to be there and whatever it is, be it that the switching gear on the ground was getting confused, be it that there is some tiny infintessimal risk to the aircraft and it's systems, you are showing a disregard for the laws and rules. And I for one would have no problem about reporting you to cabin crew.
You probably display the same characteristics about your driving and wonder why there are such piffly little things as speed limits. Fkn nanny state waffle and all that.

Hagar

Total hypocracy on the part of the petrol stations.
Read this very interesting article.

CarLover

gatecrash wrote: »

The arrogance dislpayed by certain people on this thread is breathtaking. The very same people would be up in arms about someone behaving in as ingnorant a manner on the roads, with the same shoddy disregard for the laws and rules that are there for peoples safety.

never turn off my phone on an airplane... always forget? The poster who asked were you deaf or forgetful forgot the most salient point. You are just pure ignorant. Look at me, I'm a rebel, a rule breaker, too cool for your school.

So what if it's been proven that it doesn't really put the plane or the 100 odd other people on board at risk, there's a reason for that rule to be there and whatever it is, be it that the switching gear on the ground was getting confused, be it that there is some tiny infintessimal risk to the aircraft and it's systems, you are showing a disregard for the laws and rules. And I for one would have no problem about reporting you to cabin crew.
You probably display the same characteristics about your driving and wonder why there are such piffly little things as speed limits. Fkn nanny state waffle and all that.

I have to agree with this. Maybe it is a myth...maybe not. I wasn't aware of it being either...seems silly to flaunt the airline rule though. Even if there's only a minute chance of it being an issue...that's a lot of lives youre putting at risk.
Pure arrogance really...

Zulu

daedalus2097 wrote: »

No, it's basically because there's a rule there which is there for the reason of safety and people flout it the whole time for God know what reason.

People flout jay walking rules - does that bother you so much as well? The rule is pointless. It was put in place because of poor understanding of the subject. It hasn't been reviewed. It's pointless. And the more it's in place, the more people will come to understand this.

Whether or not it is a real risk,

There is no risk.

it's a rule which people don't take seriously.

...and there's good reason for that.

It doesn't affect me personally, but that kind of thing annoys me,

That's a bit silly really, isn't it?

like people sitting in the overtaking lane for no good reason.

nothing like that at all, people sitting in the over taking lane have a direct impact on you and your safetly - people switching on mobile phones don't.

Or maybe it's just I don't have an addictive personality?

well clearly you don't have an addictive personality, but the fact that you'd let something that doesn't affect you bother you so much just because "they are breaking a rule" might say something else of your personality?

seamus

cpoh1 wrote: »

Oh holy mother of god! I think we need to rewrite the laws of physics my man because if what you have just written is true it bears no resemblence to how things work in reality. Petrol is not flammable in liquid form??? Electronics dont spark??? You can only ignite the vapours that escape??? I dare you to throw a match or cigarette at the fuel coming out of the pump next time you get petrol and come back on here with the results :rolleyes:

Petrol vapourises at a very low temperature. Contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe, liquid petrol is not usually flammable. I think it's you who need the physics lesson, my friend. If you pour a big bowl of petrol and throw a match on it, it won't all explode. The top will ignite (where the petrol is vapourising) and it will essentially be flames floating on a bowl of petrol.

The reason it appears that petrol burns in its liquid form is because even at low temperatures, relatively large quantites of its surface will vapourise.

When I talk about electronics, I talk about low-voltage closed circuitry which does not use or rely on eletrically-generated heat. Unlike say a spark plug or a light bulb. Because of their relatively low voltage, electronics are not prone to sparking. For comparision, the voltage of the battery in my mobile right now is 3.6V. In a car's spark plug, in order to mark a spark jump a gap around 1mm or less, it needs to generate anything in the region of 50,000V. There simply is not enough voltage in most consumer electronics to cause sparks.

There is a potential in minute circumstances that a mobile phone could cause the fuel to ignite.

There is more chance of two planes colliding on takeoff and then landing again while fused together. The risk is so slight that it's not even worth thinking about.

NeMiSiS

Lot's of phones have flight mode these days.. My phone has a great camera.. and I like to take pictures of the pretty clouds!

Tom

Zulu

gatecrash wrote: »

The arrogance dislpayed by certain people on this thread is breathtaking. The very same people would be up in arms about someone behaving in as ingnorant a manner on the roads, with the same shoddy disregard for the laws and rules that are there for peoples safety.

The ability to question laws is what makes us a democratic country. In fact, I'd argue it's your moral obligation as a citizen to question laws. Ignorance is that which is displayed by a person who blindly follows laws. Arrogance is that citizen who blindly defends pointless or out dated laws.

...forgot the most salient point. You are just pure ignorant.

It didn't take you long to resort to personal insults. Childish, and unproductive. :rolleyes:

So what if it's been proven that it doesn't really put the plane or the 100 odd other people on board at risk,

Well if it doesn't put the plane or other people at risk - why do you care?

there's a reason for that rule to be there

What reason?

and whatever it is,

Nice - you really consider things don't you.

you are showing a disregard for the laws and rules.

A healthy disrespect, and questioning the laws of the democracy I live in. That is my right as a citizen.

And I for one would have no problem about reporting you to cabin crew.

I don't doubt it. People like you will always exist. Unfortunately people who blindly follow laws, and authority generally end up doing the most terrible things. A quick review of history will show you your true potential.

You probably display the same characteristics about your driving and wonder why there are such piffly little things as speed limits. Fkn nanny state waffle and all that.

Nice leap there, unfortunately it's pure speculation, much like the rest of your inane points.

CarLover wrote: »

I have to agree with this. Maybe it is a myth...maybe not. I wasn't aware of it being either...seems silly to flaunt the airline rule though. Even if there's only a minute chance of it being an issue...that's a lot of lives youre putting at risk.
Pure arrogance really...

You are not putting any lives at risk, that is just pure sensationalism. It's ignorant to suggest arrogance.

unkel

And not being allowed using your mobile in hospital is a scam too, surely? Good for the payphones installed everywhere...

ned78 wrote: »

Don't be such a conceited prick

No need for that, ned78

Alun

unkel wrote: »

And not being allowed using your mobile in hospital is a scam too, surely? Good for the payphones installed everywhere...

Well, as I mentioned above, in the hospitals where I sometimes work, the surgeons take their mobiles into the operating theatres with them, so if it's good enough for them ...

Occidental

What the CAA in the UK have to say

Del2005

seamus wrote: »

How so? Gas at a higher pressure naturally has more temperature, but then it's at pressure within the pump. Once it's out of the pump, some fumes escape, but the pressure is gone. Petrol isn't flammable in its liquid form, so you can't ignite the hotter pressurised petrol inside the pump, you can only ignite the vapours which escape. Mobile phones don't produce anything approaching enough heat to ignite petrol and they're electronic, not electric. Electronics don't spark.
Why wait? There's no risk whatsoever. None.

It's the same as some people thought that microwaves were really dangerous when they first became big and that putting something metal in them would cause them to explode. Nonsense. It's the word "radiation" that has people imagining Hiroshima and completely overreacting.

The petrol vapours venting from the breather pipe in the fuel tank are coming out at pressure and they are mixed with air, which in the correct circumstances can reach flash point. I too know how petrol burns and also how fires start. Again, phones are not intrinsically safe therefore they can't be used on a petrol station forecourt. If the phone makers made phones intrinsically safe then they would be OK, but they aren't going to do that for the minute risk of it exploding. Don't forget that tasers only work off a 9V battery and they can reach 000s of volts.

Hagar Total hypocracy on the part of the petrol stations.
Read this very interesting article.

There is a big difference with having a phone mast several meters in the air away from the pumps as with having a phone right beside the pump.

seamus

Del2005 wrote: »

Again, phones are not intrinsically safe therefore they can't be used on a petrol station forecourt.

You're going to have to qualify this statement - how can a mobile phone under normal usage (or even after being dropped or otherwise abused) produce the voltage necessary to generate a spark which would ignite petrol fumes? The door opener on my car keys isn't "intrinsically safe" but there are no pictures saying, "Don't use electric doors openers". In fact I would argue that such a device poses a higher risk than a mobile. "Higher" being relative. Neither poses a sufficient risk to ask people to refrain from using it.

I've never said that there is zero risk, but the chances of a mobile causing such an issue are so infinitesimal that it doesn't require mentioning. Can you prove otherwise? Even if this had even occured once out of the hundreds of millions of mobile phones and billions of times that vehicles are filled with petrol, it wouldn't be worth mentiong.

emaherx

In the Near future you will be allowed to use your mobile on selected Airlines.
For your convenience the Airlines plan to block signals from your mobile to ground based masts and will allow you to use their on board micro cell.
We'll see how many of you leave your mobile phones on then, in case someone actually rings which will probubly cost you more than the airline ticket.

And as for the petrol stations across the UK with masts hidden with in their signage. Really makes you fear mixing RF with petrol.

And the argument about the faulty mobile or dropping my flint cased mobile on the ground. Static build up in people and cars offer more potential for disaster.

I rember some of the early BMW minis were recalled because the paint retained too much static. Just goes to show your car may prove more hazardous than your phone.

cyrusdvirus

The ability to question laws is what makes us a democratic country. In fact, I'd argue it's your moral obligation as a citizen to question laws. Ignorance is that which is displayed by a person who blindly follows laws. Arrogance is that citizen who blindly defends pointless or out dated laws.

The ability to QUESTION laws is fine, that doesn't mean you have a god given right to ignore the ones you don't consider apply to you

It didn't take you long to resort to personal insults. Childish, and unproductive.

I called you ignorant. Nothing i've seen so far makes me question that opinion.

Well if it doesn't put the plane or other people at risk - why do you care?

Because it's one of the safety rules. Rules appear to be a concept that you have difficulty with

What reason?

It IS a documented fact that aircraft have experienced interference from mobile cellular devices. That reason enough for you?

A healthy disrespect, and questioning the laws of the democracy I live in. That is my right as a citizen.

See point 1 again please. I have the right to expect that my fellow citizens will respect the laws of this country

I don't doubt it. People like you will always exist. Unfortunately people who blindly follow laws, and authority generally end up doing the most terrible things. A quick review of history will show you your true potential.

and i for one am glad that people like me, who actually have respect for the laws and rules that govern our society and make it possible for people like you to exist and feel that you have the right to disregard those laws and rules that i respect. I think Voiltaire said it best, when he said that ( and i'm paraphrasing here) i may not agree with what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it

Nice leap there, unfortunately it's pure speculation, much like the rest of your inane points.

Pure speculation it may be, but i'd say it's entirely accurate given what i'm picking up of your personality here.

You are not putting any lives at risk, that is just pure sensationalism. It's ignorant to suggest arrogance.

That one made me laugh. Dismissively, but a laugh none the less

unkel

Alun wrote: »

Well, as I mentioned above, in the hospitals where I sometimes work, the surgeons take their mobiles into the operating theatres with them, so if it's good enough for them ...

Oops, missed that

Owen

emaherx wrote: »

I rember some of the early BMW minis were recalled because the paint retained too much static. Just goes to show your car may prove more hazardous than your phone.

You're dead right. The 2001 MINIs were recalled because there was an issue grounding the body around the fuel cap. Thankfully no one went boom boom.