This is obviously the Real Deal for gasoline storage:
http://tinyurl.com/n8v99sk

But these guys http://tinyurl.com/k5owomy look virtually identical, even
down to the numbers stamped on the handle and the interior coating.

They come with the admonition "For non-potable water only" and the web
page specifically cautions that federal law prohibits storage of
gasoline in them.

Does anybody know what, besides color, the diff is?
--
Pete Cresswell

On 6/21/2013 6:24 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
This is obviously the Real Deal for gasoline storage:
http://tinyurl.com/n8v99sk

But these guys http://tinyurl.com/k5owomy look virtually identical, even
down to the numbers stamped on the handle and the interior coating.

They come with the admonition "For non-potable water only" and the web
page specifically cautions that federal law prohibits storage of
gasoline in them.

Does anybody know what, besides color, the diff is?


And what's the difference with these - other than the price.

http://www.lexingtoncontainercompany...erry-Cans.html

Can't take credit for finding this site; someone else posted it in
reference to the thread on the idiots in Washington making everyone's
lives miserable by screwing around trying to improve gasoline storage
containers.

Thinking of picking up four of these myself. For less than the price of
two of those from Amazon that ARE legit for fuel storage, I'll get four.
Pick a color, any colorg

On 6/21/2013 6:24 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
This is obviously the Real Deal for gasoline storage:
http://tinyurl.com/n8v99sk

But these guys http://tinyurl.com/k5owomy look virtually identical, even
down to the numbers stamped on the handle and the interior coating.

They come with the admonition "For non-potable water only" and the web
page specifically cautions that federal law prohibits storage of
gasoline in them.

Does anybody know what, besides color, the diff is?

Just that and that they don't include an EPA-compliant spout which is
why they're non-compliant and must have the disclaimer. I don't know
how long the blatant subterfuge will last before somebody in charge gets
their hackles up but power to 'em as long as they can.

Me, I've got a supply of about 20 old 5-gal metal screw-top cans from
hydraulic oil, grease and various other products from the years before
the plastic switch and then the EPA. They'll outlast me so I'm
set...the collection may be one of the most valuable assets in the
estate auction, who knows???

--

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in
:

This is obviously the Real Deal for gasoline storage:
http://tinyurl.com/n8v99sk

But these guys http://tinyurl.com/k5owomy look virtually identical, even
down to the numbers stamped on the handle and the interior coating.

They come with the admonition "For non-potable water only" and the web
page specifically cautions that federal law prohibits storage of
gasoline in them.

Does anybody know what, besides color, the diff is?



The difference is vapor containment system. That is, the "water" ones don't
have any. The "water" cans and their spouts are the very same ones that
were sold for gasoline use before the EPA changed the regulations.

You'll note that California prohibits the sale of those cans to CA
residents. That's because the bureaucrats and activists know full-well that
people are going to buy the "water" cans and put gasoline in them, just
like they used to.

Hey guys, suck it up. You voted for those idiots. TWICE.


--
Tegger

Per Unquestionably Confused:
And what's the difference with these - other than the price.

http://www.lexingtoncontainercompany...erry-Cans.html

What I've read so far is that you have to watch out for knockoffs that
look superficially the same, but do not have the lining or the quality
of welding.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per Tegger:
Does anybody know what, besides color, the diff is?

The difference is vapor containment system. That is, the "water" ones don't
have any. The "water" cans and their spouts are the very same ones that
were sold for gasoline use before the EPA changed the regulations.

The sealing looks identical to me: same gasket, same cam-operated cap.

I guess I should pour a cupful of gas into the suspect one, seal it,
leave it in the sun for a few hours, and then crack to cap to see of
there's an audible sound of vapor release.
--
Pete Cresswell

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Tegger:
Does anybody know what, besides color, the diff is?

The difference is vapor containment system. That is, the "water" ones don't
have any. The "water" cans and their spouts are the very same ones that
were sold for gasoline use before the EPA changed the regulations.

The sealing looks identical to me: same gasket, same cam-operated cap.

I guess I should pour a cupful of gas into the suspect one, seal it,
leave it in the sun for a few hours, and then crack to cap to see of
there's an audible sound of vapor release.

Hmm,
And if it goes boom burning your face or hands?
There is no such thing as over safety. I wouldn't keep my
gas in non-designated can. Even at that it is not 100% safe.

On 6/21/13 7:17 PM, dpb wrote:

Just that and that they don't include an EPA-compliant spout which is
why they're non-compliant and must have the disclaimer. I don't know
how long the blatant subterfuge will last before somebody in charge gets
their hackles up but power to 'em as long as they can.

Me, I've got a supply of about 20 old 5-gal metal screw-top cans from
hydraulic oil, grease and various other products from the years before
the plastic switch and then the EPA. They'll outlast me so I'm
set...the collection may be one of the most valuable assets in the
estate auction, who knows???

There might be fights over good ones with the double circle COOP
logo.

On 6/21/2013 9:51 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:24:14 -0400,
wrote:

This is obviously the Real Deal for gasoline storage:
http://tinyurl.com/n8v99sk

But these guys http://tinyurl.com/k5owomy look virtually identical, even
down to the numbers stamped on the handle and the interior coating.

They come with the admonition "For non-potable water only" and the web
page specifically cautions that federal law prohibits storage of
gasoline in them.

Does anybody know what, besides color, the diff is?

Federal law says gas cans have to be red. You can have an identical
yellow can for diesel and it is illegal to put gas in it.
The last time I got diesel in a can, the pump operator said he could not
pump diesel into a red container, except in my case it was ok because I
had written in several sides of the container "diesel".

This is in soviet republic of Oregon.

Paul

Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 6/21/2013 6:24 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
This is obviously the Real Deal for gasoline storage:
http://tinyurl.com/n8v99sk

But these guys http://tinyurl.com/k5owomy look virtually identical, even
down to the numbers stamped on the handle and the interior coating.

They come with the admonition "For non-potable water only" and the web
page specifically cautions that federal law prohibits storage of
gasoline in them.

Does anybody know what, besides color, the diff is?


And what's the difference with these - other than the price.

http://www.lexingtoncontainercompany...erry-Cans.html

It says this.

*Note: Federal law prohibits the use of this container for the storage
of fuel and California law prohibits the sale of any this jerry cans to
California residents

Thinking of picking up four of these myself. For less than the price of
two of those from Amazon that ARE legit for fuel storage, I'll get four.
Pick a color, any colorg







--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

Per willshak:
It says this.

*Note: Federal law prohibits the use of this container for the storage
of fuel and California law prohibits the sale of any this jerry cans to
California residents

But the question is "Why?".

Could it be just the color? The can appears to be identical in all
other respects to the red ones that are specifically sold for fuel.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 18:33:05 -0500, Unquestionably Confused wrote:

someone else posted it in
reference to the thread on the idiots in Washington making everyone's
lives miserable by screwing around trying to improve gasoline storage
containers.

I have to say the problem with the "idiots" (most of whom are actually
in California), isn't that they screwed around with the can storage
(it actually stores gasoline rather well).

The containers meet the required spec that the gasoline stays *in* the
can; it's just that they never specified how (easily) the gas should
come *out* of the can.

The cans only meet 1/2 the consumer spec.

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:20:32 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

I guess I should pour a cupful of gas into the suspect one, seal it,
leave it in the sun for a few hours, and then crack to cap to see of
there's an audible sound of vapor release.

When I had called the CARB 800-242-4450, I spoke to Angus 916-445-4686
about gasoline cans; he told me they *weigh* them after a period of
something like 120 days (I had posted at the time the exact spec)
and they can't lose anything. There is also an accelerated test.

Interestingly, he said there is a spec for a can with a second opening,
but, that none of the six companies approved for California sales has
ever submitted a can for certification that has that second opening
(i.e., a vent).

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:50:07 -0600, Tony Hwang wrote:

I wouldn't keep my gas in non-designated can.
Even at that it is not 100% safe.

It's not a safety issue.

It's (mostly) a pollution issue.

That's why the California air resource board (CARB) is
the one who makes the specs.

Both cans (old and new) are as safe (well, except for the
child safety stuff that we all just cut off upon receipt).

Actually, we all spill more gas with the newer spouts, so,
I'd argue they're even less safe than the older ones.

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 00:51:33 -0400, gfretwell wrote:

Federal law says gas cans have to be red. You can have an identical
yellow can for diesel and it is illegal to put gas in it.

I think that's only for transportation purposes.
What you do at home is up to you.

At least that's what the California CHP (800-835-5247) told me when
I had called them about laws regarding transporting 50 gallons of
gasoline in my trunk.

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 20:45:37 +0000, Danny D. wrote:

At least that's what the California CHP (800-835-5247) told me when
I had called them about laws regarding transporting 50 gallons of
gasoline in my trunk.

BTW, in New York, apparently you can't carry more than 25 gallons;
yet, California (and presumably the other 49 states), it's 600
*pounds* (yes, pounds) of hazardous materials without a permit.

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 20:49:27 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 20:45:37 +0000, Danny D. wrote:

At least that's what the California CHP (800-835-5247) told me when
I had called them about laws regarding transporting 50 gallons of
gasoline in my trunk.

BTW, in New York, apparently you can't carry more than 25 gallons;
yet, California (and presumably the other 49 states), it's 600
*pounds* (yes, pounds) of hazardous materials without a permit.

No, that is not true. Propane has limits for both open and closed
vehicles. Closed in many states is 25 gallons or 215 pounds.


You also state hazardous materials. Do you think it is legal to
transport 600 pounds or radioactive material in your car?

On 06/22/2013 04:43 PM, Danny D. wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:50:07 -0600, Tony Hwang wrote:

I wouldn't keep my gas in non-designated can.
Even at that it is not 100% safe.

It's not a safety issue.

It's (mostly) a pollution issue.

That's why the California air resource board (CARB) is
the one who makes the specs.

Both cans (old and new) are as safe (well, except for the
child safety stuff that we all just cut off upon receipt).

Actually, we all spill more gas with the newer spouts, so,
I'd argue they're even less safe than the older ones.


Type II safety can.

No spill and the filler spout and flame arrestors in both openings are non-sparking brass designed for flashback protection.

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 21:53:56 -0400, Red Hymen wrote:

non-sparking brass

I wonder what non-sparking brass is?

On 6/22/2013 11:44 PM, Danny D. wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 21:53:56 -0400, Red Hymen wrote:

non-sparking brass

I wonder what non-sparking brass is?


Wonder no more.

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/safet...nsparking.html

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 10:10:23 -0400, Mike Homes wrote:

I wonder what non-sparking brass is?
Wonder no more.
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/safet...nsparking.html

After reading that nice explanation, I've come to realize that there
must be *three* kinds of sparks we'd be concerned with (for gasoline)
(only two of which were covered in that Canadian OSHA article):

1. Sparks created *by the tool* (e.g., hammering concrete); and,
2. Sparks created chemically (e.g., hammering rust); and,
3. Sparks created elsewhere (e.g., static buildup) given *to the tool*.

From that description, a non-sparking brass is actually a low-incendive
metal with respect to the first type only, it appears.

So, for example, if you were to strike a steel hammer against
concrete, you'd get a high-incendive sparks; whereas if your
hammer were made of low-sparking brass, you'd get (I guess) less
incendive sparks.

The problem I see with low-incendive brass is that it still carries
electrical current; so, it seems (to me) do to nothing to prevent
ignition by static-electricity, which is likely a large cause of
portable gasoline can fires.

(Actually pouring gasoline on a BBQ is probably the biggest cause
of gasoline related fires!).

On 06/23/2013 10:44 AM, Danny D. wrote:


(Actually pouring gasoline on a BBQ is probably the biggest cause
of gasoline related fires!).


There's no safety device in the world that can prevent an idiot from doing that. ;-)