On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:07:20 +0000, John Wright wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:51:14 +0000, Simon Hobson
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:27:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote
(in message ):

Lithium cells have a theoretical energy desnity of 350Wh per kg...and
already up to half that or more has been achieved.

So 3kg per kWh, or 300kg for a 100kWh battery. I think that's wiped out any
weight saving from removing the engine & gearbox from most small cars. That's
assuming development to the full potential, at present it's going to be a
600kg battery.

And as I said you will need at least that amount of energy for a
practical EV. More would be better.


No, I reckon thats about equivalent to a 400 mile range 150bhp type of car.

100KWh is a very decent traction battery for up to '2 liter' car
equivalent.

Remember that whilst obviosly diesel is hugely better at energy desnity, te
conversion efficiency is 30% at best over normal driving, and the weight of
the engine is vastly more than the electric equivavelent.

In our little plane world, the phrase 'the batery is like the tank
cranckase and transmission, the motor is just the crankshaft' makes a
certain sense..

On 18 Jan 2006 21:01:03 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Doctor Drivel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

That's what dictates packaging as much as anything, not the space
required for the mechanicals. Look under the bonnet of any modern
small hatch - plenty of fresh air, allowing space for the structure
to deform.

Nah. Twice that amount of space at least is going to be used for the
batteries.

*ding*

Still seems to me like a very heavy vehicle with not much load space and
poor economics.

Pay attention, modern battery packs are not big, especially Lith
batteries.

I've never seen Lithium batteries even *remotely* close to the sort of
capacity that'd be needed for any sensible range on an electric car. What
sort of size do you think they'd be?

About the size of a shoe box?
About the size of a box of 5 reams of A4 paper?
About the size of a domestic washing machine?

Why not work it out?
I came up to a block about 4" thick, and about a meter square. IIRC.

Can't be arsed to do the calcs again.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 22:02:14 +0000, Capitol wrote:

Adrian wrote:

I've never seen Lithium batteries even *remotely* close to the sort of
capacity that'd be needed for any sensible range on an electric car. What
sort of size do you think they'd be?

About the size of a shoe box?
About the size of a box of 5 reams of A4 paper?
About the size of a domestic washing machine?

Well, Lithium is about half the density of water, so taking a previous
posters estimate of 600Kg, thats about 300 litres of water, approaching
70 gallons of space, 5 petrol tanks, plus the cooling space required,
say another(6th) petrol tank. That's before you consider the hazards of
having Lithium in your vehicle. Lithium reacts quite nicely with water,

There is no lithium in lithium batteries, any more than there is any sodium
in salt.

Its a salt - lithium carbonate.

Such fire hazards as exist in lithium cells are entirely due to
- very volatile eelectrolytes used to get very low resistances in some
types of ultra high performance cells.

And teh natural hazard of having a lot of electrical energy stored with
some fairly thin layers betwen the plates..mechanical damage is an issue.


phone batteries are already known to have exploded, as have some of the
military lithium battery pack units. So building in some mechanical
protection for the battery pack(and driver) is going to add quite a bit
more weight to the vehicle, the steel gets thicker and the load space
shrinks even further. I'm sure others can further help IMM see more
follies in his thinking. At least the Prius with Nimh batteries is only
a major electrical hazard to the emergency services and service
technicians, the driver is quite safe if he/she doesn't want to go on
motorways, where they seem rather prone to random stopping events. The
last time I checked, they were doing quite well at degrading Toyota's
reputation for outstanding reliability.

Regards
Capitol


Its not nearly as bad as you make out.

No woprse really than a tank full of petrol.

Which also can, and does, explode.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 244.170...

I don't think it's desperation, it's a cheap publicity stunt.

They certainly wouldn't be doing it if there was the large waiting list

Exactly. The police want spacious, clean, ultra economical and reliable
cars with image,

No they don't. They use a variety of vehicles to suit the job being
undertaken and in some sectors they want 4WD and the ability to carry
500Kg payloads and four passengers. For others they want a car capable
of exceeding 150mph. So they won't be choosing a Prius for traffic or
armed response work.

For beat cars, they want the car as cheap as possible so if some dorky
company gives them a free or massively subsidised vehicle they will use
it no matter how crap it is.

so they went with the Prius.

Because it met the primary requirement of cheap or free.

I bet you believe that the Italian police use fleets of Lamborghini
Galliardos and that Essex police have an RS200 traffic car.

John Wright wrote:

We're told not to use mobile phones on petrol forecourts but when did
you last here of a petrol station fire caused by a spark from a mobile
phone?

Last year.

You never have,

Wrong.

and mobile phones have been around for 20 years.

And some people don't read the newspaper.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article . 170,
Adrian wrote:
Interesting that Honda are achieving far, far, better fuel
consumption figures with the Civic in the US, than the Prius
achieves. (Nearly as good as a diesel)

The Civic is a hybrid.

Hardly a "Hybrid" -

It is runs by an electric motor and an IC engine. A hybrid. Look it up.

So 'hybrid' to him automatically means
good fuel consumption

That is the case Richard Cranium.

- despite any
real world results showing quite the
reverse under many circumstances.

Please get professional attention

In article , Steve Firth says...

Exactly. The police want spacious, clean, ultra economical and reliable
cars with image,

No they don't. They use a variety of vehicles to suit the job being
undertaken and in some sectors they want 4WD and the ability to carry
500Kg payloads and four passengers. For others they want a car capable
of exceeding 150mph. So they won't be choosing a Prius for traffic or
armed response work.

For beat cars, they want the car as cheap as possible so if some dorky
company gives them a free or massively subsidised vehicle they will use
it no matter how crap it is.

Humberside Police has a few Fronteras for the rural work. Most of the
beat cars are PROTON PERSONAS. The area cars are the obligatory Ovlovs
and I don't know if they still have the Scoobie / RST in Hull or not.

--
Conor

Windows & Outlook/OE in particular, shipped with settings making them
as open to entry as a starlet in a porno. Steve B

In article , Steve Firth says...
John Wright wrote:

We're told not to use mobile phones on petrol forecourts but when did
you last here of a petrol station fire caused by a spark from a mobile
phone?

Last year.

There's a programme advertised on Discovery in the next week or so
where they carry out experiments to prove/disprovbe the ability of
mobile phones to cause petrol station fires. Trailer showed lots of
tanks filled with something that ignited and the researchers with
singed hair.

--
Conor

Windows & Outlook/OE in particular, shipped with settings making them
as open to entry as a starlet in a porno. Steve B

In article ,
Conor wrote:
For beat cars, they want the car as cheap as possible so if some dorky
company gives them a free or massively subsidised vehicle they will
use it no matter how crap it is.

Humberside Police has a few Fronteras for the rural work.

Crikey. Hope they were free. Probably one of the worst vehicles ever made.

--
*Can vegetarians eat animal crackers?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
John Wright wrote:
I suspect that tends to work on the assumption that there are large
amounts of substances freely available to support combustion - this
should not be the case in the average petrol station.

A mobile phone also can transmit at maximum power when not in use - that's
the chirp you sometimes hear on the car radio.

The starter motor on the car engine also generates lots of sparks -
perhaps one should leave the engine running while filling? ;-)

--
*I'm not as think as you drunk I am.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Conor" wrote in message
t...
In article , Steve Firth says...
John Wright wrote:

We're told not to use mobile phones on petrol forecourts but when did
you last here of a petrol station fire caused by a spark from a mobile
phone?

Last year.

There's a programme advertised on Discovery in the next week or so
where they carry out experiments to prove/disprovbe the ability of
mobile phones to cause petrol station fires. Trailer showed lots of
tanks filled with something that ignited and the researchers with
singed hair.

--
Conor

Mythbusters proved it was impossible to get a mobile phone to ignite a fire
on a petrol station forecourt.

Mogweed.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:52:36 +0000 (UTC), "Mogweed"
wrote:


"Conor" wrote in message
et...
In article , Steve Firth says...
John Wright wrote:

We're told not to use mobile phones on petrol forecourts but when did
you last here of a petrol station fire caused by a spark from a mobile
phone?

Last year.

There's a programme advertised on Discovery in the next week or so
where they carry out experiments to prove/disprovbe the ability of
mobile phones to cause petrol station fires. Trailer showed lots of
tanks filled with something that ignited and the researchers with
singed hair.

--
Conor

Mythbusters proved it was impossible to get a mobile phone to ignite a fire
on a petrol station forecourt.

That would be impossible to prove. You could show that it might be
very, very unlikely in normal circumstances but there could be a
certain rare (but not impossible) set of conditions where ignition was
100% guaranteed.

--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd. http://www.pherber.com/
Visio Utilities http://www.visio-utilities.sandrila.co.uk/

John Wright wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 17:19:07 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
John Wright wrote:
I suspect that tends to work on the assumption that there are large
amounts of substances freely available to support combustion - this
should not be the case in the average petrol station.
A mobile phone also can transmit at maximum power when not in use - that's
the chirp you sometimes hear on the car radio.

The starter motor on the car engine also generates lots of sparks -
perhaps one should leave the engine running while filling? ;-)

But maximum power on a mobile phone is only 2W on 900 MHz and 1W on
1800 MHz. Not a lot really. Compare that to a starter motor.

What you and several other seem top be forgetting is that the vibrator
in a mobile phone is an electric motor spinning an eccentric weight. The
few reports that seem credible of explosions caused by mobile phones all
occurred while someone was standing by the filler either holding a
ringing mobile or having one in their pocket.

I think that the EM radiation from the phone is a red herring, sparks
close to petrol vapour OTOH are a genuine concern.

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
What you and several other seem top be forgetting is that the vibrator
in a mobile phone is an electric motor spinning an eccentric weight.

But not the type of motor that has brushes and produces sparks from the
commutator? Like a car starter motor? ;-)

The few reports that seem credible of explosions caused by mobile
phones all occurred while someone was standing by the filler either
holding a ringing mobile or having one in their pocket.

As far as I know all ringers are similar to a loudspeaker or sounder so
produce no sparks.

I think that the EM radiation from the phone is a red herring, sparks
close to petrol vapour OTOH are a genuine concern.

--
*Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Mogweed wrote:
Mythbusters proved it was impossible to get a mobile phone to ignite a
fire on a petrol station forecourt.

The sort of battery used on a mobile phone is capable of producing very
high current for a short time. *If* it was shorted through dropping etc it
could easily produce a spark enough to ignite petrol vapour.

But then the 'rules' simply say not to use one - not to turn it off and
remove the battery before entering...

And in motorway service stations it's common to have recovery vehicles
parked up close to the pumps. With radio sets far more powerful than any
mobile phone.

--
*When companies ship Styrofoam, what do they pack it in? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Steve Firth says...

What you and several other seem top be forgetting is that the vibrator
in a mobile phone is an electric motor spinning an eccentric weight.

.....within a sealed unit.


I think that the EM radiation from the phone is a red herring, sparks
close to petrol vapour OTOH are a genuine concern.

Yup.


--
Conor

Windows & Outlook/OE in particular, shipped with settings making them
as open to entry as a starlet in a porno. Steve B

In article , Mogweed
says...

Mythbusters proved it was impossible to get a mobile phone to ignite a fire
on a petrol station forecourt.

Hmmm...the name seems familiar. Probably the same programme.


--
Conor

Windows & Outlook/OE in particular, shipped with settings making them
as open to entry as a starlet in a porno. Steve B

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Mogweed wrote:
Mythbusters proved it was impossible to get a mobile phone to ignite a
fire on a petrol station forecourt.

The sort of battery used on a mobile phone is capable of producing very
high current for a short time. *If* it was shorted through dropping etc it
could easily produce a spark enough to ignite petrol vapour.

But then, so could the static spark when you touch the car

Having lived in a country where petrol attendants are more likely than
not to be smoking a cigarette while filling your car, and have never
ever heard of an explosion caused by any of the above, I'm somewhat
sceptical

--
geoff

In article ,
raden wrote:
Having lived in a country where petrol attendants are more likely than
not to be smoking a cigarette while filling your car, and have never
ever heard of an explosion caused by any of the above, I'm somewhat
sceptical

A cigarette isn't 'hot' enough to ignite petrol vapour. The match that
lights it is.

--
*Certain frogs can be frozen solid, then thawed, and survive *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

John Wright wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
John Wright wrote:
We're told not to use mobile phones on petrol forecourts but when did
you last here of a petrol station fire caused by a spark from a mobile
phone?

Last year.

Which was?

Did you ever get a reply of where and when this fire was supposed to
have been?

Steve Firth wrote:
John Wright wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 17:19:07 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
John Wright wrote:

I suspect that tends to work on the assumption that there are large
amounts of substances freely available to support combustion - this
should not be the case in the average petrol station.

A mobile phone also can transmit at maximum power when not in use -
that's
the chirp you sometimes hear on the car radio.

The starter motor on the car engine also generates lots of sparks -
perhaps one should leave the engine running while filling? ;-)


But maximum power on a mobile phone is only 2W on 900 MHz and 1W on
1800 MHz. Not a lot really. Compare that to a starter motor.


What you and several other seem top be forgetting is that the vibrator
in a mobile phone is an electric motor spinning an eccentric weight. The
few reports that seem credible of explosions caused by mobile phones all
occurred while someone was standing by the filler either holding a
ringing mobile or having one in their pocket.

I think that the EM radiation from the phone is a red herring, sparks
close to petrol vapour OTOH are a genuine concern.

Steve Firth wrote:

(mobile 'phones causing explosions on petrol station forecourts)

What you and several other seem top be forgetting is that the vibrator
in a mobile phone is an electric motor spinning an eccentric weight. The
few reports that seem credible of explosions caused by mobile phones all
occurred while someone was standing by the filler either holding a
ringing mobile or having one in their pocket.

Who watched "Braniac", where about half a dozen 'phones were left in a
caravan which had had petrol sloshed around the inside? When they were
all dialled up, what happened? Nothing.


I think that the EM radiation from the phone is a red herring, sparks
close to petrol vapour OTOH are a genuine concern.

They concluded that the original reason for the "mobile 'phones on
forecourts" myth was probably that the charging contacts were shorted
on something, or that the bloke filling up dropped his fag.

On the same programme, a chap was seen standing on an insulator, rubbing
his nylon clothing to generate a charge. When this charge was directed
down a wire, that *did* spark an explosion.

Not that I believe all that's in the papers/on TV, but I don't think
mobiles are going to ignite petrol vapour - or cause brain tumours,
etc.

In message , Chris Bacon
writes
John Wright wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
John Wright wrote:
We're told not to use mobile phones on petrol forecourts but when did
you last here of a petrol station fire caused by a spark from a mobile
phone?

Last year.
Which was?

Did you ever get a reply of where and when this fire was supposed to
have been?
Http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in617547.shtml

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/34...fire_risk.html

http://www2.newsquest.co.uk/worceste...01/wen_news_la
test06ZM.html


--
Gerbil

In message , Chris Bacon
writes
Steve Firth wrote:

(mobile 'phones causing explosions on petrol station forecourts)

What you and several other seem top be forgetting is that the
vibrator in a mobile phone is an electric motor spinning an eccentric
weight. The few reports that seem credible of explosions caused by
mobile phones all occurred while someone was standing by the filler
either holding a ringing mobile or having one in their pocket.

Who watched "Braniac", where about half a dozen 'phones were left in a
caravan which had had petrol sloshed around the inside? When they were
all dialled up, what happened? Nothing.

Perhaps there was too much petrol vapour to support combustion.

--
Gerbil

Steve Yerbury wrote:

In message , Chris Bacon
writes
Steve Firth wrote:

(mobile 'phones causing explosions on petrol station forecourts)

What you and several other seem top be forgetting is that the
vibrator in a mobile phone is an electric motor spinning an eccentric
weight. The few reports that seem credible of explosions caused by
mobile phones all occurred while someone was standing by the filler
either holding a ringing mobile or having one in their pocket.

Who watched "Braniac", where about half a dozen 'phones were left in a
caravan which had had petrol sloshed around the inside? When they were
all dialled up, what happened? Nothing.

Perhaps there was too much petrol vapour to support combustion.


I'm having problems with the upstream server, so I'm not seeing many
replies at the moment. However in response to the Brainiac "test" one
has to consider both the fuel/air ratio (did they do a control using a
source of ignition?) and were the phones set to vibrate?

Steve Yerbury wrote:
In message , Chris Bacon
writes
John Wright wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
John Wright wrote:
We're told not to use mobile phones on petrol forecourts but when did
you last here of a petrol station fire caused by a spark from a mobile
phone?

Last year.
Which was?

Did you ever get a reply of where and when this fire was supposed to
have been?
Http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in617547.shtml

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/34...fire_risk.html

http://www2.newsquest.co.uk/worceste...01/wen_news_la
test06ZM.html

The story I was thinking of was reported in the Telegraph and concerned
someone who suffered burns to his leg after a phone rang while he was
leaning against the car while fuelling it.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:07:20 +0000, Steve Firth
wrote:


What you and several other seem top be forgetting is that the vibrator
in a mobile phone is an electric motor spinning an eccentric weight.

But the motor could easily be a brushless/stepper motor. Probably
better from the reliability and ease of control under software point
of view.

The
few reports that seem credible of explosions caused by mobile phones all
occurred while someone was standing by the filler either holding a
ringing mobile or having one in their pocket.

I've only heard of an odd one or two in the world. One was in Oz,
where high temperatures and low humidity would make a static discharge
quite a likely possibility.

I think that the EM radiation from the phone is a red herring, sparks
close to petrol vapour OTOH are a genuine concern.

I've heard plausible-plausible explanantions along the lines "you
might drop the phone, the battery might come out, the battery might
get broken, the battery might short and make sparks"

The same garage was giving away cheap plastic flashlamps to fuel
customers ...

DG

On 04 Jan 2006 12:16:54 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Doctor Drivel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Indeed. If you're not 500 miles from the spare battery pack. Or do you
just carry half a ton of spare battery in the boot?

All of Drivel's theories are blown away by the poor thermal
characteristics of current battery technology.

Your knowledge of current batteries is less than ZERO.

So enlighten us.

A 50KwH battery has been mentioned elsewhere as being a typical automotive
traction battery.

What sort of range at 70mph will that give?


A Moggie Minor would just about do 70 mph on 37 HP.

Say 30kw.

I'd guess at a practical range of 80-90 miles. with the accessories
on.


Allegedly, that's going to need 1600Amp at 250v to recharge fully in 5
mins. Dunno about you, but my house has a 100A main fuse.

OK, so let's say three-phase at 415v. That's only just under 1000A.


333A /phase

That would imply a very heavy transformer in the vehicle. Or a very
complicated switch mode power supply that would go off with a loud
bang if it ever failed.

And think of the thickness of the flex.

Assuming 100% charging efficiency.

What sort of heat is the battery going to generate under that sort of
charge?

Better to set up a subscription service that swaps out your battery
for a fully charged one that has beeen charged more slowly. If the
swap station was needed in a place that had inadequate electricity
supplies, they could always run their own generator. :-))

DG

In message , Conor
writes
The area cars are the obligatory Ovlovs
Ding. Another Terry Wogan listener.
--
Clive

In message , Derek ^
writes
Better to set up a subscription service that swaps out your battery for
a fully charged one that has beeen charged more slowly. If the swap
station was needed in a place that had inadequate electricity supplies,
they could always run their own generator. :-))
On nice clean green Diesel fuel. Drivel would love that.
--
Clive

In message ews.net,
Doctor Drivel writes
Please get professional attention
Mirrors are obviously your favourite item.
--
Clive

In message , Steve Yerbury
writes
Did you ever get a reply of where and when this fire was supposed to
have been?
Http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in617547.shtml

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/34...fire_risk.html
Nice scare stories, but since a ringing phone produces no spark let
alone in a gas filled atmosphere, it's nice newspaper fodder, but not
common sense.
--
Clive

In message , Clive
writes
In message , Steve Yerbury
writes
Did you ever get a reply of where and when this fire was supposed to
have been?
Http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in617547.shtml

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/34...fire_risk.html
Nice scare stories, but since a ringing phone produces no spark let
alone in a gas filled atmosphere, it's nice newspaper fodder, but not
common sense.
Suppose that's why they make intrinsically safe mobile phones?
--
Gerbil

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
raden wrote:
Having lived in a country where petrol attendants are more likely than
not to be smoking a cigarette while filling your car, and have never
ever heard of an explosion caused by any of the above, I'm somewhat
sceptical

A cigarette isn't 'hot' enough to ignite petrol vapour. The match that
lights it is.

You obviously don't watch the right hollywood films

--
geoff

Steve Yerbury wrote:
Chris Bacon writes
Steve Firth wrote:
(mobile 'phones causing explosions on petrol station forecourts)

What you and several other seem top be forgetting is that the
vibrator in a mobile phone is an electric motor spinning an eccentric
weight. The few reports that seem credible of explosions caused by
mobile phones all occurred while someone was standing by the filler
either holding a ringing mobile or having one in their pocket.

Who watched "Braniac", where about half a dozen 'phones were left in a
caravan which had had petrol sloshed around the inside? When they were
all dialled up, what happened? Nothing.

Perhaps there was too much petrol vapour to support combustion.

See the part of my post that you snipped. Someone charged with static
touched the end of a wire, which successfully sparked an explosion.

Steve Firth wrote:
Steve Yerbury wrote:
Chris Bacon writes
John Wright wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
John Wright wrote:
We're told not to use mobile phones on petrol forecourts but when did
you last here of a petrol station fire caused by a spark from a
mobile phone?

Last year.

Which was?

Did you ever get a reply of where and when this fire was supposed to
have been?

Http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in617547.shtml
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/34...fire_risk.html
http://www2.newsquest.co.uk/worceste...01/wen_news_la
test06ZM.html

The story I was thinking of was reported in the Telegraph and concerned
someone who suffered burns to his leg after a phone rang while he was
leaning against the car while fuelling it.

You might also note the comments in the article at snopes.com:

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

which is also calls this idea "false".

In message , Chris Bacon
writes
Steve Firth wrote:
Steve Yerbury wrote:
Chris Bacon writes
John Wright wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
John Wright wrote:
We're told not to use mobile phones on petrol forecourts but when did
you last here of a petrol station fire caused by a spark from a
mobile phone?

Last year.

Which was?

Did you ever get a reply of where and when this fire was supposed to
have been?

Http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in617547.shtml
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/34...fire_risk.html
http://www2.newsquest.co.uk/worceste...01/wen_news_la
test06ZM.html
The story I was thinking of was reported in the Telegraph and
concerned someone who suffered burns to his leg after a phone rang
while he was leaning against the car while fuelling it.

You might also note the comments in the article at snopes.com:

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

which is also calls this idea "false".

It would seem strange, therefore, that in my work I have to have a
device which is intrinsically safe.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg227.pdf

But my work is a little different than putting petrol into tanks.

If you look at the following:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/fireandexplosi...oleum/faqs.htm

You will see the following advice.

"Generally mobile telephones are not designed and certified for use in
explosive atmospheres. Their use can also create a serious distraction
for people carrying out dispensing activities. Radio transmissions from
individual mobile telephones are generally too low to induce dangerous
electric currents in nearby equipment and the risk of incendive sparking
from the battery is low, however, they should not be used in the
hazardous areas that exist when actually dispensing petrol. Neither
should they be used in the hazardous areas around the fill and vent
pipes during petrol deliveries.

Rather than applying a total prohibition on the use of mobile telephones
on petrol forecourts which has resulted in some anomalies and frequent
abuse to staff, the following controls are recommended:

Mobile telephones should not be used by customers or forecourt staff
whilst actually dispensing petrol into fuel tanks or containers;
During petrol deliveries mobile telephones should not be used on those
parts of the site that have been designated as hazardous areas by the
site operator or the driver;
Mobile telephones should not be used during other petrol handling
operations or during the maintenance of petrol equipment unless a
specific assessment shows the risks are negligible;
There is no need to restrict the use of mobile telephones, with respect
to the safe keeping of petrol, at other times or in other areas of the
forecourt. This includes in the shop, in motor vehicles parked on the
forecourt or in other non-hazardous areas.
The use of radio equipment fitted on emergency vehicles and citizen band
(CB) radios may create an ignition risk. These types of transmitting
equipment do have a power output sufficient to induce dangerous
electrical currents in nearby fixtures and they should not be allowed to
be used at the dispensing points or in the vicinity of the road tanker
when unloading. It should be noted that the radio equipment mounted on
most emergency vehicles is under automatic interrogation from the base
station. This means that radio messages are being received and
transmitted without anyone speaking into a hand set. The Home Office has
issued the emergency services with separate advice on the use of radios
and CB equipment in the vicinity of filling stations. "

The risk is low, but it is still a risk. I believe mobiles should not be
used when dispensing petrol.
--
Gerbil

In article ,
Steve Yerbury wrote:
The risk is low, but it is still a risk. I believe mobiles should not be
used when dispensing petrol.

Please explain how the sparks from a starter motor commutator are
therefore safe?

--
*The modem is the message *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Steve Yerbury wrote:
[snip about not using mobile telephones at petrol stations]

Rather than applying a total prohibition on the use of mobile telephones
on petrol forecourts which has resulted in some anomalies and frequent
abuse to staff, the following controls are recommended:

If there really was a danger, use of mobile 'phones on garage premises
would be forbidden in the same way that naked flames are, 'cos they'd
amount to the same thing.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Steve Yerbury wrote:
The risk is low, but it is still a risk. I believe mobiles should not be
used when dispensing petrol.

Please explain how the sparks from a starter motor commutator are
therefore safe?

I did not say they were
--
Gerbil