Can a cell phone ignite a propane tank?
Mike
over gas stations. Why aren't warning placards on propane tanks? I turn my
phone off whenever I use propane or just make the calls at least 50 feet
away. Good practice or just too much caution?
Thnx!
AJ
Please provide at least one cite of a cell phone causing
a fire at a gas station. This is an urban legend and no one
has ever been able to verify a real incident. The placards
are a result of politicians passing feel good legislation
without any real need or facts.
--
Jim
Harry Harris
"Mike" <mike.d...@uchscs.edu> wrote in message
news:g6sisi$jas$1...@aioe.org...
You can never be too cautious with propane. It is dangerous stuff. Propane
related fires and explosions are the number one source of claims for RV's in
GMAC insurance.
But, I haven't heard of cell phones causing propane to explode. Even if
there were a leak the signal from a cell phone is not strong enough to cause
an explosion. It's the normal things people do like lighting cigarettes,
lighting stoves, plugging and unplugging appliances and sparking the outlet,
static electricity sparks from dry carpet and rubber soled shoes etc. that
you need to worry about.
Harry Harris
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Bob V
Steve Barker DLT
s
"Mike" <mike.d...@uchscs.edu> wrote in message
news:g6sisi$jas$1...@aioe.org...
Harry Harris
"Steve Barker DLT" <railph...@always.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UvKdnVwg3u-4gA_V...@giganews.com...
> they don't ignite anything. It's all media hype. Grow up and get real.
Wrong! Those propane bombs the terrorists exploded in the London tubes were
set off with cell phones if I recall correctly.
Don Bradner
<harry...@thehilltopcafe.invalid> wrote:
>
>"Steve Barker DLT" <railph...@always.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:UvKdnVwg3u-4gA_V...@giganews.com...
>> they don't ignite anything. It's all media hype. Grow up and get real.
>
>
>Wrong! Those propane bombs the terrorists exploded in the London tubes were
>set off with cell phones if I recall correctly.
>
>Harry Harris
Harry, you are not thinking logically. If you push a button that
triggers an ignition, are you telling me that your finger is now a
device that must keep away from anything that can ignite?
Cell phones, unmodified, do not ignite anything. That someone might
modify one by hooking the ringing circuit to a an explosive trigger
cannot and will not make any other cell phone in the world dangerous,
either at a gas station, or a propane location.
---
Don Bradner
www.arcatapet.net
'90 Wanderlodge PT40 "Blue Thunder"
towing '07 Jeep Liberty
Peter Pan
Apparently you have never watched the TV show "Burn Notice" on USA... The ex
spy Michael, used a cell phone to explode a bunch of propane tanks.... Who
ya gonna beleive, HH or a TV show? :)
Will
wrote:
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The only way you can get a cell phone to ignite propane is to rig one
to light off a bomb big enough to rupture the tank.
Egad!
Will - The self-appointed Curmudgeon of Sill Hill
Jim Redelfs
Will <wi...@epix.net> wrote:
>> Cell phones can cause gas pumps to ignite, there are warning
>> placards all over gas stations. Why aren't warning placards
>> on propane tanks? I turn my phone off whenever I use propane
>> or just make the calls at least 50 feet away.
>> Good practice or just too much caution?
> Wrong, wrong, wrong.
>
> The only way you can get a cell phone to ignite propane is to rig one
> to light off a bomb big enough to rupture the tank.
This topic has intrigued me since the first [turn off cell phone] label
caught my attention.
Is the common, automotive starter and solenoid explosion-proof? I think
not.
It seems to me that, if it's (relatively) safe to START my engine at the
gas station, a cell phone (ringing or not) would be of less concern.
It would require a PERFECTLY calm day combined with a significantly
vaporized, sizable fuel spill to provide an atmosphere capable of being
ignited by a mere wireless phone.
What a great society we live in that we can concern ourselves with such
drivel.
--
:)
JR
Harry Harris
<stan....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t07h94dq4pqasroe4...@4ax.com...
> >On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 "Mike" <mike.d...@uchscs.edu> wrote:
>>Cell phones can cause gas pumps to ignite,
>
>
> Cite your authority!
>
Here's one I found that should give everybody concerned pause:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa062399.htm
In the text it says:
It's always tempting to dismiss "pass it on" rumors as bunk, but the fact is
that mobile phone manufacturers have warned consumers in the past against
using the devices near gas pumps. This is an excerpt from a Motorola
brochure for the Satellite Series 9500 Portable Telephone:
[T]his telephone has not been designed or approved for use in potentially
explosive atmospheres. Areas with a potentially explosive atmosphere are
often, not always, clearly marked.
Potentially explosive atmospheres include:
Fueling areas such as gasoline stations
Below deck on boats
Fuel or chemical transfer or storage facilities
[[[[ Vehicles using liquefied petroleum gas such as propane ]]]]] - my
brackets - HH
Areas where the air contains chemicals or particles such as grain dust
or metal powders and
Any other area where you would normally be advised to turn off your
engine.
Sparks in such area would cause an explosion or fire resulting in bodily
injury or even death.
No laughing matter, apparently, nor should we suppose Motorola is trying to
pull our legs. Similar cautions have been issued by other manufacturers,
though industry spokesmen have more recently begun downplaying them, saying
the actual risk is very slim, especially with newer and better-constructed
models.
Harry Harris
<stan....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t07h94dq4pqasroe4...@4ax.com...
> >On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 "Mike" <mike.d...@uchscs.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Cite your authority!
>
Here's another one I just Googled. If a cell phone ringing can cause
gasoline fumes to burst into flames it can certainly do the same for propane
fumes. What's ringing got to do with it. Well, my theory is that ringing
takes lots of amps. Amps going out of the battery into the ringer might
cause arching (spark) where the battery terminals connect to the phone. The
spark ignites the fumes not the radio waves.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/14/tech/main617547.shtml
AJ
>
> No laughing matter, apparently, nor should we suppose Motorola is trying to
> pull our legs. Similar cautions have been issued by other manufacturers,
> though industry spokesmen have more recently begun downplaying them, saying
> the actual risk is very slim, especially with newer and better-constructed
> models.
Thats just a bunch of lawyer speak.. if they are that
dangerous you should have no problem with a bunch of cites
that are fact. In fact even getting an explosive mixture
is difficult much less igniting it with something that does
not produce sparks.
--
Jim
Tom J
> Thats just a bunch of lawyer speak.. if they are that
> dangerous you should have no problem with a bunch of cites
> that are fact. In fact even getting an explosive mixture
> is difficult much less igniting it with something that does
> not produce sparks.
Jim, sorry you just cain't resist!!
PLONK
Peter Pan
>
>
> Cite your authority!
Not Mike,
but either watch "Burn Notice" on USA tv this week (Thursday), or see it
online on friday http://www.usanetwork.com/series/burnnotice/, michael the
ex-cia spy uses a cell phone to trigger a gas pump explosion.....
ha....seeing is beleiving.... never say never, or horseshit...... :)
NotMe
|
|
| Cite your authority!
Look up the definitions and specifications for 'INTRINSICALLY SAFE' for
explosive atmospheres. There are two main classes dust (think grain and
coal) and vapors.
By definition cell phones exceed the requirements by a long way. One of the
reasons cell phones are not sent through the certification process is that
the certification takes 3 years on average and the market cycle for most
phones is less than that.
I've not been involved in the testing/certification process for 10+ years
but I would expect you could crush a cell phone (the battery to be exact)
and not produce sufficient energy to cause an ignition.
Mike
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/14/tech/main617547.shtml
Dale Miller
DUDE That is a cite from 1999 give me a break already...
(I will now return to lurking)
--
All the Best
Dale Miller
Tennessee
ASP since February 2005
stpatri...@twlakes.net
stpatri...@twlakes.net
stpatri...@gmail.com
(cut the spam to reply)
VOTE TO REBUILD!
www.twintowersalliance.com
----
Dale Miller
>
> Here's another one I just Googled. If a cell phone ringing can cause
> gasoline fumes to burst into flames it can certainly do the same for propane
> fumes. What's ringing got to do with it. Well, my theory is that ringing
> takes lots of amps. Amps going out of the battery into the ringer might
> cause arching (spark) where the battery terminals connect to the phone. The
> spark ignites the fumes not the radio waves.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/14/tech/main617547.shtml
>
>
> Harry Harris
>
Another from 2004....and just cause it was on CBS makes it fact???
Steve Barker DLT
s
"Mike" <mike.d...@uchscs.edu> wrote in message
news:g7b0el$7hu$1...@aioe.org...
Rich256
<railphoto...@always.hotmail.com> wrote:
> What a crock! Talk about media hype and misinformation......
>
> s
>
>
> news:g7b0el$7hu$1...@aioe.org...
>
> > Here's a source:
>
> >http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/14/tech/main617547.shtml
Agree. There is nothing in a basic cell phone that will cause a
spark. When ringing it is nothing more than a portable radio. Even
when transmitting there is no spark mechanism and the rf is not strong
enough to cause ignition.
However, dozens of things can cause sparks when filling a car. Most
likely I think is clothing with synthetic material in it.
Mike
Steve Barker DLT
s
"Mike" <mike.d...@uchscs.edu> wrote in message
news:g7cctb$t02$1...@aioe.org...
Rich256
I stand corrected. Don't use your phone when filling gas near a ball
of wrinkled up foil soaked with gasoline.
Steve Barker DLT
combustion.
s
"Rich256" <hrli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:82597a5e-b40e-43fc...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
NotMe
Which has about as much validity the youtube vid about cell phones inducing
suffice RF energy to pop popcorn.
For a bit more (and an oversimplification)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsically_safe
There are several certifications (country dependant) in the US
MutualFactory Mutual Approval Standard and UL come to mind.
If you do a bit of research on the equipment in question you will find that
the available current/voltage are insufficient, by definition to cause a
fire or induce an explosion.
Following is a primer on the process.
http://www.omega.com/techref/intrinsic.html
That said with a LOT of engineering and suffice tries I, perhaps/maybe,
could produce a spark sufficient to cause an explosion is some limited
circumstances but not in what would be encountered with a propane or gas
fueling station.
Matt Colie
We tried to replicate the sited reference and were unable to do so a
with any of the handsets available to us. One of these was even and old
analog only cell brick.
My tech disassembled the office repeater and we even tried that. The 3
watt output of that still did not make anything happen.
One suggestion was that the procedure cited created a static electric
change in the manner of a Kevin generator (google that one) and this
caused the foil to arc to the frypan and there you go.
Unfortunately, everybody interested had worn out the dialing thumb by
them and gone back to work. . .
Matt Colie
Trom Bones
"Matt Colie" <matt....@nospm.net> wrote in message
news:lhDmk.13149$KZ....@newsfe03.iad...
I don't have to Google a Kelivn generator, I know what they are and how they
work.
So where are the opposing charges collected in this apparatus?
The Kelvin generator has a connection between the rings and reservoir,
there's no such thing as that in the video.
Where are the falling droplets that develop charge? It ignites with no drops
falling.
How many volts does it take to arc 1/2 inch?
The mechanism behind the operation of the apparatus is pretty simple. The
phone is GSM which operates at 1.8 GHz. The wavelength is about 6 1/2
inches. The roughened tinfoil ball and the pan acts as a waveguide,
analogous to a parallel plate waveguide, but more like solid discone antenna
because of the curvature. The gasoline vapors raise the dielectric constant
between the pan and tin foil so it approximates 1/2 wavelength spacing and
waveguide modes can be sustained between the ball and pan at 1.8 GHz. The
roughened tin foil develops areas of high current densities and in these
areas the tinfoil will vaporize (note these are small areas) or create
surface arcing (again small arcs). The vaporization of tinfoil or the small
arcs ignite the gas vapor. The reason the experimenter had to try so many
times is that he didn't launch the correct polarization in the waveguide
structure. Any structure 1/4 wavelength open circuited (such at the length
of a wrinkle in the tinfoil) will tranform the applied to a very high
voltage at the other end of the structure.
Old analog phone systems operated at 800-900 MHz, the wavelength is too long
for the structure in the video.
As far as gasoline igniting in cars, it is possible. The galvanized orifice
that the gas nozzle goes into can develop zinc whiskers or zinc dendritic
structures. If it doesn't have perfect conductivity (which nothing has) an
incident electromagnetic field can cause the whiskers/dendrites to vaporize.
Also the weld seams on the gasoline orifice can sustain arcing.
If the thing was a Kelvin generator why would a cell phone be needed to make
it combust?
Peter Pan
Just out of curiosity, why do you ASSUME it has to be accicdental, and can
NEVER happen.. heck, cellphones trigger ied's, even here in the us, talk to
bomb squads, they are used to trigger bombs.... Even unintentional
consequences can happen.... ever been in a blasting area? They want cell
phones off so they won't unintentionally trigger an explosion.... How bout
mines thaat may have methane? Do you fly? not all (but some) of the
navigation gear can flip out from cell phones... While admittedly maybe YOUR
cellphone will never cause problems, can you absolutely positively guarantee
that nobody elses ever will?
NotMe
"Peter Pan" <PeterPa...@MarcAlanNOSPAM.info> wrote in message
news:6g1pgmF...@mid.individual.net...
| NotMe wrote:
| > "Mike" <mike.d...@uchscs.edu> wrote in message
| > news:g7cctb$t02$1...@aioe.org...
| >> http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/cell_phone_fire.html
| >>
| >> http://www.nbc11.com/news/10753602/detail.html
| >>
| >> http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/07/01/exploding.phone/index.html
| >>
| >>
| >> Here ya go, cell phone ignites gasoline
| >>
| >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfcZsML1pr0
| >
| > Which has about as much validity the youtube vid about cell phones
| > inducing suffice RF energy to pop popcorn.
| >
| > For a bit more (and an oversimplification)
| > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsically_safe
| >
| > There are several certifications (country dependant) in the US
| >
| > If you do a bit of research on the equipment in question you will
| > find that the available current/voltage are insufficient, by
| > definition to cause a fire or induce an explosion.
| >
| > Following is a primer on the process.
| >
| > http://www.omega.com/techref/intrinsic.html
| >
| > That said with a LOT of engineering and suffice tries I,
| > perhaps/maybe, could produce a spark sufficient to cause an explosion
| > is some limited circumstances but not in what would be encountered
| > with a propane or gas fueling station.
|
| NEVER happen.. heck, cellphones trigger ied's, even here in the us, talk
to
| bomb squads, they are used to trigger bombs.... Even unintentional
| consequences can happen.... ever been in a blasting area? They want cell
| phones off so they won't unintentionally trigger an explosion.... How bout
| mines thaat may have methane? Do you fly? not all (but some) of the
| navigation gear can flip out from cell phones... While admittedly maybe
YOUR
| cellphone will never cause problems, can you absolutely positively
guarantee
| that nobody elses ever will?
Intentional triggers are an act of man not of machine. The question came to
the effect 'can a cell phone cause an explosion?'
The answer is in and of itself no, with the hardware and equipment inside
the phone again no. As to a guarantee short of a formal and expensive test
no. In my ten + years dealing with hand held cell phones I have never ever
seen any supporting data or reports that show that a cell phone caused an
explosion. There were reports of cell phones being in the area but the
accident investigation and all following legal action could not tie one case
of a cell phone being the cause.
FWIW in my former employment they paid us to blow things up. (so yes I've
been in blast areas) In my years in that task we were never ever able to
cause an explosion with any cell phone in the manner descried by the OP and
we've destroyed thousands.
If someone is to connect the device to an external power source/trigger then
yes the cell phone can be use to cause an explosion.
Claiming that the cell phone is the source of ignition is like claiming a
mechanical alarm clock can cause an explosion when in fact the clock is only
a timer (which it was designed to be) and not the 'cause' of any resultant
explosion.
As to explosions around fueling stations, transfer docks and in refineries
(the place they make the fuel) I've seen some really creative ways that man
has devised to kill himself and others. BTW NONE of which involved a
standard cell phone as the cause.
FWIW Nicotine addiction + utter stupidity was often a primary factor. The
fact that a person may or may not have been talking on a cell phone had
nothing to do with the 'accident'.
I, personally, would be far more concerned about the potential for a
catalytic converter as a source of ignition than a cell phone.
Do I talk on my cell phone when I fuel my truck? No! But then I don't talk
on the cell phone when I make love either as I prefer to concentrate on the
tasks at hand.
GBinNC
>... I don't talk
>on the cell phone when I make love either as I prefer to concentrate on the
>tasks at hand.
Agreed. Lovemaking can be a real distraction when you're trying to carry
on a phone conversation <g>.
GB in NC
NotMe
news:6rlo9419eo1cjkq96...@4ax.com...
That and phone converstions typically take/last longer ... even when I
talk fast. ;{
Rtavi
"Peter Pan" <PeterPa...@MarcAlanNOSPAM.info> wrote in message
>>> Cell phones can cause gas pumps to ignite, there are warning
>>> placards all over gas stations. Why aren't warning placards on
>>> propane tanks? I turn my phone off whenever I use propane or just
>>> make the calls at least 50 feet away. Good practice or just too much
>>>
>>
>> You can never be too cautious with propane. It is dangerous stuff.
>> Propane related fires and explosions are the number one source of
>> claims for RV's in GMAC insurance.
>>
>> But, I haven't heard of cell phones causing propane to explode. Even
>> if there were a leak the signal from a cell phone is not strong
>> enough to cause an explosion. It's the normal things people do like
>> lighting cigarettes, lighting stoves, plugging and unplugging
>> appliances and sparking the outlet, static electricity sparks from
>> dry carpet and rubber soled shoes etc. that you need to worry about.> Apparently you have never watched the TV show "Burn Notice" on USA... The
> ex spy Michael, used a cell phone to explode a bunch of propane tanks....
> Who ya gonna beleive, HH or a TV show? :)
>
miles
>> Apparently you have never watched the TV show "Burn Notice" on USA... The
>> ex spy Michael, used a cell phone to explode a bunch of propane tanks....
>> Who ya gonna beleive, HH or a TV show? :)
> Didn't they debunk this on Mythbusters?
Yes they did. They concluded it is highly unlikely for a cell phone to
cause a propane explosion. They tested how much of a spark would set it
off under varying conditions. When they finally got an explosion it was
at a level highly unlikely for a cell phone to cause.
Peter Pan
so whats your point? maybe it is unlikely, but it can be used with other
stuff and make the likelyhood 100%.....I use my phone to call m cell and
start the propane fire in my fireplace (external bluetooth ringer, handy
when busy on the couch :) let me ask a simple question, can you guarantee
absolutely 100% that somone else didn't mess with their phone and make it
more likely? Or how about, can you absolutely positively guarantee that all
cellphones don't have BlueTooth, and that their are no devices it can pair
with unknown to you? You may know absolutely what YOUR phone will do, but
can you absolutely positively say 100% that someone elses phone won't do
it?... at any rate, my motto is never say never, and even mythbusters didn't
discount it happening 100%, they just concluded it was unlikely on a
standard cell phone......
NotMe
"Peter Pan"
Look up INTRINSICALLY SAFE (Factory Mutual and Bureau of Mines in the USA,
other names in the rest of the world.)
It's the battery not the phone and the batteries of current production cell
phones do not, by definition, deliver sufficient energy to cause a fire or
explosion in normal use.
Back before I retired I was in charge of testing (and they paid us to try to
blow things up) and we never ever in a 10+ years period were able to induce
a fire or explosion with a hand held cell phone.
To answer your direct question without a formal test no one can certify any
electronic device as intrinsically safe. But like I said they paid us to
try and we were never, EVER, able to make anything burn or go pop much less
bang. These test were run with the perfect fuel air mixture.
What I would be concerned about are catalytic converters which have been
known to cause grass fires as well as other problems.
Given the current state of the space program it's possible for me to walk on
the moon. The reality is not the remotest probability that would happen.
But like you say never say never.
Peter Pan
two questions.. what year was that first proposed (cell phones off when
fueling)... what type of cell phones did you test?
Them little baby handheld ones? Or ones that used to be available/common
(1.5 to 3 watt) bagphones with huge nicad batteries? I have a 3 watt
bagphone (keep it in the trunk of my car for rural emergencies), rechargable
nicad battery that can discharge 50 amps easy, and I can tell you it can
ignite gases, even my old motorola cellphone (1.5 watts in chicago) had a
nicad battery that could provide 10 amps... so the current ones may not do
it anymore, but older ones could do it very easily.... I would say good
thing you are retired, sorry to hear you failed, i'm an electrical engineer,
lived out west, now in the east, and have not only done it before, but just
did it with my propane firepit on the patio before I typed this note....
you say never in your experience, but i say YES in my experience
odd that I can make it happen repeatably in seconds, yet you couldn't do it
in 10+ years Too bad I'm retired too, I used to consult.... :)
Don Bradner
<PeterPa...@MarcAlanNOSPAM.info> wrote:
> i'm an electrical engineer,
>lived out west, now in the east, and have not only done it before, but just
>did it with my propane firepit on the patio before I typed this note....
>you say never in your experience, but i say YES in my experience
>odd that I can make it happen repeatably in seconds, yet you couldn't do it
>in 10+ years Too bad I'm retired too, I used to consult.... :)
I have the feeling you are arguing for the sake of arguing, but just
in case you are serious when you say that your cell phone started the
fire because it communicated with another device:
When, on those rare occasions when you aren't feeling too lazy, you
decide to light a fire with a match, do you say "I just lit a fire
with my fingers?"
If so, do you think the use of fingers should be outlawed at gasoline
pumps?
Don Bradner
www.arcatapet.net
'90 Wanderlodge PT40 "Blue Thunder" towing '07 Jeep Liberty
Posting today by Satellite from
Winterset, Iowa
NotMe
"Peter Pan" <PeterPa...@MarcAlanNOSPAM.info> wrote in message
news:6ib0pjF...@mid.individual.net...
| NotMe wrote:
| > "Peter Pan"
| >>>
| >>>>> Apparently you have never watched the TV show "Burn Notice" on
| >>>>> USA... The ex spy Michael, used a cell phone to explode a bunch of
| >>>>> propane tanks.... Who ya gonna beleive, HH or a TV show? :)
| >>>
| >>>> Didn't they debunk this on Mythbusters?
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> Yes they did. They concluded it is highly unlikely for a cell phone
| >>> to cause a propane explosion. They tested how much of a spark would
| >>> set it off under varying conditions. When they finally got an
| >>> explosion it was at a level highly unlikely for a cell phone to
| >>> cause.
| >>
| >> so whats your point? maybe it is unlikely, but it can be used with
| >> other stuff and make the likelihood 100%.....I use my phone to call
The verbiage was part of the boiler plate developed in the mid '90s' as part
of the industry response to the issues of the potential of cell phones to
cause cancer. In truth it was simple a 'we're here (at an industry
standards meeting) lets address this as well' Basically a CYA text, no more
no less.
Original test were on the last models of the analog hand held phones and
first models of the digital phones. For the record there were only a few car
mounted digital phones that made it past the beta test stage and they were
not marketed for long. Analog bag phones went out of production about the
same time frame.
I'm assuming you're referring the bag phones @1.5 watts. Most were no more
than car phones with a battery pack. All were 3W units but some were
derated due to limits of battery technology. The higher end bags used
nicads the others used a modified version of a camcorder jell cell battery.
Hand helds are limited by law to < 0.6 watt. Always have been. In the real
world few would perform that well, mostly do to limits in battery
performance. For the most part they only yielded ~0.6W on a test bench
jig.
For the record the ONLY hand held cell phones that had sufficient battery
power to do what you claim were the original Motorola Brick (6000) and the
NEC (BC1000) I may be miss remembering the model numbers.
I should mention that neither had much more than a few hours of standby and
both had less than 60 min of talk time under the best of circumstances.
These two units were long out of production when we started our test. I
expect you may find
a few here and there but since the major carriers no longer support analog I
doubt they are more than left overs in someone's desk.
Perhaps I should mention that we also monitored all related legal action and
had never *ever* found a case where there was a substantiation of a fire or
explosion caused by a hand held cell phone that was supported by credible
evidence in a court of law.
If you can ignite propane then there are a *lot* of engineers who would be
interested in a demonstration including those working for UL, Factory Mutual
and the Bureau of Mines. BTW the engineers at those organizations are P.E.s
and affix their professional seal to the test documents so their reputations
and livelihood are on the line with each and every
test.
An aside I would think there would be a larger segment of the plaintiffs bar
that would be more interested in a viable demonstration. I expect more than
a few would be willing to pay big money for a demonstration that would hold
up in court.
What the heck give those guys at Myth Busters a call I'm sure they would be
glade to tape a demonstration for free might even pay you something for your
time. Get back to us with show times.
For the record I don't talk on a cell phone when I fuel my car but then I
don't talk on a cell phone when I make love preferring to concentrate,
instead, on the tasks a hand.
Peter Pan
You may want to get to a doctor quick, I think your arteries are hardening,
or you are just getting brain dead, or stupid....
seems you snipped out the claims of the other person stating that he had
been testing cell phones for 10+ years and there was no possible way for it
to do that...
Funny, if he was so good at his job, why was I able to do it in about 5
minutes (to set the stuff up, seconds to do it)? hmmmmm 5 minutes to do it
versus 10 years and can't......
or maybe you just snipped the text out so you could put in your juvenile
comment?
recap for you of what you snipped...
>>>> Didn't they debunk this on Mythbusters?
mythbusters didn't discount it happening 100%, they just concluded
>> it was unlikely on a standard cell phone......
> Back before I retired I was in charge of testing (and they paid us to
Peter Pan
> For the record the ONLY hand held cell phones that had sufficient
> battery power to do what you claim were the original Motorola Brick
> (6000) and the NEC (BC1000) I may be miss remembering the model
> numbers.
>
watter is an nec "transportable" (can't read the model number, covered by
duct tape) sold many years ago at radio shack and originally used in LA on
la cellular....
both suck, and are big and heavy compared to the lg's I use now....
however, oddly enuf (not that major, but in case you like trivia), there are
two major metro places where both analog AND gsm are supported by verizon...
embassy row in DC, and by the UN in new york (I happen to be at my sisters
just outside of dc)
other area (i have heard is still analog but haven't been there for a few
years, my tri-mode worked when I went there) most of rural alaska (too big
and not enuf towers for digital I suppose), on the boat coming back along
canada (inside passage), and parts of mid nevada (i was on a boat on lake
mead)...
Like you said, doubt it would happen with the wimpy ones available nowadays,
just when you said never, made me get off the hammock, dig out the old
stuff, and give it a try....
NotMe
"Peter Pan"
| NotMe wrote:
| > For the record the ONLY hand held cell phones that had sufficient
| > battery power to do what you claim were the original Motorola Brick
| > (6000) and the NEC (BC1000) I may be miss remembering the model
| > numbers.
| >
| the one in chicago on cellular one was the moto brick phone, and the 3
| watter is an nec "transportable" (can't read the model number, covered by
| duct tape) sold many years ago at radio shack and originally used in LA on
| la cellular....
|
| both suck, and are big and heavy compared to the lg's I use now....
| however, oddly enuf (not that major, but in case you like trivia), there
are
| two major metro places where both analog AND gsm are supported by
verizon...
| embassy row in DC, and by the UN in new york (I happen to be at my sisters
| just outside of dc)
|
| other area (i have heard is still analog but haven't been there for a few
| years, my tri-mode worked when I went there) most of rural Alaska (too big
| and not enuf towers for digital I suppose), on the boat coming back along
| canada (inside passage), and parts of mid nevada (i was on a boat on lake
| mead)...
|
| Like you said, doubt it would happen with the wimpy ones available
nowadays,
| just when you said never, made me get off the hammock, dig out the old
| stuff, and give it a try....
The NEC most likely was a 4500, 4600 or 4700 and all were 3 W units.(there
was no way they could be powered down in the field except by the MTSO.) the
only earlier model was a 'lunch box' hybrid that was closer to a suit case
then a bag phone.
Both Motorola and NEC hand helds were state of the art and sold for
thousands as it was a sellers market.
... and how many cell phone induced explosions/fires can you cite much less
document in Alaska? Not that it matter as NONE of the back bone
manufactures are making ANY analog RBS equipment and haven't for years.
Even the used equipment market has dried up for both user and base station
equipment. (Why spend good money for obsolete technology that you can't get
parts?)
FWIW the installed per channel cost of new digial equipment is much lower
than the cost of used analog equipment even if the used RBS transceiver
equipment is free.
Would not surprise me a bit to find out the base station equipment
manufactures are no longer servicing the analog equipment. I know none
support analog handsets. I doubt the aftermarket service centers are fixing
any of the analog equipment in part because the available test equipment is
no longer configured to support analog.
Last time I had any dealing with the CTIA the word was those carries that
still supported analog were doing so at a h*ll of a uncharge for air time.
But in that I have only hearsay as none of the areas I travel have any
analog support. And not I'm not interested enough to run down the data on
who is or is not supporting analog.
Trust me the carries have no love loss for analog or those users that are
married to the technology as there is much more money to be made with
digital.
Like I said the technology exist for me to walk on the moon, the probability
of that happening is extremely unlikely as the hardware is no longer
available.
Miles
> so whats your point? maybe it is unlikely, but it can be used with other
> stuff and make the likelyhood 100%
So whats your point? Yes, you can make a cell phone trigger a bomb if
modify it for such. Mythbusters conclusion was that it is extremely
unlikely for an off the shelf cell phone to be able to ignite gas or
propane. Furthermore, there are no proven examples of it ever happening.
Peter Pan
it can be done very simply/unintentionally with off the shelf/order over the
internet stuff (see repeaters at cellantenna.com) .. and contrary to what
you posted above, there are documented instances of cell phones setting off
gas explosions (albeit underground, like in mines and underwater tunnels,
those are proven and documented), why do you think you can't take them into
mines, or tunnels under the water (under water tunnels are higher at both
ends and lower in the middle, above sea level tunnels are the opposite,
propane is heavier then air, and will go for the lowest point so it collects
in the middle underwater, and tunnels under water can't be vented to the
outside, theres usually water there, so they have to have ventilation to the
ends/shore, and if the power/ventilator fails, guess where the stuff
sits)...
note that even in the mythbusters conclusion, it was unlikely, but NOT
impossible...
Don Bradner
<PeterPa...@MarcAlanNOSPAM.info> wrote:
>there are documented instances of cell phones setting off
>gas explosions (albeit underground, like in mines and underwater tunnels,
>those are proven and documented), why do you think you can't take them into
>mines, or tunnels under the water (under water tunnels are higher at both
>ends and lower in the middle, above sea level tunnels are the opposite,
>propane is heavier then air, and will go for the lowest point so it collects
>in the middle underwater, and tunnels under water can't be vented to the
>outside, theres usually water there, so they have to have ventilation to the
>ends/shore, and if the power/ventilator fails, guess where the stuff
>sits)...
Can you document a water tunnel that doesn't allow cell phones (what
you said in the paragraph above).
Your context indicates you are talking about not taking propane in,
definitely true, but cell-phone ignition is the least of the worries
of those who make such rules. It is the propane that is a problem,
mostly from suffocation but also from common ignition sources.
Implying that cell phones are an issue in underwater tunnels is a
definite stretch!
Don Bradner
www.arcatapet.net
'90 Wanderlodge PT40 "Blue Thunder" towing '07 Jeep Liberty
Posting today by Satellite from
Davenport, Iowa
Steve Calvin
If subject contains propane then mark as read...
only because that assholes just won't quit. I'm tellin' ya, Harry's
morphed, been cloned, whatever.... :-(
Tom J
I did that months ago, just like I have on any word or phrase that
relates to politics. The news group is very calm!!
Tom J