Submitted by logan0921 t3_z4vkza in explainlikeimfive
revenantae t1_ixsz0i7 wrote
Because there is a possibility, no matter how small, that you might create a spark when the car is on. If that happens, there is a chance you might ignite a fire. That COULD cause an explosion, which could then cause a much larger explosion.
DLBaker t1_ixtmeuk wrote
As an extra precaution I advised my children to always place a hand on the car before inserting the hose to discharge any possible static through your hand and not at the fuel inlet.
It follows the same principle as attaching a grounding cable to an aircraft prior to fueling.
logan0921 OP t1_ixt0u40 wrote
Yeah but what about the car being on increases the chance of a spark by the gas tank? I can understand sparks cause from static, or smoking while filling up, etc
KrustyBoomer t1_ixt1cj3 wrote
Much of the car is grounded back to the battery negative. Spark could happen anywhere then. Also not supposed to get in and out of the car to stay warm too. Higher chance generating static in winter
[deleted] t1_ixt22k4 wrote
[deleted]
nesquikchocolate t1_ixtjnl8 wrote
That's a falacy, though. You can't prove a negative like that.
Even if only 1 fire/explosion/loss of life occured due to possibly running the engine while refuelling, that sign could have helped.
There's no downside to the refueling station for posting that sign.
[deleted] t1_ixtz60h wrote
[deleted]
nesquikchocolate t1_ixtzedh wrote
Like I said, can't prove a negative that way..
[deleted] t1_ixtzi76 wrote
[deleted]
nesquikchocolate t1_ixu056o wrote
Except that your entire position depends on using Google to not find some obscure hand-written news article about a 93 year old ford that caught fire at a refuelling station.
Your assumption is that all incidents are listed on the Internet and easily searchable using common terms - which is absolutely false in any event. Not every town has a news reporter that documents every occurance in a public facing repository.
[deleted] t1_ixu0h9l wrote
[deleted]
KrustyBoomer t1_ixu93gc wrote
For 100-years, NO ONE ever turned their cars off typically to fuel, for sure after self-pay became the norm. I think part of today's worry is how hot catalytics get and could ignite vapors. Probably still hot though.
This one is the classic static spark though, getting back in the car error I pointed out. Forward to end, lot of filler.
[deleted] t1_ixv9luu wrote
[deleted]
nesquikchocolate t1_ixu27r4 wrote
Let me help you quickly with this postulation.
I postulate that the sign stating your engine must be off during refueling exists. I also postulate that because this sign exists, an incident with refuelling was prevented. Prove I'm wrong?
[deleted] t1_ixvbxi6 wrote
[deleted]
nesquikchocolate t1_ixvh8s1 wrote
But obviously you do need help with it, because it's been bothering you enough to come back and continue talking nonsense.
My argument was not whether the hazard is present or not, just that your statement doesn't hold water logically. But you seem to have missed that, again.
You cannot reason that "lack of proof" is "proof to the contrary".
[deleted] t1_ixvhp6j wrote
[deleted]
Sea-Preparation-5528 t1_iy2hbyn wrote
What is this presumptive statement of “knowing ‘plenty of people,’” referring to? I’ve never seen anyone leave their car running while refueling. It’s seen as common sense out here to turn off your engine for safety reasons, whether that be the whole truth or not, for the reason to turn the engine off. How many people are “plenty?”
What are the statistics for how many people refuel with their engines running vs. how many refuel with their engines off? I’m guessing the latter would be the vast majority, and the former would likely be so minute, that it’s not surprising that there haven’t been any National stories of any incidents.
[deleted] t1_iy2gzt6 wrote
[deleted]
popeshatt t1_ixtmedm wrote
The gas tank isn't normally open. The engine contains the gas inside, but fueling potentially introduces vapor to the space outside the engine where there could be a spark and the explosion wouldn't be controlled.
aDvious1 t1_ixt7t6q wrote
But you do create a spark with the engine on. Around 1200 sparks/minute while it's idling.
Scizmz t1_ixtqoj6 wrote
Electrical systems ground to the frame of the car. If there's a substantial difference in charge between the nozzle and the frame, sparks are possible, though unlikely. Most fueling systems are grounded out to prevent this.
Tanthiel t1_ixte08l wrote
Also in the event of spark, you're sitting on top of thousands of gallon of combustible liquids.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments