Do "experts" ever watch MythBusters?

[rudeguy]

Once a high-pressure pipeline fails, he said, anything can trigger a deadly blast. A cigarette or rocks smashing as high-pressure gas shoots by. Even someone answering a cell phone can cause a spark, because it is battery-powered, Weimer said.

Sigh......


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/11/calif-gas-line-rupture-sparks-safety-questions/

 

[bfdd]

Uh... the cell phone thing is incredibly widespread. When I was working in refineries and gas plants we weren't allowed to have our cell phones ON in the unit because they were scared of that very thing. It's fucking stupid they allowed CB radios, but no cell phones. People are just idiots.

 

[killster1]

i agree iv had guy i know blow up a tanker of diesal by answering his cellphone (he was on top of it filling it up..) i think mythbusters should do more than 2 tests any scientist knows 2 tests is not enough control

 

[coxmaster]

i agree iv had guy i know blow up a tanker of diesal by answering his cellphone (he was on top of it filling it up..) i think mythbusters should do more than 2 tests any scientist knows 2 tests is not enough control

What you said seems to disagree completely with what the first 2 posts said

 

[lxskllr]

i agree iv had guy i know blow up a tanker of diesal by answering his cellphone (he was on top of it filling it up..) i think mythbusters should do more than 2 tests any scientist knows 2 tests is not enough control

That's interesting because diesel's barely flammable. You can put a match out in a cup of diesel.

 

[TecHNooB]

i agree iv had guy i know blow up a tanker of diesal by answering his cellphone (he was on top of it filling it up..) i think mythbusters should do more than 2 tests any scientist knows 2 tests is not enough control

I can see how making a call may cause a rogue spark, but answering a call?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I can see how making a call may cause a rogue spark, but answering a call?

It was that fine polyester jump suit he was wearing.

 

[Bignate603]

I can see how making a call may cause a rogue spark, but answering a call?

How would making a call be any different from answering a call?

 

[mmntech]

Uh... the cell phone thing is incredibly widespread. When I was working in refineries and gas plants we weren't allowed to have our cell phones ON in the unit because they were scared of that very thing. It's fucking stupid they allowed CB radios, but no cell phones. People are just idiots.

I think it comes from a lot of old misconceptions that have been passed down for years. Same reason why the FAA doesn't allow the use of electronic devices during takeoffs and landings. No proof they cause any harm but it hasn't swayed them to change the rules.

Same reason I quit my RC club, amongst other things. They're putting restrictions on the 2.4ghz spread spectrum equipment because the old farts think it will interfere with their 72mhz stuff. Got tired of being harassed about that.

 

[TecHNooB]

How would making a call be any different from answering a call?

Well, not allowing people at refineries to have cellphones implies that they have coverage. If they have cellphone coverage, this may also imply that the signals coming in are too weak to create a spark. The presence of your cellphone does not change the area of coverage of the signal - it's still going to be present whether or not you have a phone to receive it or not.

However, if you make a call, your phone is the transmitter and the signal coming from your phone is going to be much stronger than the signal coming to your phone's receiver. That may cause a spark.

As long as your phone does not broadcast any signals upon receiving a call, I think this line of logic is valid?

Edit: well, actually it would broadcast signals upon reception. so it doesn't matter i'm dumb.

 

[Bignate603]

I think it comes from a lot of old misconceptions that have been passed down for years. Same reason why the FAA doesn't allow the use of electronic devices during takeoffs and landings. No proof they cause any harm but it hasn't swayed them to change the rules.

The FAA has restrictions because there is no possible way they can test every single device out there to certify its ok. The way the FAA treats things for commercial airlines is that all things not specifically allowed are prohibited. Since they can't (and shouldn't, it would cost obscene amounts of money) test every single kind of wireless device out there or expect the cabin crew to be able to distinguish if a device has been added to the 'approved' list they just say that they're all forbidden.

Well, not allowing people at refineries to have cellphones implies that they have coverage. If they have cellphone coverage, this may also imply that the signals coming in are too weak to create a spark. The presence of your cellphone does not change the area of coverage of the signal - it's still going to be present whether or not you have a phone to receive it or not.

However, if you make a call, your phone is the transmitter and the signal coming from your phone is going to be much stronger than the signal coming to your phone's receiver. That may cause a spark.

As long as your phone does not broadcast any signals upon receiving a call, I think this line of logic is valid?

I believe that the issue is the spark emanating from the device itself, not inducing a current in other objects because of the transmission. If that is true receiving a call activates things like the ringer or vibration. Personally, I think that if the phone caused a spark internally something must have malfunctioned but I'm not 100% sure that it's impossible for it to happen.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...Same reason why the FAA doesn't allow the use of electronic devices during takeoffs and landings. No proof they cause any harm but it hasn't swayed them to change the rules...

According to Garmin International Avionics division, cell phones on board an aircraft even in passive receive mode can cause their AHRS (Attitude and Heading Reference System) to flag; that's one of the last things you'd want to happen on a coupled approach. I've not yet asked any of the other manufacturers, but if it affects one maker's system you must suspect it could affect another's.

 

[Key West]

Mythbusters as a realistic science is as credible as Man v. Wild for survival guide.

It's a TV show aimed to entertain you, fitting for half hour.

 

[Hacp]

Mythbusters as a realistic science is as credible as Man v. Wild for survival guide.

It's a TV show aimed to entertain you, fitting for half hour.

I always knew Man vs. Wild was a sham. Thats why I watch Survivor Man. He taught me everything I know.

 

[dmw16]

Well, not allowing people at refineries to have cellphones implies that they have coverage. If they have cellphone coverage, this may also imply that the signals coming in are too weak to create a spark. The presence of your cellphone does not change the area of coverage of the signal - it's still going to be present whether or not you have a phone to receive it or not.

However, if you make a call, your phone is the transmitter and the signal coming from your phone is going to be much stronger than the signal coming to your phone's receiver. That may cause a spark.

As long as your phone does not broadcast any signals upon receiving a call, I think this line of logic is valid?

Edit: well, actually it would broadcast signals upon reception. so it doesn't matter i'm dumb.

^^^ There is much fail in this post.

 

[Ichinisan]

I love MB, but thy got it wrong on the exploding CDs myth. That has happened to me at least 5 times before.

Different drives.
Different discs.

 

[PottedMeat]

I believe that the issue is the spark emanating from the device itself, not inducing a current in other objects because of the transmission. If that is true receiving a call activates things like the ringer or vibration. Personally, I think that if the phone caused a spark internally something must have malfunctioned but I'm not 100% sure that it's impossible for it to happen.

heh i forgot about that. the vibrator is usually a little brushed dc motor with an offset weight on the shaft. all the ones i've seen look sealed but i suppose it's possible a spark on the brush could ignite a flame. i don't really know where else there would be a spark.

 

[TecHNooB]

^^^ There is much fail in this post.

I wear my username proudly

 

[DrPizza]

i agree iv had guy i know blow up a tanker of diesal by answering his cellphone (he was on top of it filling it up..) i think mythbusters should do more than 2 tests any scientist knows 2 tests is not enough control

Bullshit. Diesel does not "blow up." I work with diesel constantly. Having a farm, I often have piles of stuff to burn. My favorite accelerant? Diesel. Why? Because it burns very hot AND more importantly, it doesn't go WHOOOOOSH like gasoline does. I have to stand there and hold a match to it for a little bit to get it to even start burning. And, with a big pile that's been doused all over the place, I end up lighting it in multiple spots.

Gasoline: I've seen what happens when you put half as much gasoline on as I use diesel - bro-in-law rattled the house with one fire. The blast knocked him on his ass. Diesel - not going to happen. In fact, the local fire departments use diesel to start fires for controlled burns. Why? Because it's safe - they're not going to "blow up."

 

[rudeguy]

Bullshit. Diesel does not "blow up." I work with diesel constantly. Having a farm, I often have piles of stuff to burn. My favorite accelerant? Diesel. Why? Because it burns very hot AND more importantly, it doesn't go WHOOOOOSH like gasoline does. I have to stand there and hold a match to it for a little bit to get it to even start burning. And, with a big pile that's been doused all over the place, I end up lighting it in multiple spots.

Gasoline: I've seen what happens when you put half as much gasoline on as I use diesel - bro-in-law rattled the house with one fire. The blast knocked him on his ass. Diesel - not going to happen. In fact, the local fire departments use diesel to start fires for controlled burns. Why? Because it's safe - they're not going to "blow up."

I think I want to hang out with your bro in law....

Back on point. The guy quoted in the article is just like the guy you quoted Doc. He claims to have first hand, expert knowledge, but he is quoting something he heard but would swear that he knows.

This is just one instance when I saw this. It happens all the time. The news sites get these experts who basically just repeat rumors or myths. It reminds me of the 1337 h4x0r girl from years ago.

 

[zerocool84]

404 Experts not found

It's Fox News

 

[rudeguy]

404 Experts not found

It's Fox News

if you ever want to feel intelligent...watch HLN. I swear they hire hobos as experts.

 

[coxmaster]

404 Experts not found

It's Fox News

The guy that the OP quoted (from the article) was Carl Weimer, executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust.

Im not sure that makes him an expert though

 

[killster1]

Go ahead and call and ask about the guy ontop the tanker that got 3rd degree burns and entire gas station burned down.. see what they say..

West-Hills Oil-San JoaquinWest-Hills Oil-San Joaquins=9264890654068744633
Place page
22050 West Colorado Avenue San Joaquin, CA 93660 - (559) 693-4482

 

[guyver01]

Carl Weimer, executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust.
Im not sure that makes him an expert though

The Pipeline Safety Trust is a nonprofit public charity promoting fuel transportation safety through education and advocacy, by increasing access to information, and by building partnerships with residents, safety advocates, government, and industry, that result in safer communities and a healthier environment.


He's a marketing expert... but i don't know if i'd call him a gas expert.