加油时候打电话会不会引起爆炸？

鸡毛令箭

飞雪满楼 发表于 2017-6-24 12:48
因为你永远不知道你手中的手机会不会在下一秒着火/爆炸。所以安全起见，还是别打为好。

那些规则都是为了 ...

你说的情况要很高的发射功率，手机达不到的

鸡毛令箭

rickinclayton 发表于 2017-6-24 12:51
楼主这算普及民科吗？

我这民科的知识都是大学里的专业课上学的。你听不懂的东西都是民科对吧？

鸡毛令箭

henry.houfeng 发表于 2017-6-24 13:13
实际上你如果在广播发射塔下面，am收音机可以不用电池收广播，这个不是吹牛我试过的。

大学物理说，发射塔 ...

你大学里学的不够精，不是无线电专业的吧。发射塔分很多种，AM波长太长，没有什么方向性的，塔下一样有很大的辐射。另外楼下也说了，即使是有指向的天线一样有旁瓣，功率大的话有方向的天线也不能保证塔下就没有辐射

鸡毛令箭

coolmate 发表于 2017-6-24 13:21
那是对于发射功率的比例来说的，发射功率大，即使很小的比例也会有很大的能量。跟上面的视频里解释的不矛 ...

是这个道理，况且AM广播没有很强的方向性

鸡毛令箭

changzi100 发表于 2017-6-24 16:11
楼主分析得有道理啊，当然肯定不会脑残到去试这个事儿的，大家也用不着拿这个怼楼主。有规定必有例外，经常 ...

鸡毛令箭

Peterwu 发表于 2017-6-24 16:30
你看得懂楼主原文的意思吗？中文是母语吗？如果是你在胡搅蛮缠。如果不是请先确认自己读懂了人家的意思再 ...

车版就是这样，喷子特别多，还都是不懂装懂的

simon319

乾坤离析 发表于 2017-6-24 18:01
什么你的车子居然没有点烟器，完全没火花啊，点烟器按下去，烟点起来就好了。多简单。要什么打火机！
既 ...

还真没有点烟器，现在的车应该都没这玩意儿了吧？

鸡毛令箭

htan564 发表于 2017-6-24 16:57
大家还是看看为什么不能用手机吧， 怕的不是无线辐射， 是怕电池掉出来砸出火花。 不过现在的手机电池能被 ...

你给手机换电池的时候见到过火花吗？ 电池只有在链接大负载类似短路的时候才会有火花。
这个理由明显和以前推崇的理由不一样了，但是都属于不切实际的理由

鸡毛令箭

大牛哥 发表于 2017-6-24 17:03
楼主是个爱钻研爱科学的好青年

我猜，你是江南人，对不？ ...

这和江南江北有关系吗？:o

鸡毛令箭

simon319 发表于 2017-6-24 17:55
哥，您这么遵守规定，加油前关机了没有？理论上进加油站前就得关机，可是进加油站前车还在路上，摸手机又 ...

实际上是，手机无时不刻都在和基站联系，都在发射信号。禁止打电话并不能禁止手机发射信号，尤其在电话进来的时候手机会发出比平时强的辐射，无论你接不接都一样。禁止打电话基本没有实际意义

鸡毛令箭

乾坤离析 发表于 2017-6-24 17:56
我的本义就是，其实抽烟也不会对加油站引起什么实际的boom，所以，如果你觉得打电话可以，那么抽烟也没问 ...

打电话没问题，就代表其他的也没问题，这种逻辑真不是正常人可以理解的

大牛哥

鸡毛令箭 发表于 2017-6-24 19:46
这和江南江北有关系吗？

跟技术没啥关系，不过跟对说话的方式和对话的理解有关系

直说吧，我觉得其实很多人的回帖没啥恶意，只是跟你闲磨牙逗闷子而已，可惜。。。好好的相声。。。到了你这儿就说不下去了。。。

鸡毛令箭

大牛哥 发表于 2017-6-24 19:57
跟技术没啥关系，不过跟对说话的方式和对话的理解有关系

直说吧，我觉得其实很多人的回帖没啥恶意，只是 ...

大哥，车版的风气不是说相声吧，大家都知道的啊

鸡毛令箭

有一篇关于在加油站使用手机有没有风险的论文，转载关键的部分，有兴趣的可以看看

A Summary of Current Research
Cell phone use at motor fuel dispensing facilities has been the alleged ignition source of a
number of fire incidents found on the internet and sent through email. The website in
Attachment 11 includes a collection of stories and hoaxes that may have created caution
around the issue of cell phones and gasoline dispenser when use of such electronic devices
were just entering the marketplace. This reference is not intended as a credible technical
substantiation, but rather an example of the stories circulated on the topic.
Similarly, there have been numerous incidents where cell phone use was initially suspected as
the cause of an ignition, but were subsequently ruled out. Although many of these stories date
back to the early 2000’s, a recent review of news releases did not reveal incidents where cell
phones could be conclusively linked to any fires at fuel dispensing facilities by a credible
investigative source.
A 2006 study and subsequence IEEE conference paper (Attachment 12) analyzed the risks of cell
phones in Class I, Division 2 hazardous locations. The hazardous locations in this study were not
limited to fueling stations and encompassed petrochemical facilities as well. In the study, the
authors determined cell phones had a very low probability of causing an ignition even under
8
ideal conditions. The study included a number of experimental methods to generate a spark
from cell phones. Such actions included: removing vibration motors from a selection of phones
and energizing them in a flammable atmosphere (no ignition events occurred), intentionally
shorting out battery terminals in a darkened environment to monitor for visible sparks (no sparks
were seen), and short circuited a battery for ten minutes to monitor temperature rise (no
measurable increase in temperature). The greatest risk in this study was proposed that if a cell
phone was dropped on a hard surface the battery may disconnect and cause an impact spark
from the mechanical impact. The authors determined the risks of a cell phone causing a fire in a
Class I, Division 2 environment to be negligible, but noted that there will always be a minimal
hazard.
A study published by Exponent Failure Analysis Associates in 1999 (Attachment 13) provided a
similar conclusion as the IEEE study mentioned previously. This paper stated that cell phone use
at gasoline stations represents a negligible hazard. The authors reasoned that there would need
to be both a flammable atmosphere present and a malfunctioning cell phone to create an
ignition. The paper concludes that numerous ignitions sources on automobiles that are within
the hazard area and static discharges from personnel pose a greater hazard than cell phones.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has also published guidance that echoes the
papers noted above (Attachment 14). The FCC stated that a number of studies were
completed and that although theoretically possible, there is no documented incident where a
cell phone has caused a fire or explosion. Also the FCC stated that although the potential of
ignition by wireless devices is remote, automobiles and static electricity are present and will
always be potential ignition sources.
A 2011 paper by NFPA highlights some of the same findings (Attachment 15). It provides
reference to a study from Australia that reported that 243 fire reports from 1993 to 2004 were
initially suspected to be caused by cell phones. Subsequent investigation revealed that none of
the reports could be linked to cell phone use. The report also stated that many researchers
have attempted in laboratory conditions to ignite fuel vapors with cell phones but were
unsuccessful.
Mobile phones use at fuel stations in the UK has been heavily debated. A narrative of some of
the inconsistences with cell phone policies and risks is provided in Attachment 16, “An Example
of Everyday Risk Assessment”. Although the author does not believe cell phones provide a risk of
ignition at petrol stations, laws in the UK originally written for banning CB radio use at service
stations also ban mobile phone use.
A University of Kent case study in Attachment 17, provides a thorough review of alleged hazards
of mobile phones at service stations. The study provides an overview of the issues and laws
related to motor fuel dispensing facilities at a variety of locations. The author concludes that
there is a phantom risk that results in precautionary health and safety measures. The author also
notes that there is a confusion of blaming fires on mobile phones which disguises the real causes
of the fires which are typically static.
A statement by the GSM Association, an organization that represents worldwide mobile
operators (Attachment 18) provides their position on mobile phone use at fueling station. This
9
paper also noted that in 2003, the UK Institute of Petroleum hosted a seminar on mobile phones
and petroleum vapors. The seminar came to the following conclusion:
“The seminar showed the findings of research undertaken to date demonstrating that
although the majority of mobile phones are not specifically designed and constructed to
prevent them igniting a flammable atmosphere (in accordance with standards for
‘protected equipment’), the risk they present as a source of ignition is negligible. The
Institute of Petroleum is not aware of any fire incident that has been substantiated as
having been caused by a mobile phone anywhere in the world. Presenters indicated
that all of the reported incidents are either hoaxes or have been incorrectly attributed to
having been caused by a mobile phone.” UK Institute of Petroleum, 2013.
A recent investigation by the German Society for Petroleum and Coal Science and Technology
(summary provided in attachment 19) performed many of the experiments done almost a
decade earlier in the 2006 IEEE study with modern smart phones. This study came to the same
consensus as other studies and concluded that cellular phones in normal use are not an ignition
danger. Also no special ignition dangers above that which already exist are created from the
use of cellular phones at gasoline dispensers.

stanli

鸡毛令箭 发表于 2017-6-24 20:07
大哥，车版的风气不是说相声吧，大家都知道的啊

难说 车版现在风气越来越好 没人管的状态 很快就能像汽车之家一样开始对骂了

鸡毛令箭

stanli 发表于 2017-6-24 20:11
难说 车版现在风气越来越好 没人管的状态 很快就能像汽车之家一样开始对骂了 ...

没人管，不会吧？

背包客

LZ这贴发的太糟心了，安慰下。从技术角度讲是个好贴

garysu

电视塔下面能量说法多多

当年我住artarmon，不用公寓的天线的话一个台都看不到

鸡毛令箭

garysu 发表于 2017-6-24 20:22
电视塔下面能量说法多多

当年我住artarmon，不用公寓的天线的话一个台都看不到 ...

AM广播和UHF/VHF广播相差很大，功率，指向性等相差十万八千里

鸡毛令箭

背包客 发表于 2017-6-24 20:21
LZ这贴发的太糟心了，安慰下。从技术角度讲是个好贴

哈哈谢谢！支持的网友也不少

鸡毛令箭

Ban on phones at petrol pump stands, even if reason doesn't

http://www.drive.com.au/motor-ne ... 20100708-102bm.html

bunker

我记得不是说会影响计价器的走动么，所以不让用。

我还真见过油站抽烟的，在边上給油站加气的工人，估计玩事了或者等待就点了根抽。bp的

鸡毛令箭

bunker 发表于 2017-6-24 20:39
我记得不是说会影响计价器的走动么，所以不让用。

我还真见过油站抽烟的，在边上給油站加气的工人，估计玩 ...

肯定不是影响计价器的走动的。但是我觉得即使加油站知道手机不会引起火灾，也会继续执行这个禁令的，因为这样的禁令几乎没有任何成本，但是有其他好处。比如没有人加油的时候慢悠悠的煲电话阻碍后面的人加油，或者因为人在打电话分心不小心被车撞了引起法律纠纷，或者其他原因着火了可以找借口说是客人违规使用电话造成的，来获取法律和经济上的好处等等。

jingle123

不怕死就用呗，争论这有啥意义？真炸了你赔？

rrsc

你可以自己试一下，对着你的油箱口，一边加油一边打手机，不停的呼叫对方，接通后挂了，再打，最好用两部手机一起打，大概电话接通50次左右，如果还是没反应，不要放弃，继续打，最后你会看到奇迹

ILQ

打电话就算有风险，这种风险也是低到不至于让加油站禁止使用手机吧。就好像每天都有致命车祸，但是因为概率低所以大家还是该开车开车。

鸡毛令箭

rrsc 发表于 2017-6-24 23:37
你可以自己试一下，对着你的油箱口，一边加油一边打手机，不停的呼叫对方，接通后挂了，再打，最好用两部手 ...

请问“专家”，为什么说是大概50次，不是5次，500次？
你试过还是你算过？车版你这样的专家太多了，张口就是自己发明或者道听途说的理论，都不用经过脑子的

rrsc

鸡毛令箭 发表于 2017-6-25 09:06
请问“专家”，为什么说是大概50次，不是5次，500次？
你试过还是你算过？车版你这样的专家太多了，张口 ...

你这种xx也很多。自己去网上看视频吧，视频直说很多次，你自己试试不就知道了

arlernss

技术层面不懂，不过加油站不是规定要把手机关掉吗？从这个角度来看应该手机开着本身就有危险，而不是指用不用手机？但10个人里11个都不会进加油站前关机吧。。

rrsc

https://youtu.be/Z3p79Paea0I