3 ms·
> Gasoline tanks aren't 100% full all the time, either. The less gas a tank has, the more dangerous it could be. It's a common mistake to think a close to empt
by leokun 13y ago
> Gasoline tanks aren't 100% full all the time, either.
The less gas a tank has, the more dangerous it could be. It's a common mistake to think a close to empty tank of gasoline is safer than a full one when the reverse may be true because of the fumes.
For example:
http://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/worksafe/content/safety_topics/hazardous_substances/Additional_resources/Empty_drums_-_potential_bombs.html http://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/worksafe/content/safety_topics...
- sliverstorm 13y agoWe're just talking about energy content right now, not damage potential.
- jlgreco 13y agoI'm not convinced of that. If you are worried about the tank going "pop", then a mostly empty gas tank would indeed be more dangerous. However I think the more typical concern is the tank being punctured, leaking, then the leaking gas burning rather than exploding. So basically if you want it to explode hollywood style, then you need gas vapors, but if you want a very bad car fire, then you need lots of gas.
- lostlogin 13y agoit isn't much of a data point, but when the fire brigade turn up to a car fire they first thing they ask is about how much fuel is in the tank. The less there is the more worried they are. I've been in the situation twice. Presumably an explosion is more worrying than big flames.
- jlgreco 13y agoEhh, I mean, they already know there is a fire and that fire getting bigger is something they anticipate one way or the other, but an explosion could take them by surprise. I suspect that more people are killed by big flames than explosions, but more fire fighers are killed by explosions than big flames.
- PeterisP 13y agoIf you want a very bad car fire, then half of your current tank is plenty enough and even overkill. Lots of gas can do much more - say, if a gas lorry spills under a concrete bridge, then the fire can do structural damage to that.