Yachtsinking Ex-wife Jailed

Many thanks for the tip Lakey.

Probably, along with the rest on this board, I have locked away drill bits, drills and stripped my library of DIY tips.

I will be paying all my boating bills in cash from now on.

Also, an electric force field around the mooring.
 
Actually ...as they say on these occasions......it is surprisingly difficult to get a decent explosion with gas.The concentration has to be 8% or so.
I saw an item on TV where the "experts" tried to re-enact the explosion in one of the "Bourne" films where he undoes the gas pipe and puts a magazine in the toaster...BOOM!!!!
In fact, the experts got a sortof WHOOF...all very disappointing.
 
The Snopes article seems to concentrate on the batteries or ringers in the cellphones as the supposed source of ignition, which of course, is preposterous. They haven't considered the fact that cell-phones are transmitters, and emitted electro-magnetic radiation can induce electric current and heating in nearby metal objects. It's interesting that the Snopes article attributes the follow-up incident to "static electricity" but fail to consider the cause of the static electricity. Considering that the filler neck is most likely metal, as is the filler nozzle, I would think it at least possible that an induced "static" spark could be produced between the two. While is may be an extremely remote risk, it's obviously considered by some in both the petrol and cell-phone industries that it does exist. That said, I think the hazard of static discharge is much greater when people get in and out of the vehicle while it is being fueled, but I've yet to see any warnings about that.
 
Cruiser2B said:
The Snopes article seems to concentrate on the batteries or ringers in the cellphones as the supposed source of ignition, which of course, is preposterous. They haven't considered the fact that cell-phones are transmitters, and emitted electro-magnetic radiation can induce electric current and heating in nearby metal objects. It's interesting that the Snopes article attributes the follow-up incident to "static electricity" but fail to consider the cause of the static electricity. Considering that the filler neck is most likely metal, as is the filler nozzle, I would think it at least possible that an induced "static" spark could be produced between the two. While is may be an extremely remote risk, it's obviously considered by some in both the petrol and cell-phone industries that it does exist. That said, I think the hazard of static discharge is much greater when people get in and out of the vehicle while it is being fueled, but I've yet to see any warnings about that.
Click to expand...

You won't get a spark between the nozzle and the filler neck as the nozzle is earthed, as is the person filling the vehicle while ever they are holding the nozzle.
The problem is folks wandering off and building up a charge and then earthing themselves on the nozzle in a flammable vapour cloud (around the filler). The spark you get of a person is about 30mJ, more than enough to ignite petrol or LPG.
We calibrate a gas probe to ignite with a .2mJ spark when we test packaging and clothing for suitability on chemical plant.
 
Indeed "Mythbusters" have done the throwing a fag into the petrol thing.

And failed to light it.

And I've often seen mobiles being used in petrol stations, particularly in hotter countries, including Egypt (IIRC) and SE Asia, where one presumes the fuel will vapourise more.

And then there are motorbikes (and cars) with straight through and/or cut exhausts- I am sure most of us have at least seen on telly flames or at least popping unburnt fuel at the ends of pipes. Not many petrol stations blow up as far as I am aware.

But...

Gas explosions certainly do happen, and I'd never propose risking any sparking where there is suspicion of gas. No gas on my little bucket anyway.

Not that I ever pull over to turn off my phone before pulling into a garage on my bike.
 
SHUG said:
Actually ...as they say on these occasions......it is surprisingly difficult to get a decent explosion with gas.The concentration has to be 8% or so.
Click to expand...

Not with the right equipment it isn't :D

Crash_Test_Boat_Explosion.JPG
 
I suppose taken to the logically extreme people with turbo-charged engines should let the turbo cool down before filling up.
Still think starter motors are more dangerous.

But how often do we hear of fuel station fires?
 
aquaplane said:
You won't get a spark between the nozzle and the filler neck as the nozzle is earthed, as is the person filling the vehicle while ever they are holding the nozzle.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the car isn't earthed - it's insulated by those four rubber thingies; a charge in it might seek a path to ground through the nozzle.

More Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/autos/hazards/static.asp
 
The car is earthed, there is sufficient conductivity in the tyres to allow the very large voltages involved with static to discharge. If this weren't the case there would be sparks flying every time anyone touched a car (the shock you sometimes get when you've been in a car is static generated by your clothes and/or the seat material.

I worked in the chemical industry for years and static was the thing we were most wary of as its presence was non-intuitive.
 
Tyres are non-conductive. I challenge you to try getting an electric shock by touching a tyre, instead of the metal door of your car. While I agree you can cause a static charge by rubbing your bum on the fabric of your seat, often the shock you get when exiting the car is the charge built up in the body of the car from the air flowing over it; that's why they make these things: http://www.mizter.com/car-antistatic-ground-strap-assembly.htm
That's also why I spend the winter (with very dry air) getting shocked, but wearing the same clothes never get shocked during other times of the year.
 
The straps, chains and other dangling devices achieve nothing in terms of preventing you getting charged up, they are based on bad science. As I said, it's you that gets charged, not the car - the spark jumps from you to the car not vice versa as most people think.
 
SHUG said:
Actually ...as they say on these occasions......it is surprisingly difficult to get a decent explosion with gas.The concentration has to be 8% or so.
I saw an item on TV where the "experts" tried to re-enact the explosion in one of the "Bourne" films where he undoes the gas pipe and puts a magazine in the toaster...BOOM!!!!
In fact, the experts got a sortof WHOOF...all very disappointing.
Click to expand...

Having investigated numerous gas explosions, I can assure you that on occaision you can get very large bangs from regular gas leaks...

Try from 1.5% for some gas concentrations, 8% just below stoichiometric for propane/butane.
 
Sandyman said:
Naked light ? then of course. But a Torch ? a Light Switch (12V ?) mobile phone ? radio ?

No way.

He speaks as if with knowledge and an authority, which he clearly is not & does not have.
Not concerned that the bint got sent down, just that the size of her sentence was probably
influenced by his incorrect comments.
Click to expand...

The fact that miners' torches have very special switches might indicate that there is a danger, and I'm fairly sure I've heard of boats blowing up when a light switch has been operated. More often than not, though, I'm sure it's someone striking a match or lighter to fire up the cooker that casuses the explosion.

Nevertheless, a mix of air and butane in the right proportions is highly explosive and deliberately to fill a boat with gas does suggest that causing grievous to the ex was in her drink- and sex-fuddled brain.
 
jamesjermain said:
The fact that miners' torches have very special switches might indicate that there is a danger, and I'm fairly sure I've heard of boats blowing up when a light switch has been operated. More often than not, though, I'm sure it's someone striking a match or lighter to fire up the cooker that casuses the explosion.

Nevertheless, a mix of air and butane in the right proportions is highly explosive and deliberately to fill a boat with gas does suggest that causing grievous to the ex was in her drink- and sex-fuddled brain.
Click to expand...

There was,maybe still is,a 50 ft sailing yacht in Hong Kong called Grey Gull that exploded because of a gas leak.The story was that the owner's wife went below and turned the lights on wich caused the explosion.The deks were lifted off and she was sadly killed.The boat lingered on at the yacht club waiting to be sold after being repaired until years later when somebody bought her.
 
hi new here,
have a qts on this thread,
is there any way of finding out who previously owned this boat?
the reason i ask, is that my dad used to own a princess motor boat by the name of double dargon, in the papers is says the boat was 39ft long, but the 1 we owned was only 33ft long,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

boatmike
Merry Fisher 695
Replies
3
Views
220
Bouba
Bouba

Share this page

Top