Date:         Sun, 5 Dec 2010 12:06:17 -0600
Reply-To:     mcneely4@COX.NET
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Dave Mcneely <mcneely4@COX.NET>
Subject:      Re: Vanagon engine fire or mishap in Roanoke, Va
Comments: To: David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
In-Reply-To:  <4cfbc88b.a369e50a.6933.ffff9d16@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

---- David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET> wrote:

>
> >Gasoline is also much more volatile, making explosive combustion more likely.
>
> That was the crux of the matter -- the gasoline was supposed not to
> stick around long enough to catch fire.  But if this was based on
> straight (i.e. single-fraction) gasoline the results might be very
> different now; the heavier fractions might stay put longer.
>
> If I didn't have a high regard for my eyebrows I might rig up a
> heated plate and see what happens at different temperatures.  Since
> I'm old and boring I guess I'll pass.

It is routine in instructional chemistry labs to use electrically heated surfaces (hot plate) to heat volatile, combustible liquids.  Of course, one isn't supposed to spill the stuff on the hot plate, but rather to keep the liquid in a container.  I assume that the vapors are not expected to come in contact with the surface because they waft away, though they would with a flame if that were used.  Of course, a flame is much hotter than the surface of the hot plate, also.

David McNeely