Gov't mandates gas can flame arrestors.

[MossRoad]

Here's a nice video from a fuel can manufacturer that shows how a gas can without and with a flame mitigation device works. Pretty interesting.

All it appears to be is a plastic screen in the can that they say creates a 'too rich mixture' so the fuel in the can isn't able to ignite. Simple and elegant. Doesn't cost an arm and a leg, and it works, even when people do stupid things.

 

[Snobdds]

Ok lets start of with the basics... what is more flammable: Vapor or liquid?

 

[MossRoad]

Ok lets start of with the basics... what is more flammable: Vapor or liquid?

Who cares? You're trying to distract from the fact that you got the conversation wrong, quoted me, and injected some other topic.

 

[Snobdds]

Nah...your believing the lawyers and not thinking critically.

 

[cqaigy2]

I have spilled so much gas with these wonderful gas can improvements…I would think the big government was wanting to make sure 10 % of fuel ended up on the ground….lol

Interesting. On the newish cans i have, never spilled any gas, on the older cans i have spilled some. Maybe a youtube video is in order to teach us how to use these new fangled gas cans.

 

[2manyrocks]

I believe that venting does have a lot to do with the potential flammability of the gas inside a can. The gentleman in the video said the flame mitigation device works by making the fuel ratio to oxygen level too rich. If you have an older style can that is vented along with a free flowing spout, air is going to be introduced into the can as the fuel is poured. If the fuel can flow quickly, my assumption would be that air can be introduced into the can quickly as well increasing the risk of flammability.

Although the video is impressive for how the new can doesn't act like a flamethrower, how well does it pour fuel in normal use?

 

[cqaigy2]

The EPA makes Blitz make non venting gas cans and then Blitz gets blamed for making a compliant can.

I think I know where the blame should be placed.

Were they being forced to make a compliant can that was going to fail? That's like saying car manufacturer being forced to add braking system to vehicle, and making the cheapest pos braking system for the vehicle, to make more profit.

 

[Snobdds]

This is from one of the law firms going after Blitz in a class action. Somehow this thread thinks only pouring gas on a fire can burn you and the lack of a flame arrestor is the problem. The law firm makes reference to the vapor issue. The vapor issue is the big issue here. As most people store gas in a manor that builds pressure rather than the small percentage that splash gas on a burning fire.

"The pouring of gas on a fire on a fire is not the only way gas cans explode. With rising gas prices many people use gas cans to stock up on gas. Some people may place these gas cans in a truck bed or the back of the car. A simple spark from a truck latch or static electricity can ignite these gas cans causing them to explode."

Exploding Gas Can Manufacturer Closes Its Doors - Strom Law Firm

Exploding gas can lawsuits forced the nation’s largest manufacturer of gas cans to close its doors. Blitz USA, located in Miami, OK, closed its doors after facing multiple lawsuits. Gas Can Company Files for Bankruptcy Blitz filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy November 9, 2011. The company faced 42...

stromlaw.com

 

[MossRoad]

Were they being forced to make a compliant can that was going to fail? That's like saying car manufacturer being forced to add braking system to vehicle, and making the cheapest pos braking system for the vehicle, to make more profit.

The EPA didn't force Blitz to do anything. Blitz went bankrupt in 2012.

 

[Snobdds]

To get back to the original discussion was about regulations bankrupting the company. The factor that did them in was lawsuits, not regulations.

Chicken and the egg

EPA sets gas can regulations
Gas cans need some sort of flame arrestor for people that like to pour gas on a fire.
Turns out not many people pour gas on a fire.
Turns out more people get hurt from the vapors igniting from an indirect source.
Blitz says, but the vapors are the real issue not the flame arrestor.
The lawyers say the EPA only mandated flame arrestors.
Blitz...but but the issue is vapors.
Judge. Pay Blitz. the law says you must have arrestors.

The real issue was never addressed.