Remember a discussion a long while back, when I said that given enough access to enough air, a whole petrol tanker load of ‘liquid’ petrol, not just the vapour, can actually instantly ignite and no one believed me ?.
Awful seeing such an explosion especially in a city.
Is it said or suggested anywhere that a full petrol container/tank exploded?
If it was tanker delivering to a retail station then:
Either the tank receiving the petrol was partially empty or
The tank delivering the petrol was partially empty.
Somewhere there is going to be a vapour air mix.
It cannot be one full tank flowing into another full tank!
My speculative opinion, based on experience, knowledge and education of fuel handling. The exact cause and chain of events cannot be established from mere seconds of vision from a distance, even by Carryfast. The vision posted is of the result, not the cause.
As a is tank being filled, the vapour is being displaced. It will be that vapour that created the initial fire. The heat from that fire will vaporize other stored fuel, then those vapours will catch fire.
The Russian authorities have not ruled out arson.
However in the Youtube comments one commenter has posted the following comment which seems to be getting some agreement from other people.
Called a BLEVE for Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion. That first leaking flame was from the pressure relief valve on the tanker, which heated the gasoline or whatever within that tank until the pressure couldn’t escape through the valve and ruptured the end of the tank (you can see the end has a big gash in it when it comes to rest) and all that boiling gasoline got shot out into the air and all burns at once making the gigantic fireball.
At least four people killed in explosion and fire at petrol station in southern Russia | Euronews
BLEVE, for goodness sake, stop using big words that Carryfast does not understand. Next thing, he’ll be using them out of context.
I’ve been led to believe that UNECE, the people who created the impending ADR 2025 (from the UN Model Regulations) appointed CF as the sole Technical Advisor for the whole project, who are we to challenge CF?
This despite the actual verifiable science, which states clearly: Flammable liquids do not burn without being in the correct proportions of vapour:air (of which only about 21% is oxygen.) Known as the flammability or explosive range. The lower limit of this range is about 1% and the upper limit about 8%.
If it were possible to heat the whole mass of flammable liquid to its auto-ignition point (anywhere from 300 deg C to 450 deg C depending on the chemical makeup of the “petrol”) it would ignite without the need for a source of heat (spark, flame etc) but it still will not burn or explode unless there was the correct amount of oxygen present.
Unless CF has rewritten the molecular rules of the “Fire Triangle” but not chosen to reveal that yet.
Obviously this information dates from BCF (ie Before CarryFast). The newly re-written science has not yet been published (it may never be published) as it is deemed too dangerous for we mere mortals, so we can only await the drip feeding of this new science via TN and CFs carefully constructed slow-release-of-info posts.
Once again Messrs Dunning and Kruger make their presence felt. Or, if you like, Alexander Pope, when he wrote “A little learning is a dang’rous thing - shallow draughts intoxicate the brain”
CF is drunk on his own partial knowledge
2 Likes
BLEVE’s are 'kin cool 
From a safe distance that is…
This is a handy little video to explain what happens
I fear that the “Bermuda triangle” is a better subject for CF.
Much more in line with his predilection for conspiracy etc.
Anyone up for a “go fund me” to send me on a research expedition to explore the site?
Well I blame Starmer…or even Brexit 
One way? 
1 Like
One way?..ME ME …ME !
1 Like
We’ve got somewhere else in mind for you. 
That’s exactly what I said.The point is that there is no difference between the liquid fuel store and vapour.
The burning vapour sets off an instantaneous chain reaction by turning all the other liquid store to vapour which ignites equally instantaneously.
It looked like a fire in the ullage which ignited at an open hatch.
The dangerous thing at that point is that people think that it will only be a fire will be limited to the original vapour store.
As opposed to an instantaneous combustion and explosion of the whole liquid load assuming it has sufficient access to the air.
As I said it’s a liquid fuel air mix.The whole liquid oad instantaneously turns to vapour in a chain reaction.That was clearly a tanker load explosion which predictably instantaneously turned a full tanker into an empty one.It helps to know that can and will happen if a tanker catches fire and ruptures or opens at any point opening the liquid load to the air.Rather than thinking that only the vapour contained in the ullage will burn off.
Have the Ruskis consulted you yet?
You’re proof that you don’t need a long neck to be a goose.
I did start replying…but decided not to…
Might some of the misunderstands or mis-readings of these rapid events be down to the language we’re using. If a chain-reaction occurs, it remains a chain-reaction, no matter how rapid, and to describe it as ‘instantaneous’ might be technically incorrect. In real life, however, the reaction is so fast that we might regard the event as instantaneous. The original post contains the clause ‘instantly ignite’, which because it is a chain-reaction cannot be described as such because its either one or the other.
You could use a similar argument that a nuclear explosion isn’t instantaneous.
The point is that a petrol tanker ullage vapour fire often/generally won’t generally be limited to and stop there, which was the original previous argument.
Effectively it’s a single explosion of the whole liquid load’s worth, turned to a vapour and air mix.The semantics of the definition of explosion and single are irrelevant when making the call to run or wait around and see.
No need.We know that you would have been attempting to retrieve the tremcard from the cab and the regulation fire extinguisher from the trailer to put out the first stage burning column of ullage vapour at the hatch.
While if it was me I would have been overtaken by the thrown blown out tanker while running away saying zb I knew I shouldn’t have been smoking that machorka before I’d closed the hatch.
Proof that a fire involving a petrol tanker often won’t stop at just burning off the vapour contained in the ullage.Run is a good strategy.