Me and my friends had a lot of fun as teenagers using aerosols for a similar purpose. We'd scavenge old aerosols from our parent's houses and use them as the propellant for spud guns and the like (we didn't blow up any cars, for the record).
I think the trick was to find the ones with propane propellant rather than butane. I also suspect that the (rapidly boiled) moisture droplets from the aerosol would have added to the explosive force too.
Eventually we decided to go straight to the source and got ourselves a little oxy/propane welding kit. That worked a treat. I'm kind of surprised B&Q sold that to a bunch a teenagers actually.
The fuel:air ratio for getting high is way richer than the fuel:air ratio for combustion. Also if you're getting high off it you're probably not going to want to waste it. I'm assuming butane was the propellant for the air freshener since IIRC that's a common propellant for things that are supposed to smell nice.
Many things hit an explosive atmosphere at around 4%.
Also, there is the concept of deflagration vs detonation, the latter being decidedly worse, but unlikely in this case due to the geometry.
There is a whole field of electrical engineering dedicated to defining potential for and avoiding of igniting explosive atmospheres in industrial plant.
Achieving the right fuel/air mixture before the lighter ignites it requires so many things to go right (or wrong) that this might be one of those things tossed around by conspiracy theorists for a long time.
Probably significantly helped by the improvement of door seals over the years.
The guy blew up his car with an excessive use of air freshener. "Blow up" isn't a precise technical term we need to worry about abusing. "Excessive" might be subjective or subject to debate, but when the resulting damage is enough to blow out the windows and bend the sheet metal, let's just go with excessive.
The BBC follows a journalistic style guide that requires the use of quotes when directly quoting someone else when the attribution is not clear.
That makes it easier to determine, when reading an article, if the substance of an article is based on a journalist's own research and observations or those of another.
Unless they're based on whatever chemical combination makes Febreeze work, in which case it does actually eliminate odor. There's a fascinating story behind the invention of Febreeze.
Seems to happen pretty regularly! The “More on this story” links below the article list two other similar incidents, in November 2019 and September 2017.
I wonder what really happened that he came up with that story to tell the cops? I'm not sure I'm going to believe this story until we have Adam Savage show it's possible.
Adam Savage already blew stuff up with spray sunscreen (for the same reason—propane as a propellant). The hard part is getting the stoichiometry right so it explodes instead of just burning.
Vaporized fuel + air explosions is essentially what occurs in the cylinders of a gasoline engine of an automobile; there's nothing mysterious about this.
[+] [-] adamcharnock|6 years ago|reply
I think the trick was to find the ones with propane propellant rather than butane. I also suspect that the (rapidly boiled) moisture droplets from the aerosol would have added to the explosive force too.
Eventually we decided to go straight to the source and got ourselves a little oxy/propane welding kit. That worked a treat. I'm kind of surprised B&Q sold that to a bunch a teenagers actually.
[+] [-] zeroflow|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|6 years ago|reply
https://www.mathesongas.com/pdfs/products/Lower-(LEL)-&-Uppe...
[+] [-] airbreather|6 years ago|reply
Also, there is the concept of deflagration vs detonation, the latter being decidedly worse, but unlikely in this case due to the geometry.
There is a whole field of electrical engineering dedicated to defining potential for and avoiding of igniting explosive atmospheres in industrial plant.
[+] [-] shakna|6 years ago|reply
Probably significantly helped by the improvement of door seals over the years.
[+] [-] mrkd|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justin66|6 years ago|reply
The guy blew up his car with an excessive use of air freshener. "Blow up" isn't a precise technical term we need to worry about abusing. "Excessive" might be subjective or subject to debate, but when the resulting damage is enough to blow out the windows and bend the sheet metal, let's just go with excessive.
[+] [-] davefp|6 years ago|reply
Edit to add quote in context:
> West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service said the cause of the "dramatic" incident was "excessive" air freshener use.
[+] [-] kilo_bravo_3|6 years ago|reply
They're quote quotes.
The BBC follows a journalistic style guide that requires the use of quotes when directly quoting someone else when the attribution is not clear.
That makes it easier to determine, when reading an article, if the substance of an article is based on a journalist's own research and observations or those of another.
It is actually the right way to do things.
BBC News style guide: https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art201307021121335...
[+] [-] netsharc|6 years ago|reply
From the pics, they must've been quite violent explosions...
[+] [-] pcx|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xBA5ED|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bovermyer|6 years ago|reply
Unless they're based on whatever chemical combination makes Febreeze work, in which case it does actually eliminate odor. There's a fascinating story behind the invention of Febreeze.
[+] [-] peterwwillis|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] janpot|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zamadatix|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Reason077|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gwbas1c|6 years ago|reply
Anyone able to explain this in a bit more detail?
Naively, I wonder if the driver may have had other flammable substances present?
[+] [-] notjtrig|6 years ago|reply
https://youtu.be/fioP8cflUIA Hairspray can in bonfire
[+] [-] Reason077|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dundercoder|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flareback|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snazz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ThrowawayR2|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blattimwind|6 years ago|reply