Gas can ‘Safety’ spout fix

[rwidman]

re: " There is no vent on these gas cans, venting is through the spout. The purpose is to catch the gasoline vapors that are in your tank and are being displaced by the liquid you are pouring into the tank."

These gas cans were mandated by someone with absolutely no understanding of physics. Anyone who paid the least bit of attention in high school knows that you can't pour liquid out of a container without a way for air to get in to replace the liquid.

And air can't flow in through the spout while liquid is flowing out of the spout.

The EPA created a whole new industry for folks manufacturing and selling devices to repair something that they "broke" with their stupidity.

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by GreenWave

Are you seriously trying to justify these cans or what? So for the rest of the sane who are watching, the CARB cans are utter crap. I do not believe they reduce anything and my engineering degree suggest that the designer actually didn’t do any real world testing. I will be cutting my spout up this weekend and converting it back to something usable.

Originally Posted by Nicholson58

The California cans are to prevent spills if a can is tipped over, not vapor recovery or automatic shutoff....

In the end, I have spilled more gasoline with one fuel transfer using a California can than the total of my entire previous life.

Originally Posted by Panama Red

100% support the end goal. I like the idea of vapor recovery as in the long run I get more fuel in the tank. But:

1. My state does not have vapor recovery systems at the gas stations.
2. I did a test and I understand how the system would work for a car, but it does not recover vapors for 3 inch openings in my: mower, generator, tractor or pressure washer. I never even thought about filling my car from a jerry can, it is too easy just to drive to a gas station.
3. My marina does not have a vapor recovery system.

So the CARB compliant spout sounds good, but in reality does not solve the problem.

One reason Americans don’t trust government is because laws are passed that cause complications and increased costs in daily life without solving the problem.

FYI: I am a licensed Drone pilot, and the FAA requires me to have a remote ID on my 8 ounce R/C airplane. Nobody to include the FAA knows what a remote ID system is or how to get one.

Personally I think I covered these with my last line:

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

Whether or not they're effective at their intended task....

Here's the government explanation from early in their existence:

CARB Gas Can Fact Sheet - 2005

The bullet list of things they were intended to address:

• Permeation of vapors through walls in containers made from a plastic known as high density polyethylene (75 percent of residential gas cans are made from this plastic).
• Escaping fumes while fuel is being dispensed.
• Spillage and / or over-filling as fuel is being poured into equipment.
• Spillage and evaporation through secondary vent holes. and
• Evaporation through inadequately capped spouts.

Once again,

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

Whether or not they're effective at their intended task....

PS: All the fuel cans on my boat have a vent hole...
(Mods, can't we get an emoticon for "tongue-in-cheek")?

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by rwidman

re: " There is no vent on these gas cans, venting is through the spout. The purpose is to catch the gasoline vapors that are in your tank and are being displaced by the liquid you are pouring into the tank."

These gas cans were mandated by someone with absolutely no understanding of physics. Anyone who paid the least bit of attention in high school knows that you can't pour liquid out of a container without a way for air to get in to replace the liquid.

And air can't flow in through the spout while liquid is flowing out of the spout.

The EPA created a whole new industry for folks manufacturing and selling devices to repair something that they "broke" with their stupidity.

Actually, the physics is quite clear. Whether or not it works or not is another matter. When you pour liquid out of the gas can into a tank the vapor in the tank is displaced (has to be, basic physics). And as the gas can empties it needs a gaseous phase to replace the liquid (again basic physics). The volume of gaseous phase that must exit the tank being filled, and the volume of liquid from the can are equal (again, basic physics). So, if you can swap the liquid in the can for the gaseous phase in the tank then no outside venting is required, you're transferring an equal volume of liquid from the can and vapor to the can. That's why, on paper, it could possibly seem like a good idea

The spouts in question are actually divided (somewhat like our own noses, which we seem to spite quite well), liquid is supposed to come out of the can through one "nostril" while vapor goes back in through the other. Again, sounds reasonable in theory....

[keyway]

Not a fan of the safety spouts. The after market ones are ok. I prefer no spout and a large well fitted funnel. I seem to have more control with less splashing and dribbling. I really don’t let me to spill gas in the water or on the boat

[skipgundlach]

Originally Posted by rwidman

re: " There is no vent on these gas cans, venting is through the spout. The purpose is to catch the gasoline vapors that are in your tank and are being displaced by the liquid you are pouring into the tank."

These gas cans were mandated by someone with absolutely no understanding of physics. Anyone who paid the least bit of attention in high school knows that you can't pour liquid out of a container without a way for air to get in to replace the liquid.

And air can't flow in through the spout while liquid is flowing out of the spout.

The EPA created a whole new industry for folks manufacturing and selling devices to repair something that they "broke" with their stupidity.

There's two holes in the spout; the output and the air-replacement vent.

The premise is that when the fuel reaches that vent pipe, it will keep additional fuel from coming out. The problem with that is that there may be enough flex in the can (glug, glug) to allow rather more to come out.

But it's a nice concept

[Flatswing]

I have found the “No Spill” brand available on Amazon & at most power tool vendors locally are robust and easiest to use. Not the cheapest but simple /effective. Comes in 1, 2.5 &5 gal. sizes.

[boatman61]

Best no spill refuelling on a boat I know is a length of clear plastic tubing and a rag..
Insert tube into can till it reaches bottom, insert other end into filler tube.. block can outlet with rag leaving a small hole to one side, place mouth over hole and blow till fuel flow through the tube.
As the can empties tilt it forwards to drain the last dregs, remove hose after letting it drain and stuff each end with a bit of kitchen roll, wipe dry and stow.

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Best no spill refuelling on a boat I know is a length of clear plastic tubing and a rag..
Insert tube into can till it reaches bottom, insert other end into filler tube.. block can outlet with rag leaving a small hole to one side, place mouth over hole and blow till fuel flow through the tube.
As the can empties tilt it forwards to drain the last dregs, remove hose after letting it drain and stuff each end with a bit of kitchen roll, wipe dry and stow.

+1

That's how I do it! No muss, no fuss, no spills.

[thunderhoof]

Could someone post a photo of the offending "California Safety" spout? My 5 gal jug has a spout that is closed until it is place on the filler and has a built in vent. My only gripe is that it is slower than the old style with a separate vent but it never spills on the deck. Yes I am in CA.

[Lepke]

The EPA and others is a good example of why government agencies shouldn't be allowed to pass laws. If it had to be passed by congress, at least we'd have the opportunity to vote the bums out.
I have a wood boat. It's been impossible for the last 40 years, to find a wood preservative that actually works. I have to make my own.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

Actually, the physics is quite clear. Whether or not it works or not is another matter. When you pour liquid out of the gas can into a tank the vapor in the tank is displaced (has to be, basic physics). And as the gas can empties it needs a gaseous phase to replace the liquid (again basic physics). The volume of gaseous phase that must exit the tank being filled, and the volume of liquid from the can are equal (again, basic physics). So, if you can swap the liquid in the can for the gaseous phase in the tank then no outside venting is required, you're transferring an equal volume of liquid from the can and vapor to the can. That's why, on paper, it could possibly seem like a good idea

The spouts in question are actually divided (somewhat like our own noses, which we seem to spite quite well), liquid is supposed to come out of the can through one "nostril" while vapor goes back in through the other. Again, sounds reasonable in theory....

You can pontificate all you want, the new cans (spouts) do not work well and typically result in spilling way more fuel than throwing the spout away and pouring through a funnel.

And it's a real shame when you buy a new gas jug and then have to buy an aftermarket spout to "fix" the jug you just paid good money for.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Lepke

The EPA and others is a good example of why government agencies shouldn't be allowed to pass laws. If it had to be passed by congress, at least we'd have the opportunity to vote the bums out.

And that is exactly why Congress created the EPA. So they could pass unpopular regulations without the members of Congress being voted out.

There is no check on the EPA's authority to pass stupid regulations.

[Nicholson58]

Found this one at Menards. No safety lock. It has a vent. High speed pour. Very heavy wall, low VOC construction. My fleet of other modified cans.

[skipgundlach]

Originally Posted by rwidman

You can pontificate all you want, the new cans (spouts) do not work well and typically result in spilling way more fuel than throwing the spout away and pouring through a funnel.

And it's a real shame when you buy a new gas jug and then have to buy an aftermarket spout to "fix" the jug you just paid good money for.

I respectfully disagree; see my post on the change of heart a few comments above.

My cans leak not a drop, inverted, full, and when I lift it off, they stop in the same fashion.

If what you're buying (apologies if you're not in the US, but presume the issue would not be present if you weren't) doesn't do that, get a spout and cap from Scepter or Midwest Can; both of those, I can say from regular use, will not drip; admittedly spillage might be a product of imprudent management of where the spout is at the time you activate it, but otherwise, other than overfilling, there should also be no spills...

Link to identify; search Scepter EasyFlo spout or click the 'where to buy': https://www.scepter.com/products/con...cessory-spout/

Here's a video of how to use the Midwest Can version, but they're functionally identical:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLGp...westCanCompany

See my description of how to use either, if the video isn't sufficient, or what's happening isn't clear...

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by rwidman

re: " There is no vent on these gas cans, venting is through the spout. The purpose is to catch the gasoline vapors that are in your tank and are being displaced by the liquid you are pouring into the tank."

These gas cans were mandated by someone with absolutely no understanding of physics. Anyone who paid the least bit of attention in high school knows that you can't pour liquid out of a container without a way for air to get in to replace the liquid.

And air can't flow in through the spout while liquid is flowing out of the spout.

The EPA created a whole new industry for folks manufacturing and selling devices to repair something that they "broke" with their stupidity.

That is exactly what happens when you fill your car. It's all about the details.