| Author | Topic Options |
|---|---|
Diogenes
CKA Elite  Posts: 3540  Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:48 pm Squat factor rising
"The distribution of unsubstantiated and incorrect lore regarding this incident greatly harms the world-wide efforts to develop hydrogen technologies for the replacement of fossil fuel." But that won't stop squat from spreading lies http://www.hydrogennow.org/Facts/Safety-1.htm What Can We Learn from the Hindenburg Disaster? The explosion of the luxury airship Hindenburg at Lakehurst, NJ, on May 6, 1937, serves as one of the most spectacular moments recorded by the media. Until very recently, it has aided in paralyzing the development of widespread hydrogen use as a fuel, due to concerns for safety (and viewing the fiery picture above, understandably so). But knowing the actual nature of the Hindenburg disaster, as well as knowing the behavior of hydrogen allows us to dispel this stigma associated with hydrogen. The Facts on the Hindenburg Disaster: 1. The bags of hydrogen that provided the lifting force for the Hindenburg were NOT the main contributor to the fire. The surface of the ship was coated with a combination of dark iron oxide and reflective aluminum paint. These components are extremely flammable and burn at a tremendously energetic rate once ignited. The skin of the airship was ignited by electrical discharge from the clouds while docking during an electrical storm. This reaction has been proven chemically for years, and was demonstrated with actual remnants of the Hindenburg sixty years later, which burned as vigorously as on the day of the disaster. 2. The hydrogen burned quickly, safely, above the occupants. When the escaping hydrogen was ignited by the burning skin of the airship, it burned far above the airship, and was completely consumed within 60 seconds of the ignition. During this period of time, the airship descended to the ground from the 150-foot docking tower. 3. Almost all deaths were caused by jumping or falling from the airship. Of the 35 deaths from the disaster, 33 were caused by jumping or falling. Only two deaths were caused by burning, and it is likely that those two were from proximity to the burning skin of the airship, or from the stores of diesel fuel that were ignited by the covering. Whereas the hydrogen burned within one minute of ignition, the diesel fires burned for up to ten hours after the ignition. 4. The Hindenburg would have burned if it had been filled with inert helium gas. Even if the Hindenburg had not been lifted by hydrogen, the ignition of the covering would still have happened, and would then have set ablaze the diesel stores, resulting in the same disaster. 5. The main cause of the disaster was pilot error. The only way to prevent the disaster would have been if the pilot had chosen to land in better conditions elsewhere, which was very feasible, considering he had had enough fuel remaining to reach all the way to California. http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews ... enburg.cfm The Nature of Hydrogen: Hydrogen is less flammable than gasoline. The self-ignition temperature of hydrogen is 550 degrees Celsius. Gasoline varies from 228-501 degrees Celsius, depending on the grade. When the Hindenburg burned, it took some time before the hydrogen bags were ignited. Hydrogen disperses quickly. Being the lightest element (fifteen times lighter than air), hydrogen rises and spreads out quickly in the atmosphere. So when a leak occurs, the hydrogen gas quickly becomes so sparse that it cannot burn. Even when ignited, hydrogen burns upward, and is quickly consumed, as shown in the Hindenburg picture. By contrast, materials such as gasoline and diesel vapors, as well as natural gas are heavier than air, and will not disperse, remaining a flammable threat for much longer. Hydrogen is non-toxic. Hydrogen is a non-toxic, naturally-occurring element in the atmosphere. By comparison, all petroleum fuels are asphyxiants, and are poisonous to humans. Hydrogen combustion produces only water. When pure hydrogen is burned in pure oxygen, only pure water is produced. Granted, that’s an ideal scenario, which doesn’t occur outside of laboratories and the space shuttle. In any case, when a hydrogen engine burns, it actually cleans the ambient air, by completing combustion of the unburned hydrocarbons that surround us. Compared with the toxic compounds (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrogen sulfide) produced by petroleum fuels, the products of hydrogen burning are much safer. Hydrogen can be stored safely. Tanks currently in use for storage of compressed hydrogen (similar to compressed natural gas tanks) have survived intact through testing by various means, including being shot with six rounds from a .357 magnum, detonating a stick of dynamite next to them, and subjecting them to fire at 1500 degrees F. Clearly, a typical gasoline tank wouldn’t survive a single one of these tests. What Have We Learned? No fuel we currently use or have yet to develop will be totally without hazards, through all the processes of production, transportation, and consumption, just as no kitchen knife can be used without risk to the chef. Hydrogen has long been considered close to ideal as a fuel due to its abundance, non-toxic characteristics, and international availability. We must recognize that each of us has learned to use knives safely, and do so daily. As long as we use wisdom in our methods of production, storage, and use of hydrogen, we’ll enjoy the same safety we have had with petroleum fuels, with the additional benefit of fewer health hazards when leaks do occur. Sources The following sources were used for this article: Research by Addison Bain, NASA Investigator into the Hindenburg disaster. McAlister, Roy. The Philosopher Mechanic. Cox, Jack. "Will Hydrogen Bomb?" The Denver Post. April 5, 2000. One Man's Crusade to Exonerate Hydrogen for Hindenburg DisasterEmail | Print Addison Bain (inset) and the Hindenburg's final moments. Image from http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/59 ... ndex.html; inset image from http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bain.htm The perceived dangers of hydrogen are irretrievably linked in the public mind with the tragic fate of the Hindenburg airship, which burst into flames in May 1937, killing 36 of the 97 people on board. Common lore attributes the disaster to the inherent flammability of the gas, a claim repeated in the Back Page article, "Top Twenty Technological Screw-Ups" by Marc Abraham (see APS News, May 2000). Alert APS News readers Michael Heben (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) and Martin Sage (Syracuse University) both wrote in to object to the continued vilification of hydrogen, and to praise the nearly 30-year crusade of retired NASA scientist Addison Bain, who eventually uncovered important new facts about the blaze. Bain's hunt for the truth about the Hindenburg began in the late 1960s, when he was working on hydrogen systems. The Hindenburg was frequently used as an example in hydrogen safety manuals, but the reported observations of the incident were inconsistent. For example, Bain noticed that the fire burned rapidly in many directions, the zeppelin remained aloft and upright for many seconds after the initial flames were seen, and the flames were bright - none of which are consistent with a hydrogen explosion. He spent large chunks of time researching original documentation of the disaster, which was enough to convince him that the airship's materials had contributed to the ignition of the blaze, but he lacked solid evidence to prove his theory. Finally, in 1994 Bain obtained samples of the fabric that had covered the Hindenburg and had a volunteer team of scientists analyze them using a variety of physical and chemical techniques, including an infrared spectrograph and a scanning electron microscope, which provided the chemical signatures of the organic compounds and elements present. His conclusion: the source of the fire was the use of lacquers and metal-based paints on the outer hull and bladders, which were ignited by an electrical discharge. "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel," Bain said at the time of announcing his discovery. Ironically, Bain's findings are not well-known, and hence most scientists and members of the public persist in the uncritical belief that hydrogen caused the Hindenburg blaze. Both Heben and Sage believe that this prejudice undermines recent interest in using hydrogen as a fuel and energy storage medium. As Heben wrote, "The distribution of unsubstantiated and incorrect lore regarding this incident greatly harms the world-wide efforts to develop hydrogen technologies for the replacement of fossil fuel." We stand corrected. |
|
N_Fiddledog
Forum Super Elite  Posts: 2832 Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:52 am I was a little confused by the first post in this thread, but it piqued my interest on a hydrogen car, which is what I thought this thread would be about from the title.
I didn't even know they had hydrogen powered cars, but yeah, I guess they do. Video: Hydrogen car and filling station at the University of Birmingham. Part of a 2 year study with 5 vehicles, and a filling station. Home site for the actual car Detailed info on the project Fast Facts on the Car * An urban, ultralight, city speed, 'short hop' taxi system. * Electric drive supplied by solar cell/hydrogen fuel cell energy combination. * Zero emissions. * Virtually silent. * Weight - 551 lbs (250kg) * Maximum speed 30 mph (45kph). * Range on full hydrogen tank approx. 100 miles (160Km). So OK, it's not much yet, but this is encouraging I think. I didn't even think they'd progressed this far. I wish I knew what they meant by "hybrid" in this case though. |
|
Diogenes
CKA Elite Posts: 3540 Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:16 am some fuel for the fire?
http://polidics.com/tag/dennis_klein "When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do." William Blake "To acquire knowledge, one must study; but to acquire wisdom, one must observe." |
|
Diogenes
CKA Elite Posts: 3540 Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:48 am Non sequitur!
Here are your news sources http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmlSPLACG0g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrhRxLgA ... re=related and this just in from my mail box Actually NO, it is NOT water Power... It is Hydrogen, Gasoline is Hydrogen and Carbon, when you burn Hydrocarbon you make Carbon monoxide Gas of which Kills everything... BIG OIL Killed Hydrogen with The Hindenburg Crash, although the speed at which H2 Burns is what saved so many people on that fateful day... No, the reason why you will hear nothing of Hydrogen, is because H2 is Free Energy... The Money in H2 is in the tooling, meaning that who ever is producing the H2 Systems and installing them on Vehicles, will be making the money and NOT BIG OIL... This is why, these systems are being produced in home workshops and as side jobs, specialty items, because when BIG OIL finds out about it, Tinkers tend to die... USE HYDROCARBON = STARVE TO DEATH USE HYDROGEN = BEAT THE SYSTEM... The choice is 100% up to you... "When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do." William Blake "To acquire knowledge, one must study; but to acquire wisdom, one must observe." |
not much point there
 
|
Page 1 of 2 |
[ 29 posts ] | 1 2 Next |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest |