Hydrogen is too dangerous for common use This myth

: quoted-printable

I don't really want to be a nay sayer comments inserted below

The hydrogen in the blimp burned the way I see it it didn't blow up. =
When
the hydrogen and the oxygen or air are mixed in the flamable range and =
then
the ignition takes place that is what I call blowing up.

Recently that event was revisited in a

hydrogen being very light makes it kind of safe as it goes up and away. =
in
the blimp example above it is said more folks got burned from the fuel =
for
the engines than from the gas used for floatation.

Are you stating that the flame spread speed of a combustible mixture of
gasoline and air is 22 times the flame spread speed of a flamable =
mixture of
hydrogen and air? That is what I would call 22 times more explosive or =
at
least a good portion of it.

what about hydrogen embrittlement of steels?  The hydrogen (H2)
disassociated into two seperate atoms (H) +(H) there is a constant that =
will
explain how much it isn't much.  Just like the ph scale for water whose
constant is on the order of ten to the minus fourteenth power.  If I =
wasn't
out of school for so long I would know where to look it up.  These =
hydrogen
atoms are extremely small compared to the hydrogen (h2) molecule and
actually can make their way into the crystaline metal structure.  When =
two
of these hydrogen bump into each other inside the crystaline metal =
structure
they invarably form the hydrogen molecule and become much larger forcing =

apart the crystaline metal structure.  I really think the statement
immediatly above is incorrect without stating how much the life span of
those pipelines will have to be shortened.

Some existing pipelines are already

Liquid hydrogen.    zero tail pipe emissions if you don't count the =
nitrogen
from the air being affected.   The emissions are somewhere else where =
the
hydrogen is produced and liquified.   San francisco dredges their harbor =

electrically so there are is no air pollution.  Or so they would like =
you to
think but they want the power plants out of state or did up until =
lately.

do you view the hydrogen for transportation as a fuel or a storage =
device?

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C85BA8.D1526350
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; =
charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3243" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>I don't really
want to be a nay sayer  comments inserted =
below "collin"
size=3>rebel@prosof.net</A>> wrote
in message <A =
face="Times New Roman"
face="Times New Roman" size=3>... > Myth No. 2: Hydrogen is =
too dangerous
for common use This myth begins with > the hydrogen-filled German
zeppelin, the Hindenburg, which blew up at > Lakehurst, New =
Jersey, in
1937. The hydrogen in the blimp burned the way I see it it didn't
blow up.  When the hydrogen and the oxygen or air are mixed in =
the
flamable range and then the ignition takes place that is what I call =
blowing
up.  Recently that event was revisited in a > detailed
analysis by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) > =

scientist Addison Bain. He found that it was not the hydrogen =
that >
originally combusted, but the dirigible's outer coating, a highly =
 >
flammable > material similar to that used in rocket propellants. In
reality, the > hydrogen industry has had an excellent safety =
record for
decades. In 30 > years, liquefied hydrogen shipments have logged =
33
billion miles. During > all > this time, no product losses =
or fires
were reported. Gasoline, our > automotive fuel of choice, is 22 =
times more
explosive and has a dismal > safety record in
comparison. hydrogen being very light makes it kind of safe as it
goes up and away.  in the blimp example above it is said more =
folks got
burned from the fuel for the engines than from the gas used for
floatation. Are you stating that the flame spread speed of a combustible
mixture of gasoline and air is 22 times the flame spread speed of a =
flamable
mixture of hydrogen and air?  That is what I would call 22 =
times more
explosive or at least a good portion of it. > >
Hydrogen, while flammable, is generally more easily managed than =
 >
hydrocarbon > fuels. If hydrogen is ignited, it burns with a clear flame
and only > one-tenth the radiant heat of a hydrocarbon fire. The =
heat that
is > produced > tends to dissipate much more rapidly than =
heat from
gasoline or oil fires. > The bottom line is that hydrogen-safety =
critics
should turn their fire > against gasoline, and agitate for the =
rapid
adoption of hydrogen on safety > grounds alone! Myth No. 3: =
Hydrogen can't
be distributed via existing > pipelines The transportation of =
hydrogen,
one of the most frequently > mentioned concerns of critics, is =
easily
accomplished through pipelines. > Creating a new pipeline network =
to move
hydrogen is unnecessary; we can > use > the one already in
existence. what about hydrogen embrittlement of steels?  The
hydrogen (H2) disassociated into two seperate atoms (H) +(H) there =
is a
constant that will explain how much it isn't much.  Just like =
the ph
scale for water whose constant is on the order of ten to the minus
fourteenth power.  If I wasn't out of school for so long I =
would know
where to look it up.  These hydrogen atoms are extremely small =
compared
to the hydrogen (h2) molecule and actually can make their way into =
the
crystaline metal structure.  When two of these hydrogen bump =
into each
other inside the crystaline metal structure they invarably form the =
hydrogen
molecule and become much larger forcing apart the crystaline metal
structure.  I really think the statement immediatly above is =
incorrect
without stating how much the life span of those pipelines will have =
to be
shortened. Some existing pipelines are already >
hydrogen-ready. The others can easily be modified with existing > =

technologies > by adding polymer-composite liners, similar to the process
used to > renovate > old sewer pipes. Using existing =
pipelines
creates no additional safety > concerns. Already, =
hydrogen-refueling
stations are appearing in > California, > Florida and =
British
Columbia. Other regions are sure to follow Liquid
hydrogen.    zero tail pipe emissions if you don't count =
the
nitrogen from the air being affected.   The emissions are
somewhere else where the hydrogen is produced and =
liquified.   San
francisco dredges their harbor electrically so there are is no air
pollution.  Or so they would like you to think but they want =
the power
plants out of state or did up until lately. do you view the =
hydrogen for
transportation as a fuel or a storage device? > > Myth =
No. 4:
There is no practical way to run cars on hydrogen Hydrogen > =
fuel >
cells have been used for space flights since 1965 and they were used in
a > passenger vehicle as early as 1966 (GM's Electrovan). Today,
fuel-cell > vehicles are undergoing rigorous testing and are far advanced.
As of > mid-2003, manufacturers had dozens of fuel-cell buses and =
upwards
of 100 > fuel-cell cars on the road. Fuel cells are being tested =
for
military > vehicles on land and sea; submarines have used them for years.
Heavy > trucks, > which spend up to half their engine run =
time
idling because they have no > auxiliary power source, are also =
beginning
to use fuel cells. FedEx and > UPS > plan to introduce =
fuel-cell
trucks by next =
year. > > >      
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News > =
Provider
---- > <A href="http://www.pronews.com"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>http://www.pronews.com</A> offers corporate packages that have =
access to
 > 100,000+ newsgroups > >      
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News > =
Provider
---- > <A href="http://www.pronews.com"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>http://www.pronews.com</A> offers corporate packages that have =
access to
 > 100,000+ newsgroups </DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=

Yup. In my teenage years, being a chemistry nerd, I became interested in the
Hindenberg because large amounts of hydrogen that I'd set on fire, including in
large
balloons, just didn't behave like what I saw in that newsreel footage.

I did some research, including a trip to the Smithsonian Air and Space museum
where I
saw the display and analysis and discussed it with the curator on duty.

What I learned was that the famous fire was NOT hydrogen burning. Oh, some of it
burned with a practically invisible flame but most rose too quickly to ignite.
A few
calculations support that theory. What burned was the explosive nitrocellulose
"nitro dope" used to coat the fabric to make it fairly rigid and gas tight. A
contributing factor was the Magdalum (sp?) magnesium-aluminum frame that was also
flammable, given enough heat. There was a piece of the frame on display at the
Smithsonian that showed clear burn (and not melting) patterns.

Leaking hydrogen perhaps contributed to the initial ignition of the fire but the
Hindeburg was, in fact, a spectacular nitrocellulose burn.

Nitrocellulose is more familiar as smokeless gunpowder and celluloid. Movie
fans are
undoubtedly familiar with how old celluloid film would burn explosively, many
times
burning down the movie house in the process. I used to enjoy buying up old
guitar
picks which were usually made from celluloid. They'd burn almost like flash
paper.

None of the rest of that silly post is worth commenting on but I thought I'd
relate
what I learned about the Hindenberg.

John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
Why the US is losing its competitivve edge:"It used to be that the USA was
pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."-James
Niccol

I understand that all the deaths were due to jumping the odd 100 feet,
not burning.

in large

where I

A few

also

It was also the Thermite paint on the skin.  There was a Mythbusters episode
that explored the disaster.  They mocked up three scale models and one did
include a thermite covering in proportion to what was recorded in the
original design spcifications, but the burn didn't appear to scale
accordingly.  But, then again, it's hard to account for how fire behaves.
Fuel is fuel, no matter big or small.

They did note, however that the Thermite coated mockup did burn much faster
than the one lacking it, with a bright flame similar to how magnesium would
burn... something that hydrogen doesn't do.

The episode info is here...

http://www.tv.com/mythbusters/hindenburg-mystery/episode/941354/summary.html

You shouldn't have to look too hard on YouTube to find clips of the actual
burns.

-Rich

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:00:16 GMT, nobody@nowhere.com (Rich S.) wrote:

There was no thermite on the skin. How silly can they get (answer: with
mythbusters
(sic), there is no limit). The skin used aluminum dust as the pigment to reflect
solar heat. Thermite is a mix of a metal oxide (normally iron but it works
equally
well for other metals such as copper) and aluminum dust. The aluminum dust
reduces
the iron oxide, producing aluminum oxide and metallic iron. The reaction is
highly
exothermic. The heat heats the iron enough to not only liquefy it but also to
heat
the substrate being welded (or burned through) to the melting point.

The ratio of aluminum to the oxide is fairly important for there to be a proper
oxygen balance. An excess of either reactant will result in reduced or no
reaction.

In the case of the Hindenberg, there was nitrocellulose, aluminum dust and cloth
present on the skin. Piddle around with the oxygen balance a bit and you'll
quickly
see that the reaction was oxygen-starved. Way more fuel than available oxygen.
Thus,
the aluminum contributed little energy to the reaction.

Aluminum dust is used as an energy booster in explosives. Tim McVeigh, for
example,
used aluminum to boost his ANFO explosive. For it to work, however, the
proportions
must be correct. There is little chance of that being the case on the Hindenberg
skin.

I don't have a TV so I've seen little of Mythbusters (sic) other than
occasionally on
youtube. What I have seen is pretty disgusting from a scientific perspective.
If
they'd titled the show "We blow things up for money" then it would be
entertaining
but not particularly accurate.

John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
Unable to locate Coffee -- Operator Halted!