Posted by George Ghio on April 17, 2005, 12:50 am
³It's amazing that you can get all that energy from a chemical reaction
occurring inside that little black box. But, along with that chemical
reaction you get something else, HYDROGEN VAPORS. Do you remember the
Hindenburg? No, I don't mean you're that old. You probably heard about
it from your parents or grandparents, right? Well let me refresh your
memory. Apparently a static electrical spark was all that was needed to
ignite the hydrogen vapors that the Hindenburg used to stay afloat.
These same explosive vapors are present anytime your battery charges OR
discharges. And all it takes is a little spark to ignite those fumes and
cause an explosion. Your battery contains sulfuric acid and water.
During the chemical action created during charging or discharging,
hydrogen vapors are released and then are trapped under the hood.²
Just some of the resulting information on batteries after a search on
google for <exploding batteries discharging>.
Sort of puts paid to the experts (ex - a has been, spurt - a drip under
pressure) here who would have you believe that batteries do not produce
hydrogen during discharge.
Seems that George was right after all. Still thats no surprise.
Posted by m II on April 17, 2005, 1:56 am
George Ghio wrote:
> ³It's amazing that you can get all that energy from a chemical reaction
> occurring inside that little black box. But, along with that chemical
> reaction you get something else, HYDROGEN VAPORS. Do you remember the
> Hindenburg? No, I don't mean you're that old. You probably heard about
> it from your parents or grandparents, right? Well let me refresh your
> memory. Apparently a static electrical spark was all that was needed to
> ignite the hydrogen vapors that the Hindenburg used to stay afloat.
The fine silvery aluminium powder used in the fabric 'dope' probably contributed
to the fire more than the hydrogen. There is also a question of whether the
Hindenburg was sabotaged by US forces for propaganda purposes.
mike
Posted by G. R. L. Cowan on April 17, 2005, 8:57 am
m II wrote:
>
> George Ghio wrote:
>
> > ³It's amazing that you can get all that energy from a chemical reaction
> > occurring inside that little black box. But, along with that chemical
> > reaction you get something else, HYDROGEN VAPORS. Do you remember the
> > Hindenburg? No, I don't mean you're that old. You probably heard about
> > it from your parents or grandparents, right? Well let me refresh your
> > memory. Apparently a static electrical spark was all that was needed to
> > ignite the hydrogen vapors that the Hindenburg used to stay afloat.
>
> The fine silvery aluminium powder used in the fabric 'dope' probably contributed
> to the fire more than the hydrogen. There is also a question of whether the
> Hindenburg was sabotaged by US forces for propaganda purposes.
http://www.aps.org/WN/WN05/wn032505.cfm
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html --
boron: how individual mobility gains nuclear cachet
Posted by m II on April 18, 2005, 12:43 am
G. R. L. Cowan wrote:
>>The fine silvery aluminium powder used in the fabric 'dope' probably
contributed
>>to the fire more than the hydrogen. There is also a question of whether the
>>Hindenburg was sabotaged by US forces for propaganda purposes.
>
>
> http://www.aps.org/WN/WN05/wn032505.cfm
Well, ok. This site agrees with you:
http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues/2004-12-17/project1/
and this one does not:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/flash/hindenburg_script.html
I would imagine reality lies somewhere in between.
Any idea how much less lift is given by Helium compared to Hydrogen?
mike
Posted by G. R. L. Cowan on April 18, 2005, 7:37 am
m II wrote:
>
> G. R. L. Cowan wrote:
>
> >>The fine silvery aluminium powder used in the fabric 'dope' probably
contributed
> >>to the fire more than the hydrogen. There is also a question of whether the
> >>Hindenburg was sabotaged by US forces for propaganda purposes.
> >
> >
> > http://www.aps.org/WN/WN05/wn032505.cfm
>
> Well, ok. This site agrees with you:
>
> http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues/2004-12-17/project1/
>
> and this one does not:
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/flash/hindenburg_script.html
>
> I would imagine reality lies somewhere in between.
>
> Any idea how much less lift is given by Helium compared to Hydrogen?
2/27 less.
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html --
boron: how individual mobility gains nuclear cachet
XML site map
> occurring inside that little black box. But, along with that chemical
> reaction you get something else, HYDROGEN VAPORS. Do you remember the
> Hindenburg? No, I don't mean you're that old. You probably heard about
> it from your parents or grandparents, right? Well let me refresh your
> memory. Apparently a static electrical spark was all that was needed to
> ignite the hydrogen vapors that the Hindenburg used to stay afloat.