On Saturday, 20 April 2019 21:10:38 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/04/2019 20:58, NY wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...

FWIW the Hindenberg problem had nothing to do with the hydrogen, it
was the rocket fuel they unknowingly painted it with. Engineering said
no, hasn't been safety tested, but the owners overruled them.

I didn't know that. I always though the various airship disasters were
all caused by the hydrogen burning explosively.

that's what people thought for a long time, but it doesn't add up.

Well its a bit like sdaying 'teh reason te cannon went off is the fuse
was lit'

yest the dope was inflammable.

it's more than just flammable, it's rocket fuel, literally.

But so too was the hydrogen, The dope may
have been whatr caught initially

it is. Sparks occurred when the hindenberg got close to the landing mast, that's operation as normal. But when those sparks hit rocket fuel, things went very wrong.

but the ship didnt stay up with gas
bags intact did it?

the H2 burnt once the outer covering burnt away. Had the Hindenberg used helium etc instead, it would still have been very bad.

Neither did challenger have a doped linen tank.

Thats pretty much what a hydrogen tank going up looks like

No, and that's what prompted further investigation, it's not at all what hydrogen burning looks like.

its much easier to start a fire with hydrogen than diesel although its
harder to detonate a fuel air mixture

One of hydrogen's issues is that it will detonate & burn over a very wide concentration range in air. That is not a good point for safety. Diesel OTOH is the hardest to ignite of the car fuels. (Bunker fuel is probably harder, but not used in cars.)

But the hyrogen as trswnport fuel is just more unicorn farts really. It
makes no sense other than as a virtue signalling piece of obscure technology

pretty much. It makes no sense at all.


NT