Slashdot Mirror

And drag.

There's a good reason that Zeppelins are long and narrow and filled with hydrogen, instead of just the natural shape of a balloon that has minimal ratio of mass to lift.

But there's no good reason to paint them with rocket fuel.

BTW, as the link mentions, the Hindenburg carried its own hotel, with 50 cabins for passengers and berths for 59 crew members, plus common areas and a bridge, while fully occupied, and had short flight capacity for 20 more passengers, so the concept of moving buildings with an airship is hardly novel.

If the flame is invisible, how do you get this? http://www.clean-air.org/hindenberg.htm

Or is that soot and so forth making the flame visible, in the same way a bunsen burner flame becomes opaque when you put something in it (for example a tool to clean?)

It wasn't just the matrix of kerosene - the addition of powdered aluminum added an extra 'kick' once the burning started, and increased the chances of electrostatics starting things.

Also, in the footage, as the burning continues, the Hindenberg rose as it got lighter - unlikely if the hydrogen was burning.

For a good examination of this: http://www.clean-air.org/hindenberg.htm
I quote: "Recently, NASA investigator Dr. Addison Bain has verified this finding by scientific experiments that duplicated the vigorous ignition by static discharge to the aluminum powder filled covering material. Spectacular colors of this type of combustion were produced from the burning skin of the giant airship. Dr. Bain concluded that the Hindenburg would have burned and crashed even if helium would have been used as the lifting gas."

Actually, the ship burned thanks to the paint being pretty much solid rocket booster fuel.
http://www.clean-air.org/hindenberg.htm
The silver appearance of the Hindenburg was due to a surface varnish of powdered aluminum in a paint formula that resembles the chemistry of modern solid booster rocket fuel.

Just for your information, hydrogen was not the cause of the Hindenburg acident. It was the (then unknown) solid rocket fuel that was used to lacker the wool panels that made up the outer skin of the blimp. You can see in the following link (look under "Conclusions" at the bottom for a quicker read):

http://www.clean-air.org/hindenberg.htm

Sorry for the sort of off topic note.

No, I really meant Heisenberg.

Like this.

Hmm, IIRC the Hindenberg fire wasnt originally related to the hydrogen lift-gas at all, but rather to the aluminium powder coating on the outer hull. The hydrogen fire wasn't good news, but all the burning related to that was up above the ship (heat an hydrogen both rise, y'know). The bad stuff on the ground was mainly falling debris and burning bits of hull.

References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster http://www.clean-air.org/hindenberg.htm

It wasn't the hydrogen that started that fire, and it's nowhere near as dangerous as the article summary is implying it is.

Of course, this is Slashdot. Learning from history isn't nearly as much fun as repeating its mistakes.

The idea that the Hindenberg crashed so spectacularly because of its hydrogen is false. Yeah, its hydrogen burst into a big fireball, but I'm sure it wouldn't have been as deadly if they hadn't painted it with aluminum powder in paint varnish.

• We will never consume all the oil in the ground; if we tried, we'd be dead from global warming before we managed to burn it all.
• Electricity and hydrogen are not energy sources, they are energy currencies (or carriers).
• Electricity and hydrogen are complementary:
  1. Electricity can be transmitted over distance efficiently, can be used by data processing equipment, can be converted to physical work (motors). Electricity can be converted into hydrogen (with a conversion cost).
  2. Hydrogen can be stored (eg: for use in airplanes). Hydrogen can be converted into electricity (with a conversion cost).
• Fuel cells don't require hydrogen; you can use any fuel in a fuel cell.
• What makes fuel cells great is they are not limited by the Carnot cycle. Internal combustion engines are heat engines. All heat engines have an efficiency upper bound converting energy into work. Fuel cells are not limited by the carnot cycle and therefore have higher theoretical maximum efficiency.
• Nuclear is an energy source - one of the only energy sources not involving the carbon cycle.
• Nuclear is expensive.
• Clean, non-nuclear energy sources (wind, solar, tidal, etc) collectively cannot provide enough energy to satisfy our needs, making nuclear an eventuality, not an option.

...or paint it with rocket fuel, for that matter.

...that just happened to be made out of the same or similar compounds that the current Space Shuttle solid rockets use as fuel. It wasn't intential. I forgot the properties they were looking for in the paint (stiffness, lightweight?), but it was difficult for them to replace that paint with something else when the designers discovered the "problem".

Some quick links to a description of the real cause of Hindenburg:

ucla.edu
clean-air.org
hydrogenus.com

Enjoy.

There's a fairly well-documented theory that the Hindenburg accident was really caused by the flamable skin of the airship. A quick Google search renders a few sites:
Rice U.
Clean-Air.org
AmericanHistory.about.com

Just to name a few. At least let's not have a bunch of people using the Hindenburg as a reason not to think about hydrogen.

Discovery had this great show on the Hindenburg.... apparently, they used aluminum powder in their paint... heck, this site says it better:

"Careful investigation of the Hindenburg disaster verified the opinion of the engineers on the Hindenburg and proved that it was the flammable aluminum powder filled paint varnish that coated the infamous airship, not the hydrogen that started the fateful fire.

The Hindenburg repeated the famous experiment of Ben Franklin regarding collection of electric charge on an object in the sky. Ben Franklin flew a kite in a storm to learn about lightening. The captain of the Hindenburg provided the 800' long, 236 ton, aluminum-powder varnish covered airship as a much larger electric charge collector. As the Hindenburg was grounded by dropping landing lines, the experiment was complete and electrical discharge in the Hindenburg's skin started the fire. The Hindenburg would have burned and crashed if it had been filled with helium or simply held in the air by some other force.

As eyewitnesses noted, the hydrogen fire started considerably after the Hindenburg's surface skin started to burn and was over in less than one minute. The diesel fuel and other heavier-than-air components of the Hindenburg continued to burn many hours on the ground."

For many years it was claimed that the Hindenburg caught alight because of its hydrogen. Recent investigations have proven this to be false. Hydrogen burns clear, but the Hindenburg fire was not clear at all. It is most likely that the paint on the exterior of the Zeppelin was the cause: chemical analysis shows its composition to be similar to rocket fuel.

we only need to upgrade a few dozen large hydrogen-generation plants, instead of 50 million separate automobile engines

Actually for only about $1500 you can turn your car into a hydrogen fueled car. I found the link on google not too long ago, but I can't found it now, the best I can find is here.

Take a look at Iceland's initiative to go to all hydrogen powered vehicles. Do a search for "Iceland's Hydrogen Economy" to find all sorts of info on how hydrogen is working for them and their bid to convert their country completely by 2030-40. They'll open their first hydrogen filling station in April of this year, starting with some of their bus lines using it, and eventually plan to convert their fishing fleet, etc. Some amazing stuff really.

Some other good links are:
American Hydrogen Association
and
Fuel Cells Explained

"The Hindenberg just had a big Hydrogen balloon that wasn't being depleted"

It wasn't just a big bag of hydrogent, it was a big bag of hydrogen painted with solid rocket fuel.

Think about it: How else do you get a zeppelin to go up in a brilliant fireball when hydrogen burns clear?

I'm real hopeful for the fuel cell vehicles, but there is one BIG engineering problem to overcome. All these guys running around saying hydrogen fuel is the answer are nuts! Anyone besides me remember the Hindenberg?????

Actually, the BIG problem they have to overcome is not engineering, but public relations. The Hindenberg disaster was not actually a hydrogen disaster. The skin of the airship was specially coated with a powdered aluminum in paint formula which closely resembles high powered modern solid rocket fuel. This skin was ignited by a discharge of static electricity. The hydrogen released burned upward, away from the passengers. Nearly (if not all) of the passengers that died were killed by jumping before the airship hit the ground. The passengers that rode the airship down escaped. The burn injuries were caused by falling debris or components of the airship, not the hydrogen.

For more, read it on a page such as this one, about the hindenberg diaster.

Unfortunately, this oft-quoted disaster is a legacy that modern designers of hydrogen systems have to deal with on a regular basis. Therefore, there are many, many things written about it. Any author with an understanding of physics and the events of the day debunks the idea that hydrogen was the source of the problem. In fact, it is highly likely that had the Hindenberg contained helium, the disaster would not have changed much. The skin coated with rocket fuel was the real culprit.

Last time I heard about any "really new" developments in antimatter, they were just figuring out how to contain 10-100 protons (circa 1992) (I know, I'm dating myself, whatever. :-) This is really cool news.

Still, even a million atoms is really physically small. I wonder

• how much it weighs?
• whether it's visible to the naked eye? (well, duh, I guess being hydrogen gas it wouldn't be, or does it have interesting optical properties?
• how much energy it would give off if you mixed it with hydrogen?
• how long it will be till someone makes a weapon out of it. Would it even work?

Anyway, just my $0.01. :-)

NHA

Why is the slashdot lameness filter so bad???

Do I need an answer, no...

The major problem, logistically, is conversion/creation of refueling stations for alternatives. Existing vehicles can be converted to hydrogen power quite readily. There are organizations (this one is local to me) that teach you how to make the conversion. This truck had difficulty passing emissions here since the readings were out of range for the equipment, but the exhaust is actually cleaner than the air drawn into the engine.

Hydrogen is another interesting alternative. You can convert distilled water (which you can use a solar distiller and tap water or even gray water to generate). Be sure to check out the solar array that powers a Sterling engine if you visit this site.

Hydrogen is another interesting alternative. You can convert distilled water (which you can use a solar distiller and tap water or even gray water to generate). Be sure to check out the solar array that powers a Sterling engine if you visit this site.