> Nothing better than going to work as a web developer after spending
> tons of money on training, certifications and years of effort only to end
> up having a "reformed" cold blooded murder/drug dealer/gang banger, that was
> set up and funded by our tax dollars through some government subsidized
> program, sitting in the cubicle right next you because your company wants
> to snag a tax break.
Maybe you got a job as a web designer because you can't comprehend what you read. Now, Where are the terms,
""reformed" cold blooded murder/drug dealer/gang
banger"
"funded by our tax dollars"
or "government subsidized program"?
Can't find them? Neither could I. They're not convicted criminals, they're not being trained on tax dollars, and it's not government subsidized. From the article:
Would-be programmers enter Homeboyz Interactive for a period of technical training, costing about $7,000 per student. They then move across to HBI Consulting to gain work experience. From there, they graduate to employment, sometimes with a corporate giant. Of HBI's 72 clients, 25 are in the Fortune 500. Companies such as GE Medical, Toyota Forklift, Northwestern Mutual Life, Verizon Wireless and BP have all used HBI to develop their
websites.
And,
Indeed, he does not want merely to get gang members off the
streets. He wants to make a profit--and the consulting business expects to earn $1m this year, on revenues of $2.3m.
HBI Consulting pays the training tab. Now, don't you feel a bit foolish?
> Instead of studying, taking a second job and busting my rear end tracking
> down alternative education funding, I should broken every law in the
> book -- sold drugs, shot people and operated in a criminal conspiracy. I
> would have less debt, gotten more tail and a free education in the
> same career I have today.
Perhaps, but not from this program. Again, from the article:
Brother Holub recruits youngsters from the back alleys of Milwaukee's roughest areas. Since 90% of the candidates he finds are drug addicts, the first step is a drug-treatment programme. After that, prospective students must get a full-time job on their own and spend six months studying for their high-school
graduation exam. Of the 80 youngsters a year who get past this point, about 25 elect to become programmers. The rest are helped into community colleges and job-placement schemes.
Now let's see:
1.) Drug rehab programs are available for anyone, for free.
2.) Getting a job on your own and studying for a GED for six months doesn't seem like a free ride to me.
3.) Community college and job-placement schemes are also available to anybody, for free.
4.) He doesn't recruit from prisons, and isn't seeking reformed criminals.
Sorry, but your statement doesn't make any sense here.
> God, I am such an idiot.
You said it. I only backed it up.
> And to the question of, "Well, what you have them do?", the answer would be, "Sit in jail."
They weren't in jail in the first place. This program is to keep them from ending up there.
I'll say it again.
Read the article. Read the article. Read the article! Then you might be able to comment on the program intelligently.
> but I don't think there should be an inherent reward for committing crimes.
I'll keep saying it until you all get it. Read the article. There's no mention of "criminal" anywhere. This guy doesn't recruit from prison. They're recruiting off the streets. The fact that they remind you of homeless people in Portland only indicates that you don't comprehend what you read very well. Unwed mothers can get the same break that these kids do if they (according to the article):
1.) Get drug rehab if needed.
2.) Get a job on their own and study for a GED for six months.
3.) Decide to be a web designer.
If you want to spend your time teaching unwed mothers important job skills, more power to you. Just bone up on your reading comprehension skills, and start volunteering. But don't badmouth this guy because he's doing what he feels is right to help his community and you think he's targeting the wrong group.
Why would you assume that "Gang-banger-ese" means Ebonics? And "evil children"? So, not only must gang bangers be black, but the people he recruits must be criminals (gee, the article never mentions the word "criminal") and they're all evil as well.
You've got a lot of nerve talking about bigotry. And "bigotous"?!? You've got a lot of nerve talking about English as well.
> People change, yeah, and some kids in gangs are just confused and
> need a chance, but I know too many uneducated, good hearted people who
> bust their asses at a minimum wage job every day to try and pay the bills
> and feed their families to fully get behind giving criminals the
> opportunity that some law-abiding Americans won't get.
Is it really so hard to read the damn article? Where did it mention "criminals"? Where did anyone say he's recruiting from prisons? The answer is that it doesn't.
Read the article.
READ THE ARTICLE. READ THE ARTICLE.
> You are completely right. I wish I could get a free education and then handed a job...
And you are completely wrong. You might wish to take a pass at reading the article before posting. From the article:
Since 90% of the candidates he finds are drug addicts, the first step is a drug-treatment programme. After that, prospective students must get a full-time job on their own and spend six months studying for their high-school
graduation exam. Of the 80 youngsters a year who get past this point, about 25 elect to become programmers. The rest are helped into community colleges and job-placement schemes.
The things to note here are many:
1.) Drug treatment is available to anybody, for free.
2.) Note the distinct lack of the word "criminal" anywhere. That's because he isn't targeting criminals.
3.) Getting a full-time job on your own plus six months of studying for (essentially) a GED doesn't sound like much of a free ride, now does it?
4.) Those who don't become programmers get helped to find community college or job programs, both of which are, again, free and available for everybody.
Now, next time you go spouting off (or responding to someone spouting off) you should at least be informed. These people aren't getting anything that anyone else can't get, they're not getting a free ride, and they're learning a valuable skill that will likely prevent them from becoming either criminals or corpses. So quit your bitching about the unfairness of it all.
Actually, that process makes the data easier to recover, not harder. Since each pass pushes the bit toward zero, but not by the same amount (the closer it gets to zero, the less each additional zero moves it down), it's easy to extrapolate how many times you wrote zeroes (and what was there originally) based on the specific drive hardware. You're actually better off writing a one, then a zero, then another one, and so on, alternating on each pass. The best shredders (and the government standard for shredding files) is to write a 1, then a zero, then a second one and zero, then a third one and zero, then some other byte value that's a good mix (like 18 or 246) for a total of seven writes. Even that isn't good enough for top secret rated stuff. I had a colleague tell me about having to send a hard drive back for a warranty replacement from an Air Force base. He called the manufacturer and told them that he'd need to destroy the drive, but could send back the junked parts when he finished. They accepted that (not surprising for a company that does a lot of defense work) and he opened the drive, removed the platters, and used a steel grinder to scrape the substrate of off the surfaces of each one. Now that's data destruction.
> Import and manage digital photos and music 27% - home users
What exactly is this supposed to represent? I think I'd like something more specific than "27% useability improvement" to go on. If I do math by pounding a rock on the ground, having two rocks is a "100% useability improvement" but it's still a lousy way to do math. From what did they derive the statistics? How exactly do I translate "27% improvement" into specific gains? What features allow this improvement? Can I expect this much improvement personally, and if not, how much will my mileage vary?
51% improvement isn't very impressive without any context. Now I've got to go find another rock...
> i've heard that the only way to be sure that your data can't be
> recovered is to physically destroy the hard drive, i.e. by smashing
> it into little bits and tossing it into the ocean.
What a blatant exaggeration! You don't need to toss it into the ocean. Certainly a lake or even a small pond will do.
Seriously, though, it's possible to recover data (even layers of data) from a hard drive after it's been overwritten, but only with extremely sensitive equipment. The simple analysis is this: when a data bit starts at 0 (when the drive is manufactured), it carries no charge on the surface of the platter (0 volts or a close approximation). Write a zero, you don't change the voltage at that spot. Write a one, and you push it up to 1 volt (okay, it's not one volt, but only a tiny fraction of that much, but this is only for illustrative purposes). However, you really only push it up close to one volt (say, 0.98 volts). Next, write a one and you push it up a little more (0.983 volts) or a zero and push it near zero (0.007 volts) and so on. Put the platter under a device capable of detecting voltages small enough, and you can (fairly) accurately recreate what was on the disk, even several data passes back. It should be noted, however, that very, very few agencies have access to this level of technology, and it's ususally reserved for extreme cases. So, to protect yourself from the Man, you're safe to use a shredder program (three passes at least), but if you want 100% security, physical destruction is the only absolutely surefire method.
Perhaps this was the correct answer after all. The fact is, he said that he had problems with it from the day he got it. Since Dell has a 30-day money back guarantee, I'm left to wonder why he didn't return it and just order a new one, either from Dell or another vendor. If I had difficulties with a brand new laptop within a week of taking it out of the box, it'd get sent home for a refund in a heartbeat, rather than my keeping it and perhaps running afoul of bad technical support.
Geez, I always thought that the Titanic sank because it plowed into an iceberg...8)
Seriously, tho', it's considered that capping the compartments would have been rather less effective than simply building the dividing walls between the compartments higher than deck E, as the hole extended across five compartments and as they filled, they spilled over into the next compartment (as you pointed out). It's estimated that if the walls had been built right up to deck B (the "deck" on top of the forecastle was deck C) the ship could have been ripped along half its length and still been saveable.
> But which would you trust more for sold information on a
> given issue -- a single CNN or NYT piece or a single Slashdot or Usenet post.
Actually, your point before this takes the power out of this statement. It's the very fact that you can read a single post or article on the 'Net, then immediately (usually within five or ten minutes) corroborate or falsify that story or post, that makes it trustable. With a NYT piece, it's likely that the writer went to some effort to verify what's written, but once it's out there there's no easy way for me to verify it for myself.
> Why not take a Relevant Disaster like the Challenger Explosion
> for an example of how a hydrogen fuel jetliner would explode?
Actually, the Challenger disaster is not a good example of this, since the hydrogen burn isn't what destroyed Challenger. When the Solid Rocket Booster burned through its standoff and broke loose, it pivoted nose into the ship. This increased the yaw force significantly, which essentially turned the ship and the main tank sideways into its flight vector. As soon as the ship was turned sideways into its airstream at more than 6,000 mph, the wind shear tore it to pieces. The main tank suffered the same fate, and the ruptures left a big wad of H2 and a big wad of O2 which then made a big cloud, but the shuttle had already been blown to bits by shear force before that explosion ever happened.
> Any fuel that can fly a jetliner is going to be dangerous, and burn at high temperatures.
This is true, but there's one thing that hydrogen does that AirG (or AvGas or any other petroleum product, for that matter) doesn't: dissipate. It would burn hot, but it doesn't burn long, which was the original issue that started the discussion.
The plane itself is not yet feasible, but for cost reasons, not scientific. It can be built, but it'd be too costly to operate at this point. As to the solar engines, I'm assuming you're discussing solar collectors, although I must have missed any mention of it in the discussion. They do clog up the landscape, insofar as anything visible does, and they can take up a lot of area, but if it's properly built, it's very un-shiny from the sky. Since the point of a reflecting solar collector is concentration of the light, all of the mirrors catch light from the sun and direct it toward the collector in the center, like a radar dish. From above, you'd just see a hundred different views of the collector.
It's true that fire suppressing foam can be nasty stuff, but it's not usually outright poisonous. One problem is that foam works by smothering out the fire, and if a person got caught in the foam blast, they'd have the same problem, as humans and fires both need a constant supply of oxygen. However, the main reasons water is used are:
1.) Water is cheap compared to foam.
2.) Water is sufficient to put out most building fires (grease at Mickey D's and jet fuel excluded).
3.) Water is cheap compared to foam.
4.) Water is not very likely to kill someone caught in the suppression zone like halon can.
5.) Water is cheap compared to foam.
No, sugar is a carbohydrate, not a hydrocarbon. The difference is the "-ate", which is chemist's talk for "oxygen", which means it only works for fuel if you "-ate" it. However, after eating enough sugar, I could power a jetliner with my fidgeting....
> Hydrogen as safe alternative fuel... Um... Hindenburg, anyone?
Two points: the Hindenburg burned because of the envelope, not the hydrogen (see the many posts explaining this), and the Hindenburg used diesel fuel for power, and hydrogen for lift.
> No, it wouldn't burn for a sustained time, like jet fuel did,
> but it would burn even more violently, hence causing more initial
> injuries. In fact, a more violent explosion mith have collapsed
> the towers right away, and those 10,000 or so folk wouldn't have
> had the chance to escape like they did.
Not likely a problem. Most of the experts consulted believe that the sustained fire is what caused the collapse of the buildings. As the videos show, the force of the initial explosions was mostly external anyway (remember that huge fireball?) so even if the force of the hydrogen was significantly more powerful (which it wouldn't have been, for reasons below), the extra force would simply have thrown debris farther, not done much more damage. It's very likely that if the planes used to hit the WTC towers had been hydrogen powered, they'd still be standing. In addition to not having burning jet fuel all over the building (which actually trapped people in the floors directly below the impact, by running down the stairwells), the force of the explosion would tend directly out along the impact vector, then upward. The rapid expansion of the hydrogen as it escapes the tanks tends to inhibit explosive force (increase in volume means decrease in temperature and pressure), so the extra force gained by the fact that hydrogen burns very efficiently is offset.
> Then there's the issue of storage... wouldn't high-pressure
> crtyogenic fuel tanks be prohibitively heavy for an aircraft?
Yes, they are, and that's why hydrogen fuel cells aren't more popular. Once that problem can be solved (materials scientists have been working on this for a long time, mostly for space vessels) hydrogen has a chance against fossil fuels, but not until then.
Of course hydrogen is flammable, but that's not the whole story of what happened to the Hindenburg. The simple story is that the discharge from the tower to envelope (or envelope to tower) started the envelope burning. The fire on the ship ignited the hydrogen in the gasbags, and the disaster resulted. A fire-resistant envelope would have prevented the fire from penetrating to the hydrogen, or would at least have held it off for quite a while, giving firefighters time to try to stop it. Also, hydrogen is no more flammable (and is less explosive) than jet fuel, and so in a modern vehicle (aluminum skin doesn't burn very well) it's not really an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
> tons of money on training, certifications and years of effort only to end
> up having a "reformed" cold blooded murder/drug dealer/gang banger, that was
> set up and funded by our tax dollars through some government subsidized
> program, sitting in the cubicle right next you because your company wants
> to snag a tax break.
Maybe you got a job as a web designer because you can't comprehend what you read. Now, Where are the terms,
""reformed" cold blooded murder/drug dealer/gang banger"
"funded by our tax dollars"
or "government subsidized program"?
Can't find them? Neither could I. They're not convicted criminals, they're not being trained on tax dollars, and it's not government subsidized. From the article:And,HBI Consulting pays the training tab. Now, don't you feel a bit foolish?
> Instead of studying, taking a second job and busting my rear end tracking
> down alternative education funding, I should broken every law in the
> book -- sold drugs, shot people and operated in a criminal conspiracy. I
> would have less debt, gotten more tail and a free education in the
> same career I have today.
Perhaps, but not from this program. Again, from the article:Now let's see:
1.) Drug rehab programs are available for anyone, for free.
2.) Getting a job on your own and studying for a GED for six months doesn't seem like a free ride to me.
3.) Community college and job-placement schemes are also available to anybody, for free.
4.) He doesn't recruit from prisons, and isn't seeking reformed criminals.
Sorry, but your statement doesn't make any sense here.
> God, I am such an idiot.
You said it. I only backed it up.
> And to the question of, "Well, what you have them do?", the answer would be, "Sit in jail."
They weren't in jail in the first place. This program is to keep them from ending up there.
I'll say it again.
Read the article. Read the article. Read the article! Then you might be able to comment on the program intelligently.
Virg
Well, it's "pasta" and "antipasto", so there's no worries, mate.
Virg
> but I don't think there should be an inherent reward for committing crimes.
I'll keep saying it until you all get it. Read the article. There's no mention of "criminal" anywhere. This guy doesn't recruit from prison. They're recruiting off the streets. The fact that they remind you of homeless people in Portland only indicates that you don't comprehend what you read very well. Unwed mothers can get the same break that these kids do if they (according to the article):
1.) Get drug rehab if needed.
2.) Get a job on their own and study for a GED for six months.
3.) Decide to be a web designer.
If you want to spend your time teaching unwed mothers important job skills, more power to you. Just bone up on your reading comprehension skills, and start volunteering. But don't badmouth this guy because he's doing what he feels is right to help his community and you think he's targeting the wrong group.
Virg
Why would you assume that "Gang-banger-ese" means Ebonics? And "evil children"? So, not only must gang bangers be black, but the people he recruits must be criminals (gee, the article never mentions the word "criminal") and they're all evil as well.
You've got a lot of nerve talking about bigotry. And "bigotous"?!? You've got a lot of nerve talking about English as well.
As least I can guess at why you're single.
Virg
> But what translates to Cowboy Neal?
why, "Mofo" = CowboyNeal, of course!
Virg
> People change, yeah, and some kids in gangs are just confused and
> need a chance, but I know too many uneducated, good hearted people who
> bust their asses at a minimum wage job every day to try and pay the bills
> and feed their families to fully get behind giving criminals the
> opportunity that some law-abiding Americans won't get.
Is it really so hard to read the damn article? Where did it mention "criminals"? Where did anyone say he's recruiting from prisons? The answer is that it doesn't.
Read the article.
READ THE ARTICLE.
READ THE ARTICLE.
Then, comment on the article.
Virg
And you are completely wrong. You might wish to take a pass at reading the article before posting. From the article:The things to note here are many:
1.) Drug treatment is available to anybody, for free.
2.) Note the distinct lack of the word "criminal" anywhere. That's because he isn't targeting criminals.
3.) Getting a full-time job on your own plus six months of studying for (essentially) a GED doesn't sound like much of a free ride, now does it?
4.) Those who don't become programmers get helped to find community college or job programs, both of which are, again, free and available for everybody.
Now, next time you go spouting off (or responding to someone spouting off) you should at least be informed. These people aren't getting anything that anyone else can't get, they're not getting a free ride, and they're learning a valuable skill that will likely prevent them from becoming either criminals or corpses. So quit your bitching about the unfairness of it all.
Virg
Actually, that process makes the data easier to recover, not harder. Since each pass pushes the bit toward zero, but not by the same amount (the closer it gets to zero, the less each additional zero moves it down), it's easy to extrapolate how many times you wrote zeroes (and what was there originally) based on the specific drive hardware. You're actually better off writing a one, then a zero, then another one, and so on, alternating on each pass. The best shredders (and the government standard for shredding files) is to write a 1, then a zero, then a second one and zero, then a third one and zero, then some other byte value that's a good mix (like 18 or 246) for a total of seven writes. Even that isn't good enough for top secret rated stuff. I had a colleague tell me about having to send a hard drive back for a warranty replacement from an Air Force base. He called the manufacturer and told them that he'd need to destroy the drive, but could send back the junked parts when he finished. They accepted that (not surprising for a company that does a lot of defense work) and he opened the drive, removed the platters, and used a steel grinder to scrape the substrate of off the surfaces of each one. Now that's data destruction.
Virg
> Import and manage digital photos and music 27% - home users
What exactly is this supposed to represent? I think I'd like something more specific than "27% useability improvement" to go on. If I do math by pounding a rock on the ground, having two rocks is a "100% useability improvement" but it's still a lousy way to do math. From what did they derive the statistics? How exactly do I translate "27% improvement" into specific gains? What features allow this improvement? Can I expect this much improvement personally, and if not, how much will my mileage vary?
51% improvement isn't very impressive without any context. Now I've got to go find another rock...
Virg
> i've heard that the only way to be sure that your data can't be
> recovered is to physically destroy the hard drive, i.e. by smashing
> it into little bits and tossing it into the ocean.
What a blatant exaggeration! You don't need to toss it into the ocean. Certainly a lake or even a small pond will do.
Seriously, though, it's possible to recover data (even layers of data) from a hard drive after it's been overwritten, but only with extremely sensitive equipment. The simple analysis is this: when a data bit starts at 0 (when the drive is manufactured), it carries no charge on the surface of the platter (0 volts or a close approximation). Write a zero, you don't change the voltage at that spot. Write a one, and you push it up to 1 volt (okay, it's not one volt, but only a tiny fraction of that much, but this is only for illustrative purposes). However, you really only push it up close to one volt (say, 0.98 volts). Next, write a one and you push it up a little more (0.983 volts) or a zero and push it near zero (0.007 volts) and so on. Put the platter under a device capable of detecting voltages small enough, and you can (fairly) accurately recreate what was on the disk, even several data passes back. It should be noted, however, that very, very few agencies have access to this level of technology, and it's ususally reserved for extreme cases. So, to protect yourself from the Man, you're safe to use a shredder program (three passes at least), but if you want 100% security, physical destruction is the only absolutely surefire method.
Virg
Perhaps this was the correct answer after all. The fact is, he said that he had problems with it from the day he got it. Since Dell has a 30-day money back guarantee, I'm left to wonder why he didn't return it and just order a new one, either from Dell or another vendor. If I had difficulties with a brand new laptop within a week of taking it out of the box, it'd get sent home for a refund in a heartbeat, rather than my keeping it and perhaps running afoul of bad technical support.
Virg
Geez, I always thought that the Titanic sank because it plowed into an iceberg...8)
Seriously, tho', it's considered that capping the compartments would have been rather less effective than simply building the dividing walls between the compartments higher than deck E, as the hole extended across five compartments and as they filled, they spilled over into the next compartment (as you pointed out). It's estimated that if the walls had been built right up to deck B (the "deck" on top of the forecastle was deck C) the ship could have been ripped along half its length and still been saveable.
Just an historical note.
Virg
But apparently can't refrain from making Shatner joke...
Virg
>...eight-oh-two-dot-eleven-eh...
For those among us who don't speak Canadian (and by the way, it's "eight-oh-two-dot-eleven, eh?") this is "eight-oh-two-dot-eleven-ay".
Always glad to help.
Virg
I'll bet you'd feel a lot better if you also convinced a bunch of your neighbors not to vote for him as well....
Virg
> But which would you trust more for sold information on a
> given issue -- a single CNN or NYT piece or a single Slashdot or Usenet post.
Actually, your point before this takes the power out of this statement. It's the very fact that you can read a single post or article on the 'Net, then immediately (usually within five or ten minutes) corroborate or falsify that story or post, that makes it trustable. With a NYT piece, it's likely that the writer went to some effort to verify what's written, but once it's out there there's no easy way for me to verify it for myself.
That is, unless I get on the 'Net to check it.
Virg
> I just want a drive I can use without dying.
Well, about the only way this is a problem is if it exploded when it crashed. I've never heard any reports of lethal hard-drive-related injuries...8)
Virg
> Why not take a Relevant Disaster like the Challenger Explosion
> for an example of how a hydrogen fuel jetliner would explode?
Actually, the Challenger disaster is not a good example of this, since the hydrogen burn isn't what destroyed Challenger. When the Solid Rocket Booster burned through its standoff and broke loose, it pivoted nose into the ship. This increased the yaw force significantly, which essentially turned the ship and the main tank sideways into its flight vector. As soon as the ship was turned sideways into its airstream at more than 6,000 mph, the wind shear tore it to pieces. The main tank suffered the same fate, and the ruptures left a big wad of H2 and a big wad of O2 which then made a big cloud, but the shuttle had already been blown to bits by shear force before that explosion ever happened.
> Any fuel that can fly a jetliner is going to be dangerous, and burn at high temperatures.
This is true, but there's one thing that hydrogen does that AirG (or AvGas or any other petroleum product, for that matter) doesn't: dissipate. It would burn hot, but it doesn't burn long, which was the original issue that started the discussion.
Virg
The plane itself is not yet feasible, but for cost reasons, not scientific. It can be built, but it'd be too costly to operate at this point. As to the solar engines, I'm assuming you're discussing solar collectors, although I must have missed any mention of it in the discussion. They do clog up the landscape, insofar as anything visible does, and they can take up a lot of area, but if it's properly built, it's very un-shiny from the sky. Since the point of a reflecting solar collector is concentration of the light, all of the mirrors catch light from the sun and direct it toward the collector in the center, like a radar dish. From above, you'd just see a hundred different views of the collector.
Virg
> One place this did happen was (IIRC) in the 1930s. During heavy fog, a twin engine biplane rammed the Empire State Building.
The plane that hit the Empire state building in dense fog was a B-29 bomber (four engines, single stage wings), and it was in 1945.
Virg
It's true that fire suppressing foam can be nasty stuff, but it's not usually outright poisonous. One problem is that foam works by smothering out the fire, and if a person got caught in the foam blast, they'd have the same problem, as humans and fires both need a constant supply of oxygen. However, the main reasons water is used are:
1.) Water is cheap compared to foam.
2.) Water is sufficient to put out most building fires (grease at Mickey D's and jet fuel excluded).
3.) Water is cheap compared to foam.
4.) Water is not very likely to kill someone caught in the suppression zone like halon can.
5.) Water is cheap compared to foam.
Virg
> Isn't sugar a hydrocarbon?
No, sugar is a carbohydrate, not a hydrocarbon. The difference is the "-ate", which is chemist's talk for "oxygen", which means it only works for fuel if you "-ate" it. However, after eating enough sugar, I could power a jetliner with my fidgeting....
Virg
> Hydrogen as safe alternative fuel... Um... Hindenburg, anyone?
Two points: the Hindenburg burned because of the envelope, not the hydrogen (see the many posts explaining this), and the Hindenburg used diesel fuel for power, and hydrogen for lift.
> No, it wouldn't burn for a sustained time, like jet fuel did,
> but it would burn even more violently, hence causing more initial
> injuries. In fact, a more violent explosion mith have collapsed
> the towers right away, and those 10,000 or so folk wouldn't have
> had the chance to escape like they did.
Not likely a problem. Most of the experts consulted believe that the sustained fire is what caused the collapse of the buildings. As the videos show, the force of the initial explosions was mostly external anyway (remember that huge fireball?) so even if the force of the hydrogen was significantly more powerful (which it wouldn't have been, for reasons below), the extra force would simply have thrown debris farther, not done much more damage. It's very likely that if the planes used to hit the WTC towers had been hydrogen powered, they'd still be standing. In addition to not having burning jet fuel all over the building (which actually trapped people in the floors directly below the impact, by running down the stairwells), the force of the explosion would tend directly out along the impact vector, then upward. The rapid expansion of the hydrogen as it escapes the tanks tends to inhibit explosive force (increase in volume means decrease in temperature and pressure), so the extra force gained by the fact that hydrogen burns very efficiently is offset.
> Then there's the issue of storage... wouldn't high-pressure
> crtyogenic fuel tanks be prohibitively heavy for an aircraft?
Yes, they are, and that's why hydrogen fuel cells aren't more popular. Once that problem can be solved (materials scientists have been working on this for a long time, mostly for space vessels) hydrogen has a chance against fossil fuels, but not until then.
Virg
Of course hydrogen is flammable, but that's not the whole story of what happened to the Hindenburg. The simple story is that the discharge from the tower to envelope (or envelope to tower) started the envelope burning. The fire on the ship ignited the hydrogen in the gasbags, and the disaster resulted. A fire-resistant envelope would have prevented the fire from penetrating to the hydrogen, or would at least have held it off for quite a while, giving firefighters time to try to stop it. Also, hydrogen is no more flammable (and is less explosive) than jet fuel, and so in a modern vehicle (aluminum skin doesn't burn very well) it's not really an issue.
Virg
If I had mod points, -1, Bad Spelling.
Virg