js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (03/25/85)
> > I saw a film somewhere (whose name I forget) about using hydrogen as > > a fuel. It seems that John Q. Public isn't ready for it -- street > > interviews showed that everybody thought of the Hindenburg. > > Laura Creighton > > utzoo!laura > The Hindenburg used helium instead of hydrogen. Helium is > considerable more flammable. Germany had used it because > there was an embargo of hydrogen against it. > Bob Crowley > ihlpm!crowley Wrong! Helium is completely non-burnable, as its outer electron shell is completely filled, it is a noble gas, extremely reluctant to combine with anything, under any circumstances. As the Hindenburg blew up, it must have been filled with something flammible, presumably hydrogen. As a way to verify this, the next time you see a kid with a helium balloon, just poke it with a lit cigarette or a match, and observe that while the balloon breaks, the gas inside doesn't ignite. (But watch out for your ankles, as some kids resent this type of experimenting.) -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "War is peace."-the ministry of truth
johnnyr@ihu1m.UUCP (John R. Rosenberg) (03/25/85)
> The Hindenburg used helium instead of hydrogen. Helium is > considerable more flammable. Germany had used it because > there was an embargo of hydrogen against it. > > Bob Crowley > ihlpm!crowley > Bell Labs-Naperville *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR DIRIGIBLE *** Check your periodic table of the elements Bob. Helium is one of the so-called Noble Gases. In other words is does not react with any other elements (except under bizarre conditions of temp. and pressure). Helium's one and only electron shell is full of 2 electrons, the capacity of that shell. In other words there is no way for other atoms to bond to it. Hence, it can NOT burn. Since the Hindenburg burned, it was not filled with He. It was in fact full of hydrogen. John Rosenberg ATT-NS ihnp4!ihu1m!johnnyr
jhs@houxa.UUCP (J.SCHERER) (03/26/85)
> > I saw a film somewhere (whose name I forget) about using hydrogen as > > a fuel. It seems that John Q. Public isn't ready for it -- street > > interviews showed that everybody thought of the Hindenburg. > > Laura Creighton > > utzoo!laura > The Hindenburg used helium instead of hydrogen. Helium is > considerable more flammable. Germany had used it because > there was an embargo of hydrogen against it. > Bob Crowley > ihlpm!crowley WRONG! (By exactly 180 degrees!) The Hindenburg did use hydrogen which is flammable (and which mixed with the proper amount of oxygen - or air - is extremely explosive). Helium, which is inert, was not available to Germany because the US (I think) had only recently discovered how to produce it in quantity, was the sole source, and was somewhat reluctant to give it to (prewar) Germany to power what could be used as a weapon. On the subject of cars and peoples "irrational" fear of hydrogen: gasoline leaks are not uncommon in today's cars - what would happen with a hydrogen leak? Could indeed be another Hindenburg. John Scherer Bell Labs - Holmdel NJ
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (03/27/85)
In article <643@houxa.UUCP> jhs@houxa.UUCP (J.SCHERER) writes: >> > I saw a film somewhere (whose name I forget) about using hydrogen as >> > a fuel. It seems that John Q. Public isn't ready for it -- street >> > interviews showed that everybody thought of the Hindenburg. >> > Laura Creighton >> > utzoo!laura >> The Hindenburg used helium instead of hydrogen. Helium is >> considerable more flammable. Germany had used it because >> there was an embargo of hydrogen against it. >> Bob Crowley >> ihlpm!crowley >WRONG! (By exactly 180 degrees!) >.... >with the proper amount of oxygen - or air - is extremely explosive). >Helium, which is inert, was not available to Germany because the >US (I think) had only recently discovered how to produce it in >quantity, was the sole source, and was somewhat reluctant to give >it to (prewar) Germany to power what could be used as a weapon. > >On the subject of cars and peoples "irrational" fear of hydrogen: >gasoline leaks are not uncommon in today's cars - what would >happen with a hydrogen leak? Could indeed be another Hindenburg. > > John Scherer Bell Labs - Holmdel NJ John is correct, it was the US. However, the US was stockpiling Helium for their own (probably military) purposes and there was very little of it available - not because of reluctance to give war material to a possibly hostile Germany. After all, it didn't stop the US from selling scrap steel to Japan, or other strategic material to Germany during the first part of WW II. Germany was (understandably) very annoyed at the US for forcing them to use hydrogen for their civilian dirigibles (sp?). I think one source for this info is from the Nevil Shute book mentioned previously. I believe that it was also mentioned as one of the reasons for Germany's attack on the US ship that caused the US to enter WW I. By the way, a company has started building dirigibles in Toronto in the Wardair hanger at Toronto International Airport (whoops, "Pearson International"). They have sold at least one (to the US Navy). Sure stops traffic on the 401 when they test one! It's real neat to watch the thing just hang there, puttering around. Of course they are using helium. Regarding "irrational fear of hydrogen" - there may be some truth to it in automobiles. It would be interesting to see some sort of risk analysis of gasoline vs propane vs hydrogen. There have been a couple of propane car fires in Toronto recently. Nobody killed, but several injured. Hydrogen in a car would probably be stored as a gas (isn't the pressure required to keep hydrogen liquid too high to be practical in a car? In contrast, propane is very easy to keep liquid.) The consequences of a leak are probably somewhat more spectacular. -- Chris Lewis, Motorola New Enterprises UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!utcs!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (03/28/85)
> > The Hindenburg used helium instead of hydrogen. Helium is > > considerable more flammable. Germany had used it because > > there was an embargo of hydrogen against it. > Since the Hindenburg burned, it was not filled with He. It was > in fact full of hydrogen. Yup, the original poster got the elements reversed. Helium is also very rare and at the time the main source was extraction from natural gas wells. Another method is air liquefaction.
mercury@ut-ngp.UUCP (Larry E. Baker) (03/28/85)
[] > > I saw a film somewhere (whose name I forget) about using hydrogen as > > a fuel. It seems that John Q. Public isn't ready for it -- street > > interviews showed that everybody thought of the Hindenburg. > > Laura Creighton > > utzoo!laura > The Hindenburg used helium instead of hydrogen. Helium is > considerable more flammable. Germany had used it because > there was an embargo of hydrogen against it. > Bob Crowley > If I remember my history trivia correctly, one of the reasons the Hindenberg was on its way to the United States was because Hitler wanted to convince the US to provide it with Helium, as the Zeppelin was swiftly becoming an obsolite weapon due to the flammibility of its *Hydrogen*. They were, with the British incendary bullets, simply too easy to shoot down. -- - Larry Baker @ The University of Texas at Austin - ...{seismo!ut-sally | decvax!allegra | tektronix!ihnp4}!ut-ngp!mercury
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (03/29/85)
<Bug Bomb, contains explosive helium!> In article <708@mhuxt.UUCP> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (jeff sonntag) writes: >> Quoting Bob Crowley >> > quoting Laura Creighton >> > I saw a film somewhere (whose name I forget) about using hydrogen as >> > a fuel. It seems that John Q. Public isn't ready for it -- street >> > interviews showed that everybody thought of the Hindenburg. >> > Laura Creighton >> > utzoo!laura >> The Hindenburg used helium instead of hydrogen. Helium is >> considerable more flammable. Germany had used it because >> there was an embargo of hydrogen against it. >> Bob Crowley >> ihlpm!crowley > Wrong! Helium is completely non-burnable, as its outer electron shell >is completely filled, it is a noble gas, extremely reluctant to combine >with anything, under any circumstances. As the Hindenburg blew up, it >must have been filled with something flammible, presumably hydrogen. The Hindenburg was a hydrogen filled dirigible. Helium was too expensive to use for that purpose. Hydrogen is plentiful, cheap, and Germany was a major industrial power. They MADE THEIR OWN hydrogen! (Well, extracted it, anyway.) What kind of embargo could possibly succeed against a producer of the prohibited substance? Hutch
jlg@lanl.ARPA (03/30/85)
> The Hindenburg used helium instead of hydrogen. Helium is > considerable more flammable. Germany had used it because > there was an embargo of hydrogen against it. You obviously have hydrogen and helium confused. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and chemically reacts with lots of stuff. Helium is the second most common element in the universe but it is chemically inert. As a result, hydrogen is common on Earth but helium doesn't combine with anything and, being lighter than air, escapes the atmosphere if it is released into the environment. The world's main source of helium is the U.S. and we embargoed it as a military commodity in the late thirties. Since the Germans didn't have much helium, they used hydrogen for their airships. J. Giles
bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (03/30/85)
>> The Hindenburg used helium instead of hydrogen. Helium is >> considerable more flammable. Germany had used it because >> there was an embargo of hydrogen against it. >> Bob Crowley >> Come, come now. A little high school chemistry, folks. HYDROGEN, the lightest element, is highly reactive in the presence of oxygen. Remember what happens when you combine some 'H's and some 'O's and a little heat. You get water and an explosion. The Hindenburg was full of hydrogen, not helium. Helium is a non-flammable gaseous element. -- Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. ...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl
edward@ukma.UUCP (Edward C. Bennett) (03/31/85)
> The Hindenburg did use hydrogen which is flammable (and which mixed > with the proper amount of oxygen - or air - is extremely explosive). > Helium, which is inert, was not available to Germany because the > US (I think) had only recently discovered how to produce it in > quantity, was the sole source, and was somewhat reluctant to give > it to (prewar) Germany to power what could be used as a weapon. > > John Scherer Bell Labs - Holmdel NJ One major point that nobody has mention yet is that Hydrogen is lighter than Helium. So it provides more lift. edward {ucbvax,unmvax,boulder,research}!anlams! -| {mcvax!qtlon,vax135,mddc}!qusavx! -|--> ukma!edward {Lots of Places}!cbosgd! -|
swift@reed.UUCP (Theodore Swift) (03/31/85)
There is one big advantage of hydrogen over helium: hydrogen has a much greater "lifting power", four times as much according to a book _Airships_ I read a long, long time ago. Four times strikes me as off, since hydrogen, though of atomic weight 1.00X, is diatomic. Thus it would only have "twice" the lifting power. This same _Airships_ book (sorry I don't remember the author/publ.) stated that "helium was a biproduct of the American natural gas industry, something Germany didn't have <natural gas>". Whether or not there was stockpiling or embargoing going on, I dunno. As to hydrogen running cars, you wouldn't store the stuff as a compressed gas or as a liquid; that'd still be too hairy if there was an accident (and there would be, unless we drastically change the basic natures of the maniacs we call drivers). One way of *safely* storing hydrogen that's being investigated is lithium hydrides: saturating lithium metal with hydrogen. I saw an article about a prototype VW van with LiH[n] cells on the floor in the back. I think they were using heat from the exhaust to drive the hydrogen out of the lithium cells. They had some kind of heating coils to get things going in cold weather. I can't say much more without going off into speculation-land.
sph@bu-cs.UUCP (Scott P. Herzig) (03/31/85)
The Hindenberg was indeed filled with hydrogen. The US, a major producer of helium, was embargoing shipment of helium to Nazi Germany.
sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (04/01/85)
Hydrogen is flammable?????? Wow! I swear I must have
heard thus at least 30 times before!
Look, folks. The average person on the net is not so
stupid as to believe one man's bogus posting about the flam-
mability of helium/hydrogen. So if you MUST send flames then
PLEASE send to to him personally, NOT to the net. You are
gaining nothing except enemies and benefitting no one by
posting (1) The Obvious and (2) What has aleady been posted
30 times.
Sean (Phone Bills) Casey
--
Sean Casey UUCP: {hasmed, cbosgd}-\
{ucbvax, unmvax, boulder, research}!anlams---ukma!sean
{mcvax!qtlon, vax135, mddc}!qusavx-/
ARPA: "ukma!sean"@ANL-MCS or sean%ukma.uucp@anl-mcs.arpawdr@faron.UUCP (William D. Ricker) (04/02/85)
>>On the subject of cars and peoples "irrational" fear of hydrogen: >>gasoline leaks are not uncommon in today's cars - what would >>happen with a hydrogen leak? Could indeed be another Hindenburg. >> >> John Scherer Bell Labs - Holmdel NJ >Regarding "irrational fear of hydrogen" - there may be some truth >to it in automobiles. It would be interesting to see some sort >of risk analysis of gasoline vs propane vs hydrogen. There have >been a couple of propane car fires in Toronto recently. Nobody >killed, but several injured. Hydrogen in a car would probably >be stored as a gas (isn't the pressure required to keep hydrogen >liquid too high to be practical in a car? In contrast, propane is >very easy to keep liquid.) The consequences of a leak are probably >somewhat more spectacular. >-- >Chris Lewis, Motorola New Enterprises >UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!utcs!mnetor!clewis >BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321 The proposals and experiments for hydrogen-based economies which were frequent in SciAm, PopSci, and MechIll in the seventies seemed to assume catalyst storage. One that I recall was surface adsorbtion of gaseous hydrogen onto finely ground platinum or some such rare earth. That's right, convert your catalytic converter into your gas tank. If I remember correctly, the rate of off-gasing from the adsorbtion was low enought as to be safer than a Pinto, at least. I believe such a rare-earth adsorbtion [sic] system is in use at the experimental fuel-cell electricity generating plant, which is located, with all appropriate safety agency approvals, in the heart of a major city at the site of a decommisioned early coal plant. I believe I saw this is SciAm last year... although possibly earlier. With adsorbtion storage, fusion electric generation, and fuel cells, hydrogen may be a reasonable form of electricity storage and transportation. I'm not so sure about personal transportation powered by hydrogen-turbines. [Then again, personal transportation is a social mal-adaption, anyway. Double-plus economic un-good.] -- William Ricker wdr@MITRE-Bedford.ARPA (MIL) wdr@faron.UUCP (UUCP) decvax!genrad!linus!faron!wdr (UUCP) {allegra,ihnp4,utzoo,philabs,uw-beaver}!linus!faron!wdr (UUCP) Opinions are my own and not necessarily anyone elses. Likewise the "facts".
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (04/03/85)
> There is one big advantage of hydrogen over helium: hydrogen > has a much greater "lifting power", four times as much according > to a book _Airships_ I read a long, long time ago. Four times > strikes me as off, since hydrogen, though of atomic weight 1.00X, > is diatomic. Thus it would only have "twice" the lifting power. No, what it would have twice is the density. The buoyancy is proportional to the difference between the density of the gas and the density of air. As I calculated in another article, the average molecular weight of air is 29.1; hydrogen is 2.0 and helium is 4.0. And the density of a gas is in direct proportion to the molecular weight. So hydrogen is nowhere near twice as buoyant as helium, but only 27.1/25.1 = about 1.08 times. This is still enough to be significant in airship contexts, though. (Another disadvantage of helium is that its tiny atoms leak through materials that won't pass other gases. I don't know how bad hydrogen is this way, though, or how significant this effect is.) Mark Brader
john@x.UUCP (John Woods) (04/03/85)
> liquid too high to be practical in a car? In contrast, propane is > very easy to keep liquid.) The consequences of a leak are probably > somewhat more spectacular. Not necessarily. Hydrogen is both highly volatile (as a liquid) and lighter than air (as a gas). It turns out that it doesn't hang around in flammable concentrations for very long (unless you put a gasbag around it -- and if you watch the film footage of the Hindenburg (which I did recently), the hydrogen didn't burn very long--likely most of it just escaped). Gasoline (vapor) and propane, on the other hand, hang around in much higher concentrations for greater lengths of time, hence they are easier to convince to explode (and give you more time to do it). -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA Think of it as "evolution inaction". There are no unintentional spelling errors in this article.
cjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich) (04/04/85)
[] Apropos of the Graf Zeppelin, Theodore Swift writes: > Four times > strikes me as off, since hydrogen, though of atomic weight 1.00X, > is diatomic. Thus it would only have "twice" the lifting power. The difference in lifting power between H2 and He is smaller than that. Consider that lifting power comes from the _difference_ between the weight of the lifter and that of the surrounding fluid (in this case, air). A standard volume (22.4 liters?) of gas with a molecular weight N, at standard temperature and pressure, masses N grams. The average molecular weight of the mixture of gases in air is about 29. now... Mass of Gas Mass of Air Buoyancy H2 2 29 27 He 4 29 25 (That is, 22.4 liters of H2 will lift 27 grams, but 22.4 liters of H3 will lift 25 grams.) So hydrogen is "better" by a whopping 8 percent (weeping wizards!) Hydrogen is also much easier to obtain by chemical processes. But, of course, it burns. My recollection is that the Germans wanted to use Helium, for safety reasons, and the USA refused to sell it to them, because it was used in some munitions-making process. Regards, Chris -- Full-Name: Christopher J. Henrich UUCP: ..!(cornell | ariel | ukc | houxz)!vax135!petsd!cjh US Mail: MS 313; Perkin-Elmer; 106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Phone: (201) 870-5853
swift@reed.UUCP (Theodore Swift) (04/07/85)
>Well, if Hitler wanted to convince the US, he sure did a good job, >considering what happened to the Hindenburg in Lakewood, New Jersey. >We didn't even have to use incenidary bullets, just a little St. Elmo's >Fire. > >Sharon Badian ihnp4!hocsp!ahutb!seb I'm not sure, but I believe the cause of the Hindenburg disaster has never been conclusively determined. There have been many explanations proposed, including the above theory of natural phenomenae, but there was also some evidence that there was a saboteur who planted an incindiary bomb near the tail. He had intended it to go off AFTER the Hindenburg had moored and all the passengers had disembarked (DeZeppelined? :-)) Does anyone else have more conclusive explanations, or any confirmation of the saboteur theory?