"Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge"
You were asked, but failed to provide any credentials. You ignored that just as
you admittedly and demonstrably ignore what others write.
Who cares what you think or see? You're just an ignorant deluded troll. Don't
bother to reply, I won't be listening. I doubt any others are, there is nothing
of value in what you write, unless they like a good laugh.
Please forgive me for feeding the troll.
Ed Kelleher
At 12:27 PM 6/12/2019, Craig Fink "Rocket Scientist" wrote:
Wow, you have a sever case of Hindenburg Syndrome. My suggestion to you is to
STOP! Stop playing with Hydrogen, and go back to playing with Rubber and
Nitrous Oxide instead. You point to one of the Great Features of Hydrogen in
such a negative way. Low Ignition Energy and wide range of mixture ratios,
this is part of the recipe to achieving Single Stage to Orbit with an
Air-breathing Airplane/Rocket, it's good to understand that one if planing to
use it. If your a Dreamer like me, and Dream of taxing to the end of the
runway, filling up with fuel, taking off to spend a few days at the Space
Hotel before coming back down and landing at the local airport, Hydrogen is
the only reasonable choice to do so. So, whatever the challenges are wrt
handling it, they are just challenges to be overcome.
I've always been a Safety First kind of guy, but I'm not your Mom. In a
University or Test Range setting with easy access to liquid hydrogen, there
will most definitely be plenty of people who want to be your Mom. Doug, the
Jobs open if you want it.Â
Back to curing your Hindenburg Syndrome.
What do you see when you watch this video?
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH-mhZLuGRk>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH-mhZLuGRkÂ
Here is what I see. I see an Airship with an outer skin composed of what can
best be described as Flash-Paper. The Outer Skin made of ungrounded conductive
panels containing powdered metals consistent with what might be used in Solid
Rocket Fuel surrounded by Oxygen in the Atmosphere. The Airship flying in and
around thunderstorms collecting storing electric charge like a huge Van de
Graff generator. As this Flash-Paper coated Airship approaches the landing
zone, it drops a line, a wire to the ground, grounding the front of the
airship. The stored charge begins to leave the Airship to Ground, but all the
large panels of Flash-Paper are not properly grounded to one another,
resulting in the charge jumping the gap creating the Spark to light the
Flash-Paper on fire. The entire skin of the Airship goes up in flames,
liberating the lifting gas and igniting the diesel fuel on fire, burning and
killing some of the passengers.
What I don't see in this video, is any hydrogen burning. Not because it wasn't
burning, but because all of the other stuff burning radiates much more than
the hydrogen. Every bit of hydrogen that burned that day, burned UP and AWAY
from all the people, in a very safe manner. Nobody was injured or died that
day from burning hydrogen. If the Hindenburg had been filled with Helium
instead of Hydrogen, this video would be the same, it would make no
difference. The lesson of the Hindenburg is NOT about the dangers of using
Hydrogen as a lifting gas, but IS about not using ungrounded conductive
flash-paper as the outer-skin of your airship.
Even during World War One, the Zeppelins that bombed London were filled with
Hydrogen. Yet, the Zeppelins were very hard to shoot down. The British would
fly up and fill them full oh holes, but the Zeppelins would continue flying
and usually make it back to be patched up and do it again. So, one would think
that using incendiary round would do the trick, problem solve? No, the flaming
incendiary rounds did the same as the bullets, just filled the airship full of
holes, no flames, no explosion. But the British did figure out how to shoot
them down, it was to concentrate fire into one small spot of the zeppelin, so
that it would start leaking and the hydrogen had enough time to mix with the
air so that the incendiary round could light it. Strafing didn't work, but
focus fire for a long time in one spot did.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:14 PM Doug Jones
<<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm a bit sorry I starting this slanging match, but this is a life and safety
issue.
Hydrogen is a uniquely dangerous fuel in several ways, but its ignition energy
is so freaking low that it bears special mention.
From Minimum ignition energy of hydrogen???air mixture: Effects of humidity
and spark duration, Ono et al,
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elstat.2006.07.004>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elstat.2006.07.004
Hydrogen is sensitive to electrostatic discharge (ESD)
compared with other flammable gases. The minimum
ignition energy (MIE) of a hydrogen???air mixture is only
0.019 mJ, whereas that of other flammable gases such as
methane, ethane, propane, butane, and benzene is usually
on the order of 0.1mJ according to Lewis and von Elbe.
Craig, DO NOT downplay the hazards of hydrogen. Ignorance kills. I have worked
with GH2 and LH2, and we had a few exciting days in the process despite the
fact that at XCOR we were an experienced professional team and had, as a team,
gone through the NASA hydrogen and oxygen safety courses. Your repeated
attempts to expose OTHER PEOPLE to hydrogen hazards when you have no practical
knowledge or training, verges on reckless endangerment. Stop it.
Rocket Scientist, Whisperer, Engineer .... a very controlling group of people.
Sorry for suggesting you play with Rubber and Nitrous instead of Hydrogen,
Hydrogen is definitely the way to go. I'm more interested in hearing about
those few exciting days you mention, or seeing, do you have a video?
--Â
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx
Doug Jones, the cranky rocket whisperer (channeling Randall Clague)
On 2019-06-11 4:20 PM, Troy Prideaux wrote:
Did you actually read that link?
??
???The theory that hydrogen was ignited by a static spark is the most widely
accepted theory as determined by the official crash investigations???
No, I didn't actually read the Wikipedia Article, but Wikipedia is generally
an excellent source of information. The spark you talk of did not ignite the
hydrogen, but it did ignite the outer-skin of the airship.
??
Troy
??
From: <mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Craig Fink ;
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2019 4:17 AM
To: <mailto:arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Hindenburg Syndrome (Re: Re: Embry-Riddle Prescott Liquid
Rocket Engine Hot-fire)
??
This some sort of Hindenburg Syndrome!
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster
??
Definition, Hindenburg Syndrome, the irrational fear of Hydrogen.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:14 AM Terry McCreary
<<mailto:tmccreary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>tmccreary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Very rong. ??"Order of magnitude" = factor of ten.?? Optimal sea-level
specific impulse of LH2-LOX is around 450 s, RP1-LOX is around 260.?? Not
even a factor of two.
In Air, there is no LOX, just hot Oxygen in the air. That is what I was
talking about as an Order of Magnitude.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse#/media/File:Specific-impulse-kk-20090105.png>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse#/media/File:Specific-impulse-kk-20090105.png
Most of the Theoretical Maximum for Hydrogen using Air isn't even on the
graph from Liftoff to Mach 6.
??
Yes, the tanks are an order of magnitude bigger and has to be taken into
A quart of RP-1 weighs about two pounds.?? A quart of LH2, less than three
ounces.?? For a given mass of O2, you need about *five* times the volume of
LH2 compared to the volume of RP-1 needed, to reach that optimum
performance.?? That's a biiiig fuel tank.
account. Since 2 pounds of RP-1 has the same energy as 1 pound of LH2, it
only takes 6 liter tank. Ok, half an orders of magnitude bigger tank, no
problem.
You've just described the problem, no access to use the only fuel that can
In 42 years of teaching college/university chemistry, everything from
chemistry-for-poets-and-football-players up to grad courses, I've never
used *gaseous* hydrogen.?? In fact, I'm not sure I've ever seen a tank of
H2 in the chem storage room.?? It's avoided unless absolutely necessary
(e.g., hydrogenation reactions).?? And that's for the gas.?? LH2 multiplies
the hazards and the difficulties enormously.
give an Order of Magnitude better performance in Air Breathing engines and
Air Breathing Rockets.?? Yet, we are almost to the point where LN2 is
everywhere. Even a Top Ten list for Liquid Nitrogen accidents
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms1AzNr0wVc>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms1AzNr0wVc
But if I look for the Top Ten list for Liquid Hydrogen accidents, what do I
get?
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bFJK5kU_UQ>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bFJK5kU_UQ
A 60 year old video of an intentional test, that's it.
<https://youtu.be/7bFJK5kU_UQ?t=139>https://youtu.be/7bFJK5kU_UQ?t=139 ;
50 tests, no detonations occurred.
<https://youtu.be/7bFJK5kU_UQ?t=215>https://youtu.be/7bFJK5kU_UQ?t=215 ;
The four guys caring the 50 gallon drum of boiling Liquid Hydrogen, I guess
the drum is heavy because it sure wasn't the hydrogen.
No detonation, Thermal Flux of only 10%, 30 seconds until it evaporated.
<https://youtu.be/7bFJK5kU_UQ?t=369>https://youtu.be/7bFJK5kU_UQ?t=369 ;
JP-4 and Gasoline comparison, Thermal Flux is 12X that of hydrogen and burned
14X longer.
<https://youtu.be/7bFJK5kU_UQ?t=440>https://youtu.be/7bFJK5kU_UQ?t=440 ;
They had to use a high explosive detonator and intentionally mix it properly
in a balloon to get it to detonate. Just a spark and it just burns, no
detonation.
<https://youtu.be/7bFJK5kU_UQ?t=700>https://youtu.be/7bFJK5kU_UQ?t=700 ;
Conclusion, Liquid Hydrogen is safer to handle than...
Is LH2 a great fuel? Of course, in theory.*** Handling it and overcoming
the many difficulties makes it a lot less 'great'.?? If I was involved in a
project using liquids, LH2 would stay inside the reference books. ;-)
Usually we call it plasma when the monatomic hydrogen. Solid, Liquid, Gas,
As to potential...why mess with LH2 at all??? Work out a way to stabilize
liquid monatomic hydrogen and Bob's your uncle. :-)
Plasma.
***"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice...there is." -- Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut
In Practice, which would you rather clean up a LH2 spill, Gasoline spill, or
JP-4 spill?
--
Craig Fink
<mailto:WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx>WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx
On 6/11/2019 12:59 AM, Craig Fink wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 9:01 AM Charlie Garcia
<<mailto:dragonrider.hhcc@xxxxxxxxx>dragonrider.hhcc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Craig,
LH2 does not have several orders of magnitude of capability over other
potential propellants.
Yeah, only one.?. Sound wright?
--
Dr. Terry McCreary
Professor Emeritus
Murray State University
Murray KY ??42071
