Submitted by yourSAS t3_z7t0sf in technology
This might be a stupid question, so I apologize in advance. But let's say that engine caught fire somehow/blew up for some reason - would it be any more dangerous than a regular engine fire?
Or am I just totally misunderstanding the risks involved with hydrogen because I once heard the phrase "hydrogen bomb"..? (Probably, but idk what I don't know)
Hydrogen bombs are a type of nuke that uses hydrogen to create a fusion reaction (more powerful than fission) not entirely sure but I think you still need a regular fission (think uranium) bomb to create enough energy for that. Hydrogen on its own burns, but not nuclear bomb kinda burns. Think about the Hindenburg, the hydrogen caught fire and it burned, but it wasn’t going off like a nuke.
Yes, you’re correct. They’re a 2-stage bomb more or less. A small fission reaction is used to trigger the hydrogen fusion reaction.
a set of small fission bombs all denoated simultaneously to create a compression wave to super-compress the hydrogen target.
Oh the humanity!
Bringing up hydrogen bombs when discussing hydrogen engines is pretty disingenuous and fear mongery. Hydrogen itself is very flammable and dangerous in it's own right but is very different and much less dangerous than a hydrogen bomb.
My point exactly
Ahhh sorry, I didn't see that the previous person mentioned hydrogen bombs themselves.
One benefit of hydrogen in the safety side that I heard when talking about hydrogen powered cars is that if there's a puncture in the fuel line that catches fire, it is more contained, because the hydrogen is a gas in our atmosphere at normal temperatures and lighter than air, so it rises and doesn't spread. By comparison, a liquid fuel will pool and the fire will spread over a large area.
Oh, great point, I didn't think about that!
> would it be any more dangerous than a regular engine fire?
Not exactly what you were asking for, but it was already tested long ago : Difference between a hydrogen and a petrol car on fire
I forgot which YouTube video talked about the bad perception of the Hindenburg disaster. People saw it in flames, as one of the first video news stories. But what they didn't see is that it burned out very quickly.
This was so helpful, thank you! So it wouldn't necessarily be any worse, it would just be faster and very different.
Hm nice plan, but in Scandinavia there where exploding hydrogen petrol stations.
For those wondering, it was a plant in Norway that was preventable :
Yes, it can explode.just like natural gas/petrol stations/chemistry plants. Never refuted that. But hydrogen at least burns up, unlike oil spills,
And disperses since hydrogen floats upwards unlike the forever burning hole
When you are on a plane I don't really think it matters what the fuel source is if it catches fire midair
Lol I guess I meant whole it was on the runway or something like that. I remember watching a video a while back where people were evacuating a burning plane that hadn't taken off yet, and that's what my brain jumped to when I saw this post.
I just look at it like if the plane is going to crash it probably doesn't matter if it's hydrogen or jet fuel, you're gonna go boom either way.
But you make a good point about a plane that is still on the ground.
You can dump hydrogen pretty quickly and controlled.
People often quote the Hindenburg disaster showing that hydrogen in dangerous, but if you look carefully you can see that the hydrogen has floated up above the rest of the airship, and is burning well away from anything important.
It can mix with air to form an explosive, just like gas/petrol vapour or propane/butane - but when spilt, it's less likely to hang around and be a fire risk than a heavier fuel.
That's such a great point, I completely forgot how light it was. I guess in a way it would actually be a bit safer then!
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments