Bush Killed The One-Fifties!!!
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
From: Maine
Originally Posted by Raptor05121
I highly doubt it was the lining in the skin. That seems to be just a conspiracy and many sources have burned little pieces of the skin from the Hindenburg and it took over 3 minutes to burn a square inch of it. I lvoe MythBusters, but I'd have to say they need to relook into that one. And as the hydrogen mixes with the air it becomes flammable. If it rises 20 some odd feet then of course its going to be diluted enough to not ignite, but right at the tear expelling and mixing with a static sparks seems reasonable to me.
BTW, made a 98 on it, forgot to add a title.
BTW, made a 98 on it, forgot to add a title.
EDIT: I guess I'm not denying the fact that there could be issues with cars catching fire when in an accident, just as I'm sure there were with the introduction of diesel and gas powered vehicles. However, its safe to say that an exploding car today iis quite rare and we'll find that a hydrogen car will be the same.
Last edited by n8er00; Dec 21, 2007 at 10:45 AM.
Originally Posted by Raptor05121
I highly doubt it was the lining in the skin. That seems to be just a conspiracy and many sources have burned little pieces of the skin from the Hindenburg and it took over 3 minutes to burn a square inch of it. I lvoe MythBusters, but I'd have to say they need to relook into that one. And as the hydrogen mixes with the air it becomes flammable. If it rises 20 some odd feet then of course its going to be diluted enough to not ignite, but right at the tear expelling and mixing with a static sparks seems reasonable to me.
BTW, made a 98 on it, forgot to add a title.
BTW, made a 98 on it, forgot to add a title.
http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2007/04/e...g_mystery.html
"Regardless of much speculation, translation of a letter handwritten in German on June 28, 1937, by Hindenburg investigator and electrical engineer Otto Beyersdorff states "The actual cause of the fire was the extreme easy flammability of the covering material brought about by discharges of an electrostatic nature ..." 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. Dr. Bain noted that the particular type of aluminum powder particles, which are flake like in shape, are particularly sensitive to electrical discharge.
Hydrogen is about fifteen-times lighter than air. After ignition by the violently burning surface varnish, flames from hydrogen combustion traveled upward, far away from the crew and passengers in the cabins below. What fell to the ground with the passengers were burning shrouds from the exterior fabric, a large inventory of diesel fuel, and combustible materials that were in the cabins. Thirty-three persons were killed in the Hindenburg fire. The flames that continued to be supported by heavier-than-air materials, fabric and diesel fuel continued for hours."
Hydrogen is about fifteen-times lighter than air. After ignition by the violently burning surface varnish, flames from hydrogen combustion traveled upward, far away from the crew and passengers in the cabins below. What fell to the ground with the passengers were burning shrouds from the exterior fabric, a large inventory of diesel fuel, and combustible materials that were in the cabins. Thirty-three persons were killed in the Hindenburg fire. The flames that continued to be supported by heavier-than-air materials, fabric and diesel fuel continued for hours."
- NCSU
PS: If you plan on going to college, be prepared to use books and perform real research to passing grades on papers....
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,278
Likes: 0
From: Seabrook,NH
Originally Posted by malexander52
The 8" painted stripe that seperates the inzone from the rest of the field represents CO2 in the atmosphere. Scientists agree that the amount of CO2 humans have contributed to this stripe since the industrial revolution amounts to about 2 inches of that stripe........
Hopefully that gives you some perspective.
Hopefully that gives you some perspective.
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,033
Likes: 1
From: spring, texas
8" of 10800 inches is?
Originally Posted by Norm
So humans have contributed 25% (2" out of 8" is 25%) of it. Pretty bad if you ask me.
100 yards (inert gases,nitrogen, and oxygen) to the painted stripe (CO2) = 3600 inches
CO2 is the next 8 inches 8/3600 = .00222222222222222222222222222222222
C02 represents .002 percent of the atmosphere.....................
So how in the hell does that affect global warming?
Every 100,000 years we KNOW that for whatever reason the levels of CO2 on the planet have increased with the global mean temperature. This seems to be the cyclic rate of the earths climate. Smog definitely traps heat near the surface. But to think for one second that we can actually REVERSE the effects of global warming are asinine. It is happening, it is going to continue to happen and then it is going to be be really freaking cold in some parts of the planet. Our gas emissions (including mine after broccoli ha ha ha) are having an adverse effect on our health more than the planet itself.
Read Page 7: http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-LOW.pdf
Last edited by malexander52; Dec 27, 2007 at 01:04 PM.
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
From: the hills of WNC
Originally Posted by MSH
It is about time they raised the mpg standards for pickups. It should have been done 15 years ago. It should be raised again in 10-15 years to an even higher standard.
The technology is there, it sometimes takes a push from the govt. to make it happen.
There are a lot of US patents that improve mpg or use other sources of energy. They are bought by oil companies and shelved to protect the demand for their product, OIL.
The auto makers will wine about the extra cost of increasing the mpg. But they will just pass that cost on to the consumer.
If you leave it up to the auto makers and oil companies we would still all be driving big block v8s that get 12mpg.
I'm all for a car or truck that runs on tap water. Of course that will never happen. Even if they did have a mass produced engine that runs on water, the auto makers and the oil companies will make sure you still have to go to the corner Exxon and fill up with "special water" that costs $5 a gallon.
The technology is there, it sometimes takes a push from the govt. to make it happen.
There are a lot of US patents that improve mpg or use other sources of energy. They are bought by oil companies and shelved to protect the demand for their product, OIL.
The auto makers will wine about the extra cost of increasing the mpg. But they will just pass that cost on to the consumer.
If you leave it up to the auto makers and oil companies we would still all be driving big block v8s that get 12mpg.
I'm all for a car or truck that runs on tap water. Of course that will never happen. Even if they did have a mass produced engine that runs on water, the auto makers and the oil companies will make sure you still have to go to the corner Exxon and fill up with "special water" that costs $5 a gallon.
This old saw about the 50MPG vehicle/caburetor/flying carpet/thingamajig has been around for decades (and yes I am old enough to remember them) and debunked numerous times. Show them to us, no one else ever has been able to! Or you could just whirl around in your black helicopter without a tail rotor as you seem to be doing now.
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
From: Georgia, USA
I have to go back and read this whole thread so..
The first statement was not thought on at all, think about how much Bush loves planes. Anything that burns the same thing those boeing and airbus hogs burn is going to be ok. \geesh talk about global warming, havent seen anybody say to cut back on the jet travel, they put out more exhaust and use more fuel and anybodys F150 will in a lifetime.
The first statement was not thought on at all, think about how much Bush loves planes. Anything that burns the same thing those boeing and airbus hogs burn is going to be ok. \geesh talk about global warming, havent seen anybody say to cut back on the jet travel, they put out more exhaust and use more fuel and anybodys F150 will in a lifetime.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by MSH
I'm all for a car or truck that runs on tap water. Of course that will never happen. Even if they did have a mass produced engine that runs on water, the auto makers and the oil companies will make sure you still have to go to the corner Exxon and fill up with "special water" that costs $5 a gallon.
