If you want a gas to float a blimp, either H2 or He will do the job, but if you use the former, prepare for a Hindenburg.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-31 5:43
>>3
He's criticising you for confusing hydrogen gas with helium, though your post is less than clear.
>>4
The main problem with the Hindenburg wasn't the hydrogen gas. Tons of blimps had been using it without issues for years. It's perfectly safe if you keep oxygen away.
The problem was the paint used on the hull. The hydrogen didn't help, but it would have crashed and burned (if less spectacularly, though not likely with fewer victims; only thirty-six people died, after all, and most of them died from jumping from the blimp, not from the fire) either way.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-31 12:28
I'm not going to be filling a blimp. I just want some gas to fill a few balloons without carrying a tank that weighs 10 pounds.
Name:
4tran2008-07-31 15:47
>>5
You're saying that even with He, the paint on the hull wold have somehow caused the Hindenburg to crash? How?
I did not know that most died jumping from the blimp. Curious.
>>6
That would work, but you'd be limited by the current that you can send through the water. Enjoy spending hours filling your balloon.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-31 20:32
>>7
It was the hull that caught fire in the first place, not the hydrogen. By the time the hull had disintegrated far enough for the hydrogen to mix with the oxygen in the atmosphere enough to also catch fire, the crash was inevitable anyway.
But yeah, everyone who stayed on the blimp as it went down survived.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-31 21:24
There is no definitive proof how it actually happened. And all of you are gigantic faggots for believing the mythbusters.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-31 22:36
>>9
As I recall, the Mythbusters thing was inconclusive.
It may surprise you, though, that legitimate authorities have had an interest in figuring out what actually caused the disaster that spelled the end of an entire industry, and their investigations have been a bit more clear on the matter.
>>8
That's not what I last heard, nor what wikipedia says (definitively), but sounds plausible.
I'll make a note of not bailing from airships and such until the very last minute.
Name:
Anonymous2008-08-01 7:59
>>12
The problem with Wikipedia is that they believe any idiot who publishes a book counts as a valid ``dissenting opinion'' that deserves a paragraph.
Name:
Anonymous2008-08-01 17:11
>>5
Are you stupid? It is unknown what may have caused the crash. It is said that some discharge started the fire.
Name:
Anonymous2008-08-02 0:06
It crashed because it got busted.
Name:
Anonymous2008-08-02 0:12
>>14
It's not certain what caused the hull to catch fire, but the fact remains that the fire started on the outside.
Dipshit.
Name:
Anonymous2008-08-02 3:37
Every transfer of energy from one form to another wastes a fuck load of energy and it's not unrealistic to assume the efficiency of a machine is based on how many times you change the form of energy.
Batteries convert chemical energy into electrical potential energy so the transfer looks like this.
Chemical energy -> electrical energy -> chemical energy -> kinetic energy
If you used the battery to power a dynamo you would knock off one stage making the machine much more efficient.
Chemical energy -> electrical energy -> kinetic energy
>>16
It may not be certain what caused the hull to catch fire, but the fact remains that we didn't start the fire, it was always burning since the world's been turning. We didn't start the fire, no we didn't light it, but we tried to fight it.
Dipshit.