Auto-mobile... like that'll catch on. One word - Zeppelins!

[RogueSavior]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/aviation/boeingbuildingbiggesthelicopterever

The thread's title is immediately what came to my mind, but, still.

Didn't we already learn that zeppelins explode in fiery infernos once?
________
Yamaha TTR50 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Yamaha_TTR50)

[Sarevok]

Didn't we already learn that zeppelins explode in fiery infernos once?
Well, the one that exploded was filled with Hydrogen (HIGHLY flammable) while all new zeppelins are fill with Helium (INflammable).

[Hopper]

Yeah - Helium is about as stable as you can get. As one of the noble gases, you have to put significant energy into a system to get it to react.

Hydrogen will ignite if you look at it wrong.

[Davian93]

However at the time, Germany didn't have any Helium available and we wouldn't sell them any of ours.

[John Snow]

It wasn't the hydrogen in the zeppelin that was the problem, it was the metal coating on the skin. Assumption always was the hydrogen started the blaze, but recent investigation showed otherwise. Oh, the humanity!

[Crispin's Crispian]

Oh, the humanity!

Better yet, Oh, the huge manatee! (http://www.flashrolls.com/skill-games/Oh-the-Huge-Manatee-Flash-Game.htm)

[Weird Harold]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/aviation/boeingbuildingbiggesthelicopterever

The thread's title is immediately what came to my mind, but, still.

Didn't we already learn that zeppelins explode in fiery infernos once?
Sheesh, catch the ONE Zeppelin that burned on film and the whole world gets paranoid about the dangers of hydrogen :rolleyes:

The Hindenburg was the only Zeppelin lost to flames, to the best of my knowledge, and the metallic paint contributed far more to the speed and intensity of the fire than the hydrogen did.

The major problem with rigid airships -- and lighter than air craft in general -- is they don't handle severe weather well, and in their heyday there was no onboard doppler radar to permit them to avoid severe weather.

Rigid Airships are making a comeback because of better materials technology and better weather forecasting and detection technologies that eliminate two of the three major drawbacks to widespread use. (They're still slow)

[Uno]

Well, the one that exploded was filled with Hydrogen (HIGHLY flammable) while all new zeppelins are fill with Helium (INflammable).

"Inflammable" means combustible, easily ignited. "Flammable" is actually not a real word, or rather, it's a neologism originally restricted to warning signs on fuel containers and other inflammable materials. Apparently, people have on occasion thought that the prefix in- signified non-, and therefore treated combustible substances as harmless. Pretty dumb, really, as I don't see why anyone would make a warning sign saying that something won't ignite. Sort of like "Warning: The dog doesn't bit," or whatever.

[Davian93]

Hydrogen (and its much lighter atomic weight) is much more efficient than Helium IIRC.

[Weird Harold]

Hydrogen (and its much lighter atomic weight) is much more efficient than Helium IIRC.
Iwouldn't characterize it as "much" lighter -- the difference in lifting capacity is about 10% IIRC; balanced against a serious fire hazard it's not much of a choice.

[Davian93]

Iwouldn't characterize it as "much" lighter -- the difference in lifting capacity is about 10% IIRC; balanced against a serious fire hazard it's not much of a choice.

I should have subtracted the "Much" I agree. 10% increase is a good amount of increase though. I bet alot of people would love it if their car was 10% more efficient and I'm sure the airlines would jove if jetfuel was 10% more efficient for them.

[Weird Harold]

I should have subtracted the "Much" I agree. 10% increase is a good amount of increase though. I bet alot of people would love it if their car was 10% more efficient and I'm sure the airlines would jove if jetfuel was 10% more efficient for them.
10% more lift vs 10% or more increase in base weight for fireproofing isn't much of a bargain. :D

Actually, a quick google search shows that the difference is actualy only 8% -- plus the fire hazard.

The Germans had extensive experience with hydrogen as a lifting gas. Hydrogen-related fire accidents had never occurred on civilian Zeppelins, so the switch from helium to hydrogen did not cause much alarm. Hydrogen also gave the craft about 8% more lift capacity. Following the Hindenburg disaster, however, Eckener vowed never to use hydrogen in a passenger airship again. Instead, he planned to use helium for the second ship and went to Washington, D.C. to lobby to obtain it. He visited President Roosevelt himself, who promised to supply the helium, but only for peaceful purposes. After the annexation of Austria in March 1938, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes refused to supply the gas, and the Graf Zeppelin was ultimately inflated with hydrogen. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_class_airship)

[John Snow]

"Inflammable" means combustible, easily ignited. "Flammable" is actually not a real word, or rather, it's a neologism originally restricted to warning signs on fuel containers and other inflammable materials. Apparently, people have on occasion thought that the prefix in- signified non-, and therefore treated combustible substances as harmless. Pretty dumb, really, as I don't see why anyone would make a warning sign saying that something won't ignite. Sort of like "Warning: The dog doesn't bit," or whatever.

So true. The word is actually "unflammable".

[RogueSavior]

Sheesh. I shall never make fun of people clinging to outdated technologies again. You guys mix all sorts of serious into my mean.

Because seriously, who wants it to take longer for them to get somewhere?
________
herbal vaporizers (http://vaporizer.org/)

[Weird Harold]

Sheesh. I shall never make fun of people clinging to outdated technologies again. You guys mix all sorts of serious into my mean.

Because seriously, who wants it to take longer for them to get somewhere?
Longer than What?

Airships would be faster than a train and not tied to fixed routes. More importantly, an airship can probably make a dozen cross-country trips on what a 747 burns on takeoff.

But new airships aren't going to be primarily passenger carriers, they're going to be heavy lift cargo carriers -- augmenting the heavy-trucks and freight trains, going where those modes can't.