OT__For All Tesco PBW Games Playing and hosting [Archive]

Katchoo

May 28th, 2003, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Narrew:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Well it looks like the phone lines to my street have been diced and sliced.Umm, maybe it is a new U.S. campain to bring our northen brothers into our fold. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>Yep time to break out the styrofoam cups and string http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

tesco samoa

May 28th, 2003, 10:02 PM

beer in a cup where....

tbontob

May 28th, 2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
If so, it sounds like someone forgot to call their municipality to find out the location of the cables before they dug.

Ha! it is the municipality that is diggingAhhh...the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron

May 29th, 2003, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Look at it this way- they just hit the phone cables. Could have been worse.

-glances down at the "Warning: underground Hydrogen Pipeline" signs at school-Oh no, it will release hydrogen and water will form! Not that! Hydrogen is nowhere near as dangerous as people make it out to be. The Hindenburg and other dirigibles created a very bad impression in the public's eye about hydrogen power...

[ May 30, 2003, 19:39: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

tbontob

May 29th, 2003, 12:51 AM

Last time I heard, hydrogen in a confined space with oxygen is extremely explosive.

And you do get water or rather water vapour:

2H2 + O2 = 2H2O

if I remember my chemistry of many years ago.

[ May 29, 2003, 00:06: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Katchoo

May 29th, 2003, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Oh no, it will release hydrogen and water will form! Not that! Hydrogen is nowhere near as dangerous as people make it out to be. The Lindenburg (is that even the right name? I forget....) and other dirigibles created a very bad impression in the public's eye about hydrogen power...Close... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif It was the Hindenburg. Lindenburg (or was it just Lindburg) was the name of a pilot who's child was kidnapped.

Or so my garbled history recalls... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

tbontob

May 29th, 2003, 12:58 AM

Yeh, I think you are right, it was the Hindenburg.

I think the reason the Hindenburg did not explode was because it was not in a confined space and oxygen was not mixed with the hydrogen.

As the hydrogen and the oxygen were separated, the burning essentially took place on the periphery and moved inwards as the oxygen moved inwards.

Also air is only about 20% (21%?) oxygen, it is diluted and the rate of burning is much reduced than if it was pure oxygen.

Phoenix-D

May 29th, 2003, 03:18 AM

Fryon: and release a bit of heat, just incidently. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

At the least it would be a heck of a lot more expensive to repair, heh.

teal

May 29th, 2003, 12:51 PM

Yes, Hydrogen combines with Oxygen to make water and release heat. If you have ever held a match near gasoline you may have noticed that gasoline tends to do the same sort of thing... (making water and carbon dioxide in this case). Fyron is still correct when noting that Hydrogen is not as risky as the public percieves it to be (bad risk assesment, at the time dirigible travel was probably safer than airplane travel which was still in its infancy). I would tend to argue that the Hindenberg got played up in the press at the time bc/ dirigible technology was backed by the Germans and German/US relations were on their way down in the run up to World War II. This misperception that hydrogen is horribly dangereous is unfortunately still with us.

tesco samoa

May 30th, 2003, 08:15 PM

you guys should go argue on irc sometime.

So now I am back on... And every game is due.

Sugar.

geoschmo

May 30th, 2003, 08:27 PM

Yes, the Hindenburg was the hydrogen blimp that blew up. The Lindenburg was the giant blimp filled with moldy cheeze. (See how I tied all the threads together with that comment? ain't I clever? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )

Geckomlis

May 30th, 2003, 08:32 PM

Took me awhile to relocate this article:

"The Hindenburg was covered with a cotton fabric that had been swabbed with a doping compound to protect and strengthen it. Unfortunately, the doping compound contained a cellulose acetate or nitrate (used in gunpowder). This compound was followed by a coating of aluminum powder (which is used in rocket fuel). Additionally, the structure was held together using wood spacers and ramie cord; the furnishings were make of silk and other fabrics; and the skeleton itself was duralumin coated with lacquer. Added together, all of these made the craft itself highly flammable. In DiChristina's article, Bain was quoted as saying that perhaps "... the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel."
http://www.esdjournal.com/articles/blame.htm

Gecko

[ May 30, 2003, 19:37: Message edited by: geckomlis ]

Fyron

May 30th, 2003, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
you guys should go argue on irc sometime.I second that motion! And since only Tesco and I are there, the vote passes! You all need to drop by #se4 on gamesnet IRC network. You have no choice now! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Originally posted by tbontob:
Last time I heard, hydrogen in a confined space with oxygen is extremely explosive.

And you do get water or rather water vapour:

2H2 + O2 = 2H2O

if I remember my chemistry of many years ago.It is explosive, yes. But not really so explosive to be more worried about hydrogen than other gases and liquids running through pipes (save things like water that don't combust http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Fryon: and release a bit of heat, just incidently. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

At the least it would be a heck of a lot more expensive to repair, heh.But not so much heat to be a great risk over other things running through pipes.

Yes, Hydrogen combines with Oxygen to make water and release heat. If you have ever held a match near gasoline you may have noticed that gasoline tends to do the same sort of thing... (making water and carbon dioxide in this case). Fyron is still correct when noting And I am still correct in the first part of my statement. I never said that hydrogen was not explosive, just that it is not as dangerous as many people erroneously believe it to be.

ain't I clever? ) Nope! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[ May 30, 2003, 19:49: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

tesco samoa

May 30th, 2003, 08:57 PM

an error has occured:

Won't overwrite topic file 000001

Please inform the board administration of this error so that they may fix the problem. Thank you!

Anyone else gettign this error when they start a new topic

Fyron

May 31st, 2003, 12:23 AM

Started happening around 1 PM PST yesterday (may 29). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

tbontob

May 31st, 2003, 12:41 AM

Fyron, if hydrogen is as safe as you say it is, I challenge you to go into a large enclosed chamber filled with hydrogen and oxygen and generate a electrical spark.

I don't think you would do it. I certainly wouldn't. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But yes, hydrogen is less dangerous if it is not in an enclose space and is not mixed with oxygen.

In fact hydrogen alone or mixed with an inert gas is no danger at all. In those conditions, I would not be concerned with generating an electrical spark. So change the conditions and hydrogen's dangerosity changes.

So, it all depends upon the conditions.

Fyron

May 31st, 2003, 02:01 AM

You missed my point. I never said hydrogen was absolutely safe. I said it is not super dangerous as many people fallaciously believe it to be. I would not enter such a room with any explosive gas (plus oxygen) in it. There is nothing special about hydrogen as compared with other combustible gases (well aside from the fact that it is completely clean burning and produces no CO2, CO, etc., but that is an entirely different issue http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

[ May 31, 2003, 01:03: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

tesco samoa

May 31st, 2003, 02:47 AM

whats up with it...

Fyron

May 31st, 2003, 03:09 AM

No idea.

Grandpa Kim

May 31st, 2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
an error has occured:

Won't overwrite topic file 000001

Please inform the board administration of this error so that they may fix the problem. Thank you!

Anyone else gettign this error when they start a new topicDoes this mean we are relegated to talking about the same things over and over for all eternity? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Fyron

May 31st, 2003, 10:33 PM

It did, but not anymore!

tbontob

May 31st, 2003, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You missed my point. I never said hydrogen was absolutely safe. I said it is not super dangerous as many people fallaciously believe it to be. I would not enter such a room with any explosive gas (plus oxygen) in it. There is nothing special about hydrogen as compared with other combustible gases (well aside from the fact that it is completely clean burning and produces no CO2, CO, etc., but that is an entirely different issue http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).No Fyron, you are are missing my point. No explosive substance is safe. And to imply that it is somewhat safe, is being irresponsible.

[ May 31, 2003, 22:17: Message edited by: tbontob ]

tbontob

May 31st, 2003, 11:15 PM

[ May 31, 2003, 22:17: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Fyron

May 31st, 2003, 11:29 PM

Tbontob, then you did not get my point. I never said hydrogen was safe, I always said it was not any more dangerous than other explosive gases/liquids.

Narrew

May 31st, 2003, 11:55 PM

Hey!!! Pull my finger http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif ...I will let you decide if it is dangerous or not http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

tbontob

May 31st, 2003, 11:59 PM

No Fyron, what you did say and I quote:

"Oh no, it will release hydrogen and water will form! Not that! Hydrogen is nowhere near as dangerous as people make it out to be. The Hindenburg and other dirigibles created a very bad impression in the public's eye about hydrogen power..."

There is no mention of other gases. That came later when you tried to shift the topic to make it appear you were right.

Fyron

June 1st, 2003, 12:01 AM

Ever heard of the term hyperbole? Overstatement/exaggeration for effect?

I did not ever attempt to shift the topic, I went along with the flow of conversation.

tbontob

June 1st, 2003, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Ever heard of the term hyperbole? Overstatement/exaggeration for effect?

I did not ever attempt to shift the topic, I went along with the flow of conversation.Actually, I have heard of hyperbole. In fact, I would suggest I heard of it before you did.

And yes, you did shift it. There is no mention of other gases.

Fyron

June 1st, 2003, 12:16 AM

Why are you so obsessed with the first post? The first post is not the entirety of the conversation, you know.

And no, I shifted nothing. There is plenty of mention of other gases, if you look at the entire conversation. The intial post was not the entirety.

Don't use any arrogant agism Tbontob. All that does is make you look foolish.

Since you know what a hyperbole is, you should be able to recognize that the post you are obsessing over was indeed a hyperbole. I exaggerated it to make a point. It was not written as an end-all, beat-all statement about hydrogen being perfectly safe. You seem to think it was, when it certainly was not.

tbontob

June 1st, 2003, 12:34 AM

Not obsessed. It was a post you made which gave the impression that hydrogen is not very dangerous.

And trying to explain it away by saying it was hyperbole does not make it any less dangerous.

And trying to divert the topic by comparing it to other explosive gases doesn't make it any less dangerous.

Jack Simth

June 1st, 2003, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Why are you so obsessed with the first post? The first post is not the entirety of the conversation, you know.
He's not obsessing with the first post in this thread - if nothing else, that should be clear from the simple fact that he is discussing the dangers of hydrogen, which isn't even mentioned until the fourth reply to this thread. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

And no, I shifted nothing. There is plenty of mention of other gases, if you look at the entire conversation. The intial post was not the entirety.
Actually, you did shift the conversation a bit: you were the first person in this thread to mention combustable gases other than Hydrogen. The other materials listed include: Oxygen (gaseous oxidizer under Standard Temperature and Pressure), carbon dioxide (non-flamable gas under STP), water (liqud under STP, non-flammable), and gasoline (Liquid under STP, flammable) geckomlis mentioned a few others that I missed, all solids under STP Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Don't use any arrogant agism Tbontob. All that does is make you look foolish.

Since you know what a hyperbole is, you should be able to recognize that the post you are obsessing over was indeed a hyperbole. I exaggerated it to make a point. It was not written as an end-all, beat-all statement about hydrogen being perfectly safe. You seem to think it was, when it certainly was not.Funny - I more read Tbontob's Posts as him taking exception to you making fun of Pheonix-D's response that worse things could have happened in Tesco's area than some cut phone lines.

And actually, it would be a relatively simple matter for a broken hydrogen pipeline to cause some serious problems - all it would take is for the Hydrogen to diffuse into the air slightly before encountering a source of ignition.

Besides, even if it just causes a fire, accidental fires usually cause more serious problems for people than broken phone lines usually do.

[ June 01, 2003, 00:56: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Phoenix-D

June 1st, 2003, 03:25 AM

Can we pretend I never mentioned hydrogen please? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

tesco samoa

June 1st, 2003, 06:33 AM

thank goodness the lines were only cut for one day.

Fyron

June 1st, 2003, 09:02 AM

He's not obsessing with the first post in this thread I never mentioned the first post in the thread. I mentioned the first post I made regarding the hydrogen issue.

Tbontob, I never once said it was safe. Everything I said about it is that it is not as dangerous as most people believe it is. This in no way says that it is not dangerous. You are indeed obsessing over one minor statement that isn't even a large part of what I have said. Go ahead and keep obsessing over it. I am through going in circles with you. You are not interested in amending your misconceptions, only in trying to make jabs at me. Nothing I say makes any dent in your stubborn resolve against me, so there is no point in continuing.

Phoenix-D

June 1st, 2003, 09:31 AM

"I never mentioned the first post in the thread. I mentioned the first post I made regarding the hydrogen issue."

Fyron, you seem to post something then later post a clarification. Because this isn't what you said- it may have been what you MEANT, but you said "Why are you so obsessed with the first post? The first post is not the entirety of the conversation, you know." which could easily be taken to mean the very first post.

Jack Simth

June 1st, 2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I never mentioned the first post in the thread. I mentioned the first post I made regarding the hydrogen issue.
Actually, you just said Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Why are you so obsessed with the first post? The first post is not the entirety of the conversation, you know.leaving it at "the first post" rather than "my first post" (which is what you now seem to say you meant) - and they mean two very different things. Odd behaviour, for a person who is often empasising language. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Tbontob, I never once said it was safe.
Said: no, you didn't - specifically. Implied: yes, you did. You implied it so strongly on that first post of yours in this thread when you said Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Hydrogen is nowhere near as dangerous as people make it out to beYou almost outright said the stuff was safe. "nowhere near " parses identically to "far from" - thus you were calling Hydrogen far from as dangerous as people make it out to be, which strongly implies that it is safe. Granted, you later said it wasn't, but you also don't seem to be conceeding that you ever implied Hydrogen was safe. Further, Tbontob never actually claimed that you said Hydrogen was safe - he said you implied it, he said you gave the impression - he never said you said that Hydrogen was safe my bad - he did once towards the very beginning, which you seem to be obsessing over - but the useage of "say" was light enough that it could mean imply; a one-word slip, perhaps.. Odd that you don't pick up on that, for a person who emphasises language and word meanings so much. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Everything I said about it is that it is not as dangerous as most people believe it is. This in no way says that it is not dangerous.The first time you didn't use "not as", you used "nowhere near" which does imply that it isn't dangerous. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You are indeed obsessing over one minor statement that isn't even a large part of what I have said. Go ahead and keep obsessing over it. I am through going in circles with you. You are not interested in amending your misconceptions,You don't seem interested in mending yours, either. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
only in trying to make jabs at me. Nothing I say makes any dent in your stubborn resolve against me,It would appear that the reverse applies as well, Fyron.

[ June 01, 2003, 09:02: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

tbontob

June 1st, 2003, 04:40 PM

I couldn't have said it better. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Thermodyne

June 1st, 2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Yes, the Hindenburg was the hydrogen blimp that blew up. The Lindenburg was the giant blimp filled with moldy cheeze. (See how I tied all the threads together with that comment? ain't I clever? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )Well as long as we are correcting everyone in this thread, I take a little poke at Geo http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The ship in question was a rigid airship, not a blimp. Blimps are still very much in favor, while the rigid exist only in memory and advanced design papers. Of note on the Hindenburg is the fact that the gas was not grounded to the airframe, and the ability of low pressure hydrogen to store static energy was unknown at that time. So when the air frame was grounded, the gas would have been required to overcome the built in impedance of the gas bag before it could discharge. In doing so, it would have created a spark. Anyone who works with rotary wing aviation can tell you how much energy an ungrounded airframe can hold. So while the sabotage theory makes for a good story, it was in all likelihood an engineering short fall.

tesco samoa

June 1st, 2003, 10:14 PM

oh the humanity...

Well during the down time I missed about 4 pbw turns...

Rigelian

June 1st, 2003, 10:46 PM

I hesitate to join a thread that's degenerated into bickering already... but what the hell. Back on the Hindenberg, there has been some pretty convincing modern research on this. The conclusion was that it was not the Hydrogen that was responsible for the (intial at least) combustion. Apparently the doping agent used on the outer skin, in the right conditions, was highly flammable and this was what caused the disaster. I saw a documentary where they had analysed the old film and could demonstrate from the spread of the flames that it was the skin and not the gas that was burning.

As for the relative danger of Hydrogen gas - well, here's an anecdote for you. Back in chemistry class about 20 years ago, a popular (with the kids anyway) experiment involved producing a test-tube full of hydrogen. I forget the exact reaction involved, it may have been some kind of acid-on-iron-filings thing. Anyway, that little test-tube containing hydrogen was then ignited using a lighted taper, producing one hell of a bang and (sometimes, though I never saw it) busting the test-tube entirely. From that I have always concluded that hydrogen/oxygen reactions can release a lot of energy.

However, I had also heard the argument that Fyron puts forward that Hydrogen airships are not as dangerous as they are generally perceived to be. So, why is that? Does that kind of violent small-scale reaction just not scale up?

tesco samoa

June 1st, 2003, 10:59 PM

Did you know the the municipality had to inform itself in writing 30 days in advance that it was digging so that the municipality could determine if lines were buried there.
This did not happen.

There is a fine for this.

So I asked our mayor if the municipality was going to fine the municipality over this.

( The mayor lives around the conor so you can drop in and say hi. He makes a really good jerk chicken on the bbq )

He just laughted

Slick

June 1st, 2003, 11:17 PM

As someone who works with Hydrogen gas, among many other gasses, I can say that both industry standards and safety practices as well as OSHA requirements do consider Hydrogen as very dangerous.

For further reading on OSHA Hydrogen safety requirements:

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9749&p_text_Version=FALSE

Slick.

Fyron

June 2nd, 2003, 12:30 AM

Compressed hydrogen is dangerous, yes. But, the Hindenburg and other airships have given the public a false impression that it is much more dangerous than it is. People will gladly get into a car powered by exploding gasoline, but will have great fears/reservations of getting into a car powered by exploding hydrogen, even though it is really not more dangerous than the exploding gasoline (as that is essentially how cars are powered). And no, not everyone would react this way, but a lot of people do. But the thing is, much less hydrogen has to be used as fuel than gasoline (and other fuels commonly used), so the net effect is that using hydrogen is not much more dangerous than other fuels in most applications.

Jack Simth

June 2nd, 2003, 01:11 AM

Liquid fuels are actually much safer than gaseous fuels in that they are more readily controllable using less resources and less skill.

A gasoline leak is obvious - you can see it on the ground, and it has it's own smell; if it is an acitve leak, you can readily find the troublesome spot by sight and apply a patch.

A hydrogen leak, on the other hand, only gives off a slight hissing sound. If other things are added, it can also be smelled. In order to find the troublesome spot, you need to apply soapy water to the surface. Not that it is a good idea to patch a pressurized tank - it needs to be replaced entierly.

And Fyron, you're not responding to my post about how your initial reply in this thread implied that hydrogen was safe? Odd. Does that mean you are surrendering the point?

Fyron

June 2nd, 2003, 02:12 AM

I think we are using "safeness" to label different issues here. I was not referencing any of that, only the explosiveness and such. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Also keep in mind that when dealing with an automobile engine, if there is a leak in a gaseous hydrogen fuel tank, the hydrogen would diffuse through the atmosphere fairly rapidly. Unless it is in a garage or some such, which could potentially cause problems. Opening the garage door (and possibly setting up a few fans) could clear the hydrogen out in no time. A simple pressure gauge on the fuel tank would be sufficient to set up a warning device to detect leaks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Automobiles almost never explode in accidents (contrary to what Hollywood would say). Automobiles using hydrogen for fuel would not be any more explosive than those using gasoline (mostly because there is a lot less hydrogen necessary to power the car than gasoline, as hydrogen creates more energy when combusted, and so less is needed to get the same energy output). This is what I was talking about when I mentioned safety, not just leaks.

And Fyron, you're not responding to my post about how your initial reply in this thread implied that hydrogen was safe? Odd. Does that mean you are surrendering the point?It means I am ignoring you on that, as I am tired of going in circles with people that will not ever admit they may have been wrong. I have explained already how it did not imply such a thing, and there is no point in repeating myself if you (and others) aren't going to accept what I have already said. And don't try any irony BS here, as I always admit I am wrong when I am wrong on an objective issue, where it is possible to be wrong (as opposed to subjective issues such as McDonald's "food" is garbage http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). So, there is nothing ironic about any statements in this post.

Jack Simth

June 2nd, 2003, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It means I am ignoring you on that, as I am tired of going in circles with people that will not ever admit they may have been wrong.You mean people like yourself? Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I have explained already how it did not imply such a thingYou didn't explain how you did not imply - you stated that you did not say. They are two different things. You haven't actually mentioned implications until just now (I just re-read all of your Posts in this thread to verify that - you consistently used say or said in response to Tbomtob and myself), so saying you explained such is rather odd. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
, and there is no point in repeating myself if you (and others) aren't going to accept what I have already said.Except for one post by Tbontob, nobody in this thread ever said that you said Hydrogen was safe - the words used were implied or gave the impression. However, when you responded to such things, you were always saying that you didn't say that. Said and implied are vastly different things. Your post on June 02, 2003 01:12 to this thread was the first time in this thread that you even mentioned implied. You talk as though you have contradicted them, and they aren't believing you. Yet you haven't! You keep repeatedly addressing "said" when you need to speak to "implied" as everyone else has been doing for the past few pages. Apparently, you need to go look up implied and said, as you appear to be confusing the two. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
And don't try any irony BS here, as I always admit I am wrong when I am wrong on an objective issue, where it is possible to be wrong (as opposed to subjective issues such as McDonald's "food" is garbage http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Since when? I don't recall seeing any such error-admitting post on your part.

[ June 02, 2003, 01:59: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Jack Simth

June 2nd, 2003, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I think we are using "safeness" to label different issues here.Perhaps - but if they are roughly equivalent in safety with regards to inherent explosiveness but gasoline is better in safety with regards to random people using it, then gasoline has hydrogen beat overall on those two aspects of the safety issue, doesn't it? Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I was not referencing any of that, only the explosiveness and such. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Also keep in mind that when dealing with an automobile engine, if there is a leak in a gaseous hydrogen fuel tank, the hydrogen would diffuse through the atmosphere fairly rapidly. Unless it is in a garage or some such, which could potentially cause problems.Other factors include the rate of the leak, the distance to possible sources of ignition, and the activity of the air - but essentially, you are correct on that point. Of course, gasoline is usually equally tame. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Opening the garage door (and possibly setting up a few fans) could clear the hydrogen out in no time. A simple pressure gauge on the fuel tank would be sufficient to set up a warning device to detect leaks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Warning system necessary -> increased complexity -> harder for the average person to deal with safely -> more dangerous Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Automobiles almost never explode in accidents (contrary to what Hollywood would say). Where did you get the impression that I belive they do often explode http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Automobiles using hydrogen for fuel would not be any more explosive than those using gasoline (mostly because there is a lot less hydrogen necessary to power the car than gasoline, as hydrogen creates more energy when combusted, and so less is needed to get the same energy output). This is what I was talking about when I mentioned safety, not just leaks.I wasn't just speaking on leaks either - my post also briefly addressed such things as repair costs; I also briefly mentioned controlability.

[ June 02, 2003, 02:14: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Fyron

June 2nd, 2003, 04:16 AM

Perhaps - but if they are roughly equivalent in safety with regards to inherent explosiveness but gasoline is better in safety with regards to random people using it, then gasoline has hydrogen beat overall on those two aspects of the safety issue, doesn't it? Maybe. I'd have to look more into the issue to answer that fully. I do not think hydrogen is inherently much worse in regards to random people using it for such things as automobile fuel (with the right kind of car and all http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

Warning system necessary -> increased complexity -> harder for the average person to deal with safely -> more dangerous How so? Gasoline tanks have such warning systems, showing how much gas is left in the tank. People can deal with that just fine. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Where did you get the impression that I belive they do often explode I didn't. It was just a general statement.

Jack Simth

June 2nd, 2003, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
How so? Gasoline tanks have such warning systems, showing how much gas is left in the tank. People can deal with that just fine. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
A fuel gauge on your car isn't a safety issue, except perhaps for cases where an empty tank will strand a person away from life's necessities. You were proposing a gauge as a method of detecting leaks, which is a totally different purpose. Such a thing as a safety device to detect leaks would either require that the operator note the fuel level after one use and before the next to check for a drop when the fuel wasn't being used or an alarm that watches for drops in fuel level when the tank isn't being properly drained. Further, it would be extremely difficult to produce such a thing that could detect leaks during operation, as it would need to be able to distinguish the rate of loss of fuel due to proper use from the rate of loss of fuel due to a leak. A gasoline fuel gauge just checks the current level so the operator has a good idea on when it is time to stop for fuel; it is seldom used for leak detection, as it is simpler just to put a piece of dry cardboard under the vehicle and check for wet spots after a time, or even just look for oil slicks on the pavement / driveway / puddles. Most people don't use fuel gauges as a method of detecting leaks; it is simpler to use other methods for liquid fuels - you can see the results of most leaks quite easily, as they leave discolored spots on things below. Gaseous fuels, on the other hand, don't do that. The only ways to detect a leak in gaseous fuels are: watch the pressure when it isn't being used (more complex than looking for discoloration under your car) (theoretically, the tank doesn't need to be not in use - it is simply a matter of knowing the rate of use and comparing that to the rate of loss - the difference is the leak; however, that is easiest when the rate of use is zero), remove all components with possible leaks and subject them to liquid tests under pressure (as is done for tires so a leak can be repaired - complex, difficult, and time consuming for embedded components), add something to the gas so that a leak can be smelled (but that doesn't tell you where the leak is, only that there is one), or listening for hissing (no hissing doesn't mean that there are no leaks, however; likewise, this requires a quiet environment and can't tell one exactly where the leak is coming from). With liquids, a leak produces a trail that can usually be followed back to the source with fairly minimal effort, and a spot on the ground to give a clear indication that a leak has occured, and will often produce a dripping sound (equivalent to a gaseous fuel's hiss on leaking in most respects). Leaking gasoline naturally produces a scent, no additives necessary. Further, almost any method for leak detection that works with compressed gas fuels will also function for liquid fuels.

[ June 02, 2003, 03:53: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]