In article fc.003d0941022a0c6b3b9aca00881cc7ed.22a0c91@pmug. org,
(Glenna Rose) wrote:
Didn't they determine in the last few years that the Hydrogen was not the
problem for the fire and explosion? I don't recall the details of the
report, but it seriously disputed the previous information including how
many eye witness reports were disregarded at the time. If anyone knows
about this, I would love them to post it. My tracking isn't all that good
about things that are not relevant to my current life.
The Hindenburg
My mess, my clean-up. Feller can't even get away with a little hyperbole
these days. Next time I'll take it one teeny word at a time:-)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/au...?ex=1335499200
&en=acdbd204f3df0ab5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rs s
also see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster
7,000,000 cubic ft. of H2, and it's container(The Hindenburg), burned in
34 sec. Maybe no a bang but, it certainly wasn't a whimper. The hydrogen
was the fuel. St. Elmo's Fire may have been the ignition.
³Electrical conditions in the atmosphere were probably a little risky.
Earlier in the day, rubber factories in northern New Jersey had been
closed due to static in the air; the fear was that stocks of carbon
black might ignite.²
------
The "Space Shuttle" runs on hydrogen and oxygen. Pound for pound the
best "bang" for your buck that you can get.
Y'all can go back to pullin' weeds now.
- Billy
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)