If I remember correctly the reason that the Hindenburg went up the way it did was not from just hydrogen.
They coated the zepplin with something very close to solid rocket fuel that was made into paint I think.
And there's a lot of evidence that hydrogen was not the main culprit in the Hindenburg explosion. See http://www.aps.org/apsnews/0700/070004.html.
The Hindenburg's skin was made of electrically insulating materials treated with explosively combustible chemicals; that and static sparking were probably what initiated the fire. If your car and its gas tank were made from creosote-treated lacquered fabric, you might have something to worry about there too.
It's important to note that most of the people on the Hindenberg survived. Hydrogen, while highly flammable, isn't really any worse in that regard than many other common fuels. More significantly, it tends to disperse much more readily than fuels like gasoline or kerosene.
It would seem to me that hydrogen might actually be a reasonable aircraft fuel. It has more energy per unit weight than jet fuel and in case of a crash would likely disperse quickly. Also, while I may be mistaken in this, I would expect that cryogenic (liquid H2) storage might be more practical in a commercial airliner than an automobile, since airliners can be fueled immediately prior to use. While keeping H2 cold in a long-term (ground-based) storage tank would require fancy cooling equipment, it would seem such equipment might not be necessary on a plane if the fuel were drawn off at a certain minimum rate (since hydrogen that boils off would cool that remained).
Anyone know if that would be practical?
It's important to note that most of the people on the Hindenberg survived. Hydrogen, while highly flammable, isn't really any worse in that regard than many other common fuels. More significantly, it tends to disperse much more readily than fuels like gasoline or kerosene.
It would seem to me that hydrogen might actually be a reasonable aircraft fuel. It has more energy per unit weight than jet fuel and in case of a crash would likely disperse quickly. Also, while I may be mistaken in this, I would expect that cryogenic (liquid H2) storage might be more practical in a commercial airliner than an automobile, since airliners can be fueled immediately prior to use. While keeping H2 cold in a long-term (ground-based) storage tank would require fancy cooling equipment, it would seem such equipment might not be necessary on a plane if the fuel were drawn off at a certain minimum rate (since hydrogen that boils off would cool that remained).
Anyone know if that would be practical?