Actually, hydrogen will explode with oxygen. Note that the slow leak in the airplane will put it in an oxegen enviroment (remember most people will need to breathe while on the airplane.) And the comparison to carbon dioxide is worthless. CO2 is almost inert, very unreactive (thats why it is used in welding as a shielding agent to keep oxygen away from the metal base which is at critical (ie highly reactive) temperature.)
CO2 is toxic in high concentration, yet build up is preventable. Not sure how it's managed on air liners, but on space shuttles it's done through CO2 scrubbers. The point is that it can be removed from the artificial atmosphere. So if you want to get anal retentive lets start defining things like 'explode' and argue about it then. I think we'll end up agreeing.
This is slightly offtopic, but hydrogen keeps showing up, and I have (a little) experience with hydrogen as a hydrogenating agent in used oil recycling, and it's not a nice gas to work with. I've also got a great deal of experience with different forms of battery technology, as I participated in both Sunrayce 97 and 99.
Hydrogen forms metal hydrides on exposure to many common metals, and these hydrides are quite weak (structurally) in comparison to the parent metal. This is, obviously, not a good thing when working with high-pressure gases, or even low pressures over long periods of time. In addition, if a high enough pressure is present, pinhole leaks can autoignite, due to localized heating as the gas escapes.
There are ways around these problems, one being the use of metal hydrides as a gas "trap", meaning that you have hydrogen bound up in metal hydrides, from which it can be subsequently released through heating or other means. Current technologies are rather lacking to make this a viable source, as capacities remain quite low.
Also available are the aforementioned "reformer" units, which use ethanol or methanol as hydrogen atom sources. Unfortunately, this process isn't very clean, due to the fact you still have carbon atoms, generally released as CO2, and because the process of removing hydrogen atoms from MeOH or EtOH relies on some potentially nasty chemistry.
Lithium polymer batteries are really cool (no pun intended!), when you think about it. You're packing an incredible amount of energy into a small package, and with all of that chemical potential energy there, bad things will happen in a statistically-relevant portion of total cases. Battery research is a mature, yet growing field, and current fuel cell tech has a long way to catch up, both in terms of safety, energy density, and portability.
The most serious fire risk with a high-powered battery is shorting it on a stray piece of metal (e.g., a paper clip in your briefcase) -- much more likely with the battery out of the computer than in.
That is a pretty dumb comment to make. Most people who fly have a good reason for it. Even if it is vacation travel, I don't see how one would consider such great experiences unnecessary.
All of these extra security precautions do little to prevent terrorism and just cause aggravation. Every time I am in an airport, they spend most of their time searching 14 year old girls travelling with their families. You can profile without being racially motivated. If there is a 20 something non-US citizen with no luggage, he should receive more scrutiny. In fact, anyone who is not a US citizen should receive more scrutiny and especially if they come from a country which is unfriendly to us (anywhere there is widespread burning of the US flag on the streets).
Great experiences? Do you fly a F-16 to where you're going or something? Flights are just transport cargo planes. There is nothing "great" about it. We aren't straight out of the early 20th century anymore.
Great experiences? Do you fly a F-16 to where you're going or something? Flights are just transport cargo planes. There is nothing "great" about it. We aren't straight out of the early 20th century anymore.
i think the poster meant the vacations as great experiences, not the air travel
The masses don't question the fact that not one single United States military unit / plane was deployed to respond to the 9/11 attacks, but we're all so hyped about a battery on a plane. Lets address U.S. sponsored terrorism on our own soil (Twin Towers / Tower 7, Pentagon, Oklahoma City bombing, Columbine Shooting [http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/key...lumbine.shtml], etc.) before we go after the "terrorists" from afar.
CO2 is toxic in high concentration, yet build up is preventable. Not sure how it's managed on air liners, but on space shuttles it's done through CO2 scrubbers. The point is that it can be removed from the artificial atmosphere. So if you want to get anal retentive lets start defining things like 'explode' and argue about it then. I think we'll end up agreeing.
Airliners open ports on the plane to allow outside air to mix with cabin air.
A common complaint is that passengers get headaches from too little outside air, because the airlines mix as little as possible because it lessens the efficiency of the engines, causing more fuel to be used, and with the cost of jet fuel these days...
Should have said private planes. you know, ten passenger jet or turboprop, as opposed to 747.
So what would be the difference? They would be just as paranoid. I've flown on small planes, and the companies are very careful these days. At least the good ones are.
The masses don't question the fact that not one single United States military unit / plane was deployed to respond to the 9/11 attacks, but we're all so hyped about a battery on a plane. Lets address U.S. sponsored terrorism on our own soil (Twin Towers / Tower 7, Pentagon, Oklahoma City bombing, Columbine Shooting [http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/key...lumbine.shtml], etc.) before we go after the "terrorists" from afar.
So what would be the difference? They would be just as paranoid. I've flown on small planes, and the companies are very careful these days. At least the good ones are.
Was it a small local or regional carrier? I'm specifically refering to the fractional ownership/private jet type deals. Not just small carriers.
Boy, I'm doing a really good job of obfuscating this one.
i think the poster meant the vacations as great experiences, not the air travel
That's exactly what I meant. For instance, if an average American wants to take a trip to say Hawaii, flying is pretty much the only way they can fit the travel into their vacation allotment. While it can be argued that going to Hawaii is unnecessary, it can also be argued that any vacation is unnecessary. However unnesessary, I feel that vacations are part of what makes life worth living.
Comments
Actually, hydrogen will explode with oxygen. Note that the slow leak in the airplane will put it in an oxegen enviroment (remember most people will need to breathe while on the airplane.) And the comparison to carbon dioxide is worthless. CO2 is almost inert, very unreactive (thats why it is used in welding as a shielding agent to keep oxygen away from the metal base which is at critical (ie highly reactive) temperature.)
CO2 is toxic in high concentration, yet build up is preventable. Not sure how it's managed on air liners, but on space shuttles it's done through CO2 scrubbers. The point is that it can be removed from the artificial atmosphere. So if you want to get anal retentive lets start defining things like 'explode' and argue about it then. I think we'll end up agreeing.
The airlines ARE private, remember?
Should have said private planes. you know, ten passenger jet or turboprop, as opposed to 747.
Yeah, and you spelled carbon, carbond.
You also forgot about the Hindenberg.
Didn't forget. Ignored. The hydrogen in the hindenberg got mixed with oxygen. Hydrogen burns very well in the presence of oxygen.
I was talking about excluding oxygen.
This is slightly offtopic, but hydrogen keeps showing up, and I have (a little) experience with hydrogen as a hydrogenating agent in used oil recycling, and it's not a nice gas to work with. I've also got a great deal of experience with different forms of battery technology, as I participated in both Sunrayce 97 and 99.
Hydrogen forms metal hydrides on exposure to many common metals, and these hydrides are quite weak (structurally) in comparison to the parent metal. This is, obviously, not a good thing when working with high-pressure gases, or even low pressures over long periods of time. In addition, if a high enough pressure is present, pinhole leaks can autoignite, due to localized heating as the gas escapes.
There are ways around these problems, one being the use of metal hydrides as a gas "trap", meaning that you have hydrogen bound up in metal hydrides, from which it can be subsequently released through heating or other means. Current technologies are rather lacking to make this a viable source, as capacities remain quite low.
Also available are the aforementioned "reformer" units, which use ethanol or methanol as hydrogen atom sources. Unfortunately, this process isn't very clean, due to the fact you still have carbon atoms, generally released as CO2, and because the process of removing hydrogen atoms from MeOH or EtOH relies on some potentially nasty chemistry.
Lithium polymer batteries are really cool (no pun intended!), when you think about it. You're packing an incredible amount of energy into a small package, and with all of that chemical potential energy there, bad things will happen in a statistically-relevant portion of total cases. Battery research is a mature, yet growing field, and current fuel cell tech has a long way to catch up, both in terms of safety, energy density, and portability.
Good post!
But that would mean Qantas is putting a lot of trust in their customers. Who's going to enforce this while in-flight?
The same flight-attendants that have to enforce "no cell-phones," and "No electronic devices during X phase of the flight" rules.
Should have said private planes. you know, ten passenger jet or turboprop, as opposed to 747.
We would never see the sun again with all the planes obscuring it from view.
We would never see the sun again with all the planes obscuring it from view.
hmmm... sounds like a good way to counteract global warming to me.
That is a pretty dumb comment to make. Most people who fly have a good reason for it. Even if it is vacation travel, I don't see how one would consider such great experiences unnecessary.
All of these extra security precautions do little to prevent terrorism and just cause aggravation. Every time I am in an airport, they spend most of their time searching 14 year old girls travelling with their families. You can profile without being racially motivated. If there is a 20 something non-US citizen with no luggage, he should receive more scrutiny. In fact, anyone who is not a US citizen should receive more scrutiny and especially if they come from a country which is unfriendly to us (anywhere there is widespread burning of the US flag on the streets).
Great experiences? Do you fly a F-16 to where you're going or something? Flights are just transport cargo planes. There is nothing "great" about it. We aren't straight out of the early 20th century anymore.
Great experiences? Do you fly a F-16 to where you're going or something? Flights are just transport cargo planes. There is nothing "great" about it. We aren't straight out of the early 20th century anymore.
i think the poster meant the vacations as great experiences, not the air travel
Begin Flames:
Not to be picky, but: t,ftfy.
Goes to show yuh.
CO2 is toxic in high concentration, yet build up is preventable. Not sure how it's managed on air liners, but on space shuttles it's done through CO2 scrubbers. The point is that it can be removed from the artificial atmosphere. So if you want to get anal retentive lets start defining things like 'explode' and argue about it then. I think we'll end up agreeing.
Airliners open ports on the plane to allow outside air to mix with cabin air.
A common complaint is that passengers get headaches from too little outside air, because the airlines mix as little as possible because it lessens the efficiency of the engines, causing more fuel to be used, and with the cost of jet fuel these days...
Should have said private planes. you know, ten passenger jet or turboprop, as opposed to 747.
So what would be the difference? They would be just as paranoid. I've flown on small planes, and the companies are very careful these days. At least the good ones are.
The masses don't question the fact that not one single United States military unit / plane was deployed to respond to the 9/11 attacks, but we're all so hyped about a battery on a plane. Lets address U.S. sponsored terrorism on our own soil (Twin Towers / Tower 7, Pentagon, Oklahoma City bombing, Columbine Shooting [http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/key...lumbine.shtml], etc.) before we go after the "terrorists" from afar.
Begin Flames:
They were. Read the news.
So what would be the difference? They would be just as paranoid. I've flown on small planes, and the companies are very careful these days. At least the good ones are.
Was it a small local or regional carrier? I'm specifically refering to the fractional ownership/private jet type deals. Not just small carriers.
Boy, I'm doing a really good job of obfuscating this one.
i think the poster meant the vacations as great experiences, not the air travel
That's exactly what I meant. For instance, if an average American wants to take a trip to say Hawaii, flying is pretty much the only way they can fit the travel into their vacation allotment. While it can be argued that going to Hawaii is unnecessary, it can also be argued that any vacation is unnecessary. However unnesessary, I feel that vacations are part of what makes life worth living.
"We have put limitations on Dell computers and at this stage we are awaiting further information from Apple," said the spokesman.
Is this to say that apple has finally captured the Al-Qaeda market from Dell?