[flextheruler]

Right since we haven’t already used an equal or even more so flammable substance for the past century As far as I’m aware gasoline ignites at much lower mixtures of oxygen than hydrogen. The Hindenburg can’t hurt you and if it was filled with gasoline vapors instead of hydrogen, well it would never get of the ground, but it would have been more dangerous.

[phkahler]

Nope. Hydrogen is not just flammable, the article tells you it is EXPLOSIVE at concentration of 4 percent to 74 percent in air. If the Hindenburg was a hydrogen-air mixture, it would have leveled a large portion of the area rather than just burning where it fell.

I've worked in areas where they were developing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles at major auto makers. The facilities are equipped with collectors, detectors, and alarms, and everyone knows to GTFO if the alarm goes off. Hydrogen leaks indoors are extremely dangerous.

[foobarian]

One time I filled a Mylar balloon with H2 by electrolysis. It floated very nicely but I was too cowardly to keep it in the house. It made a nice fireball when lit outside but no particularly notable explosion.

Encouraged by this I filled one of those grocery store vegetable bags with H2 + O2 from the same electrolysis setup (combine both outputs this time). Stoichiometric mixture! The boom was so loud I thought it was going to break my windows from about 20 feet away.

[foobarbecue]

Hydrocarbon-air mixtures are also "EXPLOSIVE". See, e.g thermobaric weapons.

Possibly what you're trying to say is that it's easier to get the air in? Or that it's stored under pressure?

[thsksbd]

The point is that, as scary as gasoline is, the explosive mixture is quite narrow compared to H2.

Add in a minuscule spark energy and H2 is no joke

[bell-cot]

And gasoline is very easily contained. And leaks are visually obvious. And the vapors form & accumulate very slowly.

Hydrogen has zero of those safety virtues.

[foobarbecue]

Ah, I see, that's true.

[glitchc]

The Hindenburg is a largely misunderstood incident [1]. It was one of the safest airplane crashes of the century. As the balloon burned, flames and gasses vented upwards, keeping the cabin and passengers under the balloon safe. Moreover, the balloon descended slowly as the hydrogen was replaced by air. So slowly that most people got off once it was close to the ground. Out of 97 people only 35 died.

[1] https://www.history.com/news/the-hindenburg-disaster-9-surpr...

[thsksbd]

And if it were He it wouldn't have burned at all.

I'm all for bringing back H2 blimps, but let's be honest about H2 - it's crazy dangerous.

[thsksbd]

Hydrogen is significantly more dangerous than gasoline; and gasoline is crazy dangerous as it is.

Lower spark energy Broader range of combustibility Faster detonation speed (? [1])

It's only positive is it dissipated quickly, but that's not that great because it goes boom boom at 5% H2 -air. Everyone I know who has worked on combustion problems (I haven't myself, but colleagues have) give H2 a lot of respect.

[1] this one is an educated guess on my part based on the thermo.

[upofadown]

>Lower spark energy. Broader range of combustibility ...

But not at the same time. That is important because H2 has such a wide ignition range. At the lower end of concentration it isn't much easier to ignite than other things. A readable discussion:

* https://h2tools.org/bestpractices/hydrogen-compared-other-fu...