Google Wireless -- Via Balloon? > Farmers launching hydrogen?

reply to Raptor

Re: Farmers launching hydrogen?

reply to jc100
Stop waving your fancy high school edumacashun in our faces!

No, but seriously, you're getting pretty worked up for nothing. There obviously is a danger with even pure helium if the balloons are torn or drift somewhere they shouldn't.
Just because the hydrogen isn't mixed with oxygen at the moment, that ignores the fact that if the thin skin of the balloon tears there is an IMMEDIATE source of oxygen, and depending on where this tear occurrs, there may be an ignition source nearby.

Luckily the only real danger is to the farmers who are probably smoking while filling the "flyin internets robots" up.

reply to jc100
Yes hydrogen must be mixed with air/oxygen to be explosive. And yes it needs an ignition source. So technically it's a "flammable gas".

reply to james
Actually, the guy was being a jerk about it =) So I had to school him. As per the rip, it's unlikely All three elements would come together. Seriously, there'd have to be a tear in the balloon and a spark to ignite it once oxygen and hydrogen mixed. That's pretty unlikely. I guess if lightning struck it, that MIGHT be possible, but highly improbable. Anyhow, the risk to the farmer is minimal unless he or she is DUMB ENOUGH to be smoking while launching said balloons (as per your comment). In that case, yes, you might have Hindenburg and a toasty farmer pending a sizable leak was present and enough hydrogen and oxygen mixed. Once again, it would be HIGHLY UNLIKELY for such an event to occur.

reply to jc100
So which is it?

reply to amigo_boy
Where the heck does that apply here? Also, people do kill people. An inanimate object DOES NOT do anything without human or some other intervention. As with the case of hydrogen, as you OBVIOUSLY did not know. Off topic to the gun issue, people own guns. People use guns. Therefore, it doesn't matter if a gun in it's natural state doesn't kill. People are the ones who use them (as per their intent). Therefore people + guns do kill. Guns cannot kill on their own. Therefore, you justifiably regulate people on buying of guns, since the "guns themselves... IE inanimate object" are not the culprit.

reply to Lark3po
Ever heard of E= MC2 that was Einsteins formula for splitting the atom and making it explosive. Hence, the term splitting the atom or why the bomb in WW2 was a HYDROGEN BOMB.

As per the necessary tools to make this happen via nature:

The burning process in the case of oxygen and hydrogen is relatively simple. If you put together suitable volumes of hydrogen and oxygen and provide a spark to start the reaction, one oxygen atom will combine with two hydrogen atoms, and will release energy in the process. The energy gets released in the form of molecular kinetic energy, and since the motion is random, this is exactly what we call heat energy. The gases heat up, and as all expanding gases do, they expand. That fast expansion of hot gases is what we call "an explosion".

There you go. Maybe you should have read the article and YOU WOULD NOT BE CONFUSED.

P.S. Don't quit your day job. Stay in school Please.

reply to jc100
I'm not sure how much hydrogen they have left in them when they come down, but if it's enough to cause some damage I'd be worried about it getting snagged on high tension power lines, tearing and an arc happening (how does hydrogen compare to air as a conductor?) or doing the same in one of those outdoor power distribution places.

I do think all of us must agree that if it blew up in the air (doesnt matter how), the most dangerous part would be the falling payload and not the explosion itself.

Pretty much. I'm not a scientist, I just remember College physics where I learned this stuff. Amazing I remember it, too. I guess I did pay attention, and this useless knowledge stays with you. As per the risk, yes its minimal. I mean all and all, there would have to be a lot of misfortune for such a disaster to occur. The biggest risk would be from the payload falling and striking someone or something. I mean I am sure that MAYBE one of these balloons can be under the rare conditions to explode. Most likely, it'd happen in the air as you said. If the balloon deflated and landed on a power line, I suspect it'd be fine. I am no expert but I THINK (and I might be wrong because I'm not the electrician in the family), that power lines themselves are not charged unless said wires are exposed. IE, what we see on the lines are wires within insulation. Therefore, the balloon would have to land or break a powerline, for such an event to occur. Being I doubt they are heavy, this is very unlikely.

High tension power lines are not insulated, but the lines are kept very far apart to protect from arcing. A great number of the older residential area power lines have the insulation sloughing off, the leads going to the transformers (they look like garbage cans) are often exposed as well. It would be easier than you think to get a nice arc out of them, especially on a windy day, with something wrapped around them.

reply to jc100
So the answer is both?

P.S. I don't plan of quiting my day job. It affords me time to read what stupid people post on internet forums.

reply to jc100
I know this is OT, but your facts are wrong. The bomb in WW2 was a FISSION bomb made by SPLITTING atoms of Uranium 235. The Hydrogen bomb is a FUSION bomb, made by FUSING two hydrogen atoms together.

--Edit for clarity

reply to jc100
Again, it's a good thing these balloons won't be carrying electronic devices or any sort of power source that could cause a spark.

reply to jc100
Don't forget the fact that all 3 would have an extremely short window of time to come togther.

reply to jc100
n