Talk:Hydrogen safety

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


This discussion was moved from Talk:Hydrogen_economy#Hydrogen_safety. Mion (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC) The link to nasa was a link to an old canceled document about hydrogen safety, maybe its time to write an article about it first and than a short resume on hydrogen economy.Cheers Mion (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Old"? It expired in '05; that's hardly old. It's not like the properties of hydrogen have chanced since then  ;)
I'd be willing to start an article on hydrogen safety, and then just put a summary here, if that's an acceptable solution to you. Is length what you see as the issue? -- Rei (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rei, fine with me, if the standard is superceded by another one there is a reason for the change, pointing to standards that are not valid is hm...., and yes lenght is 1 thing, also Nasa uses mainly liquid hydrogen, low and high compressed hydrogen are different handled and i think they are closer to the people than liquid but here is not so much on it in the safety section. I think that mentioning the hydrogen microsensor, hydrogen odorant, UV/IR flame detector, education are some items to mention in it. And of course accidents are part of the safety history. Cheers Mion (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
If i see the lenght of the liquid hydrogen safety it might even be nesseccery to make 3 articles Liquid hydrogen safety, Compressed hydrogen safety and a main Hydrogen safety. Cheers Mion (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe funny to mention, if we paint all hydrogen vehicles yellow with a Chemochromic hydrogen sensor paint, than for example all red vehicles are suspected[1]. Cheers Mion (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I contacted Owen R. Greulich, the Pressure and Energetic Systems Safety Manager for NASA's Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, to ask why the document was cancelled, and what superceded it. Here's his response:
Sorry for the delay in responding to your request for information.
Take a look at ANSI/AIAA G-095-2004, Guide to Safety of Hydrogen and Hydrogen Systems. NASA has been moving toward using National Consensus Standards (NCS) as much as possible. In this case there was no NCS and NASA was one of the larger users of hydrogen, so by working with the AIAA we were able to adapt our standard to become the NCS.
Hope this helps. Please let me know if you need further information.
So, basically, the new document, AIAA G-095, is pretty much their old document, NSS 1740.16 (8719.16), but all new changes will go into the new one. It wasn't cancelled due to inaccuracies or anything; it was cancelled as part of a standardization effort.
As for liquid nitrogen, NASA works with both liquid and gasseous, the document covered both, and was explicit on what applied to what. Also, there are hydrogen cars out there that run on LH2. -- Rei (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
As per the discussion, I'll start a new article on hydrogen safety. Good ideas on including hydrogen odorants and microsensors. -- Rei (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Nice from NASA to move the data from a nearly public place to paying members only, now i have no acces to ANSI/AIAA G-095-2004[2], AIAA Member Price: $55.95 , so, is there a way to confirm/reference the data?, besides that, very nice and thorough action. Cheers Mion (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that bugs me, too. Seems to be the trend these days, though  :P -- Rei (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Done -- check out hydrogen safety, and by all means, feel free to contribute anything you think is appropriate.  :) The more voices and the more information, the better. -- Rei (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Great work, the only thing i could think of was a cat. Mion (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hindenburg disaster[edit]

I removed this text:

In the LZ 129 Hindenburg disaster, 2/3 of passengers and crew survived. The skin of the Hindenburg may have contributed to the actual blaze. Of the 62 passengers, 27 died. Of the 27 dead, 25 jumped to their deaths from the stricken airship in panic. The other 2 that died did so due to the fire spreading to the diesel powered engines. The hydrogen combustion itself was above, and mostly away from the gondola.

It disagrees with the Hindenburg disaster page, which says that there were 36 passengers, of whom 13 died; but in total there were 97 on board, of whom 35 died (plus one ground crew member who was also killed). Neither page has citations. Can anyone find citations to fix this? (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised there is no mention of the hindenburg disaster perhaps something should be put back up in the meantime while we sort out he facts of that disaster?

Japan Nuclear Plant Hydrogen Explosions[edit]

I am also surprised there is nothing said about the, as of 3/14, two hydorgen explosions at the japanese nuclear plants. Something should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Flammability and Explosive Limits[edit]

The explosive limits found in the article are the values measured by J. Breton, Ann Office natl Combustibles Liquides, 11, 487(1936), as reported (to me anyway) by Lewis & van Elbe, Combustion Flames and Explosions of Gases, 2nd Edition, Academic Press, NY, 1961, p 530. Interestingly, these are the only values reported by Breton and therefore do not constitute an "explosive range". Breton measured detonation velocity as a function of hydrogen concentration in air.

I also found an explosive range quoted in, but they listed the range as 17-56%. They did not list a reference.

The Compressed Gas Handbook, Perry's Handbook, NFPA Fire Protection Handbook (20th Edition), R. J. Harris in Gas Explosions in Buildings and Heating Plants, all indicate that LFL = LEL and UFL = UEL. Therefore, I propose that this explosive range value be deleted, unless someone can come up with a justification.JSR (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Change Accidents to Incidents[edit]

I changed the heading "Accidents" to "Incidents" to be more consistent with industry language and thinking on process safety. Accidents implies unfortunate outcome, sorry it couldn't be helped. No, we have incidents, and incidents have probable causes and contributing factors, as we see on H2Incidents.--Graham Proud (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

As coolant for generators[edit]

"it is also used as a coolant for electric generators in power stations." This is wrong. Liquid hydrogen is not used as a coolant for generators. Gaseous hydrogen is used inside electrical generators because it is light, which reduces windage losses, and is a good conductor of heat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harold14370 (talkcontribs) 09:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)