Comments (23) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   Ms. Ima said, 3 months ago

   Liberals still blame Bush.
2. 

   Bruce4671 said, 3 months ago

   Talk about a waste of money.
   
   OK, a “spark” seems to be the culprit that ignited a hydrogen leak. (duh) Knew that in the 1937. But what caused the spark? Static electricity build up being grounded. You know how to do this at home. Cold dry day, socks on the rug, shuffle the feet and reach for a metal object ….ZAP.
   
   And it took 76 years to study this? And why?
3. 

   Harleyquinn said, 3 months ago

   I wonder how much was spent on that instead of the poor kids and sick kids and grandma eating cat food, Obama told us about?
4. 

   sclark55 said, 3 months ago

   Are they sure they can’t blame that on Bush?
5. 

   Radish said, 3 months ago

   I blame it on Prescott Bush.
6. 

   NeoconMan said, 3 months ago

   @Ms. Ima

   Ms. Ima said, “Liberals still blame Bush.”

   
   Indeed. And they still blame Hitler for the Holocaust too. Time to stop this blame game and to take responsibility.
7. 

   I Play One On TV said, 3 months ago

   Yet I remember a president who wanted to start building cars using hydrogen as fuel. Imagine one of those getting into a disagreement with an 18-wheeler or a suburban assault vehicle. And you thought the Pinto was a fire waiting to happen (yes, this did happen much more frequently and under much more normal conditions than the Volt).
8. 

   kato1979 said, 3 months ago

   @Ms. Ima

   Why not, it’s his fault.
9. 

   dtroutma said, 3 months ago

   And “conservatives”, “the religious” and “evangelicals” still blame Jesus!! Muslims blame Mohammed! Then there are Buddhists and other folks who “blame” their “situation” on dudes who died centuries ago, but still have huge impact on lives today.
10. 

    Rockngolfer said, 3 months ago

    I thought it was the coating on the skin, cellulose nitrate or cellulose acetate and aluminum powder (which is part of some rocket fuel) that was sparked by lightning or static electricity.
    Hydrogen flames are invisible.
11. 

    mikefive said, 3 months ago

    @dtroutma

    Buddhists not so much, trout.
12. 

    cjr53 said, 3 months ago

    Does anyone else here know that the canvas cover on the Hindenburg was made gas-tight by coating it with a substance more flammable than gasoline? That hydrogen is lighter than air and therefore burned up and away from the passenger cabin? And that the gasoline-like substance is what burned the people? And that the hydrogen fuel tank on a car is every bit as safe as a gasoline fuel tank?

    No… I din’t think so.
13. 

    Bruce4671 said, 3 months ago

    @Rockngolfer

    Hmmmm, interesting. Well, hydrogen may burn invisibly but the rest of that dirigible did not.
14. 

    cjr53 said, 3 months ago

    Except Rockngolfer, he knew.
15. 

    I Play One On TV said, 3 months ago

    @cjr53

    “And that the hydrogen fuel tank on a car is every bit as safe as a gasoline fuel tank?”

    No, I didn’t know that. I thank you for your information. I was taught in school that hydrogen is extremely flammable, but did not know that it burned without flame. I suppose the outcome would have been the same, because once the hydrogen burned out, even if the skin did not catch fire, the craft would lose its ability to float, and come crashing down to earth. But I appreciate the info.

    Just as an interesting aside, today’s gasoline is not as volatile as you might think. I know it can explode under the right circumstances (especially under pressure) but I saw a guy flick a lit cigarette into a tub of gasoline, and it went out. Do not try this at home.
16. Load the rest of the comments (8).