[Petrochemicals]

That was the original question,

Well done Alan, I wondered whether the thread estrangement would be apparent.

I'm convinced that hydrogen and synthetic liquid fuel is the answer.

How about 2 differing sorts of liquid we could mix together to prevent explosion, similar to the precursors they now use in explosives due to it being so much safer. It would be awfully convenient if planes didn't burst into flames after a bad landing, or Ford Pinto for frying the driver

https://www.tortmuseum.org/ford-pinto/#:~:text=The%20Pinto%2C%20a%20subcompact%20car,production%20and%20onto%20the%20market.

[alancalverd]

Stories of liquid rocket research disasters are horrifying. Any reasonably conventional approach  requires a fuel and an oxidant and for low-altitude power we use ambient air as the oxidant to save having to carry liquid oxygen or hydrogen peroxide around. So what you are looking for is two components that themselves don't oxidise but combine spontaneously to make an oxidisable compound. That is way outside any chemistry I've come across.

[charles1948]

This whole thing reminds me of a comment by Arthur C Clarke.  Stone Age people worried about being cold in their beds at night.  When their beds were on top of a coalfield.

[Bored chemist]

Stories of liquid rocket research disasters are horrifying. Any reasonably conventional approach  requires a fuel and an oxidant and for low-altitude power we use ambient air as the oxidant to save having to carry liquid oxygen or hydrogen peroxide around. So what you are looking for is two components that themselves don't oxidise but combine spontaneously to make an oxidisable compound. That is way outside any chemistry I've come across.

Well, I know the chemistry well enough but I don't think it's the first thing to consider here.
Perhaps Alan has some information on how well segregated things tend to stay when a plane runs out of control.

What happens when the plane crashes and the two precursor chemicals mix?


Given that it's pointless, will everyone just take my word for it that the "two precursors that mix to give a fuel" idea isn't going to work.
It's not really chemistry; it's physics.
Fuel represents stored energy.
If you get it from somewhere then that thing (or pair of things) must contain the stored energy (in order to provide it to the fuel)
And anything that stores enough energy to either fuel a plane, or to produce the fuel for a plane is going to be bad news when the plan crashes.

Same problem whether it's kerosene, batteries or uranium.
Stored energy trashes things if it escapes.
(Any number of model plane builders will vouch for the fact that even a stretched rubber band will demonstrate this issue).

[charles1948]

Rubber bands in model aircraft,  worked very well.  Without lubricating oil. The oil only made your hands get slimy.

The key thing in a model aircraft was:  build a strong fuselage.  To contain the released energy of the band.

Until the energy was successfully transmitted through the fuselage. To the twin-bladed yellow plastic propellor, at the front.

[Bored chemist]

To the twin-bladed yellow plastic propellor, at the front.

Did you just propose a toast?

Anyway, if you overwound  it and the band snapped, the stored energy would certainly trash the doped tissue and probably some of the balsa.

[charles1948]

Let's toast to KeilKraft!

Their balsa wood kits were a very great pleasure.  Also Airfix.  Their plastic kits were enjoyable to glue together.

Without sniffing the polystyrene tubes of cement.

[Bored chemist]

There is, of course, another important form of stored energy in aircraft design.
Crashing a glider is a bad move.
The gravitational potential energy and/ or kinetic energy (often- so I understand- derived from solar energy- though Alan thinks it's because the world is slowing down in a way that, if it was, Stonehenge wouldn't be lined up at the solstice) are also able to cause damage.

[charles1948]

Perhaps Stonehenge is a key to the future.

Suppose its stones were re-arranged.  To take account of changes in the Ecliptic, arising from Precession, and other terrestrial and stellar motions since Stonehenge was built.

Could the stones have value in future observational predictions

[alancalverd]

Well, I know the chemistry well enough

Do tell, BC. The requirement is for two materials that don't oxidise, but combine very rapidly to form a product that does. Nothing in my textbooks.

[charles1948]

Attack BC!  Go on -do it. We like to see the gods contend.

[Bored chemist]

Well, I know the chemistry well enough

Do tell, BC. The requirement is for two materials that don't oxidise, but combine very rapidly to form a product that does. Nothing in my textbooks.

No problem.
I know the chemistry well enough to be able to tell you that two such materials do not (in my fairly considerable  knowledge) exist.
More importantly, they can't (see my previous post),

[set fair (OP)]

In favour of hydrogen generation, when wind and solar are producing more than demand, is that theenergy loss could be offset by
1) In the winter (when your converting it back to electricity) the inneficiency is down to some of the energy is lost to heat which could be used as heat.
2) Converting it back to electricity could use air rather than oxygen - so the oxygen couuld be sold, improving the economics of the process.

[alancalverd]

Absolutely agree, BC, but your reply #23 was a bit Delphic!

You can incorporate kerosene or gasoline in a gel so it won't spread so far if you split the tank, but then you have to un-gel it to get the plane to fly (more to go wrong) and the result of bending a plane full of napalm isn't necessarily better than one full of volatile liquid.  Best option is to call ahead for a foam carpet and crash on a licensed airport.

I heard a controller explaining why he resigned: "Watching a departure one morning I said 'stop stop stop/ fire port engine/ shut down and evacuate right/ fire truck is moving/ other ground traffic stop stop stop / inbound  traffic stand by' and realised my pulse rate had not changed."

[alancalverd]

1) In the winter (when your converting it back to electricity) the inneficiency is down to some of the energy is lost to heat which could be used as heat.

Battersea power station (1929) fed waste heat across the Thames to a block of flats. It's pretty standard in Sweden for small local stations to burn all sorts of waste material and supply hot water to the nearest village. 

However about 30% of UK energy use is for heating of one kind or another, so the most efficient use of hydrogen is directly piped to the home or factory, using the existing gas grid.

[Bored chemist]

However about 30% of UK energy use is for heating of one kind or another, so the most efficient use of hydrogen is directly piped to the home or factory, using the existing gas grid.

People are working on it.
https://hydeploy.co.uk/

"Watching a departure one morning I said 'stop stop stop/ fire port engine/ shut down and evacuate right/ fire truck is moving/ other ground traffic stop stop stop / inbound  traffic stand by' and realised my pulse rate had not changed."

Though I can see his point, I'd sooner have him than Mr "OhMyGod!OhMyGod!OhMyGod!OhMyGod!".

[Petrochemicals]

How about just pressurised inert gas as in air tools. We could extract the heat under compression for our homes and then power our houses with it. It is problematic because it is pressured, but isn't anywhere as problematic as flammable gas.

[alancalverd]

I love air tools. The power/weight ratio of the end tool is around twice that of an electrical equivalent and they are pretty well idiotproof - very resilient to impact or being dropped in a puddle. Unharmed by stalling, and they don't overheat. And remarkably cheap. But the connection to the power source is necessarily heavy (it has to sustain 200 psi to ensure the safety valve blows before the pipe ruptures) and the whole system is extraordinarily inefficient: you need 5 to 7 times the end tool power to drive the compressor for an average garage installation. Domestic gas pressure is about 0.3 psi and a quarter-inch pipe will deliver 10 horsepower, with virtually no transmission loss.

Flammable gas isn't "problematic". Half the houses in the UK use it for heating and cooking every day, and it generates half of our electricity already.

[Petrochemicals]

I love air tools. The power/weight ratio of the end tool is around twice that of an electrical equivalent and they are pretty well idiotproof - very resilient to impact or being dropped in a puddle. Unharmed by stalling, and they don't overheat. And remarkably cheap. But the connection to the power source is necessarily heavy (it has to sustain 200 psi to ensure the safety valve blows before the pipe ruptures) and the whole system is extraordinarily inefficient: you need 5 to 7 times the end tool power to drive the compressor for an average garage installation. Domestic gas pressure is about 0.3 psi and a quarter-inch pipe will deliver 10 horsepower, with virtually no transmission loss.

Flammable gas isn't "problematic". Half the houses in the UK use it for heating and cooking every day, and it generates half of our electricity already.

I would say it is Alan, any fool can go down the filling station and burn some liquid atmosphere heater, but to work on gas you have to be registered and have a fair amount of test kit, not mentioning the criminal liability that goes with it. I

[Bored chemist]

How about just pressurised inert gas as in air tools.

How about not suffocating people?
How about not going to the trouble of getting some inert gas?

How about we turn the clock back a bit further?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_power_network

to work on gas you have to be registered and have a fair amount of test kit, not mentioning the criminal liability that goes with it

Thank you for pointing out the (existing) solutions to the problems which you highlighted.