> On January 17, DARPA announced the next steps of a program to create an aircraft designed to fly entirely on control surfaces that lack the moving parts that airplanes typically use to maneuver. DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, specializes in blue-sky visions, investing in research towards creating new possibilities for technology. In this program, it seeks to change how aircraft alter direction in the sky.

An airplane that can fly without control surfaces could have higher performance, less noise, improved efficiency, and less radar signature compared to a conventional aircraft that uses flaps and ailerons. It could be a significant step forward over what is possible with current aircraft.

I'm guessing a very slow leak out. It will make sense to have multiple redundancies, so at the very least you won't have a sudden release of hydrogen.

> Is active cooling required? “No,” says Brunner. “The insulation we use is enough to keep the system cold. When you drive the truck, you discharge cold gas from the insulated tank which cools down the tank by itself — this is simply thermodynamics. And even if you make a warm filling, you drive again, and it is cooled down again and gets back into the high-density regions of the operating range. So, we never need to actively cool, but instead the system cools itself by being used and by discharging hydrogen.”

So apparently no active cooling needed.

Which is stuff I admitted from the very first post. Yes, it can ignite. With an ignition source. Yes, it is dangerous, but less so than gasoline.

But of course you went off with multiple posts of pure spam and fearmongering before admitting that there is no real danger.

You're plainly trolling at this point. Time to stop and move on.

Then your posts are total gibberish. You are trying to say something while admitting that you aren't trying to make a point at all.

There is nothing to comprehend in your posts. It's just word spam.

If you are admitting that gasoline is not safer, then what's the point of this conversation?

And it's all just bullshit. Hydrogen is lighter than air. It doesn't have time to stay mixed. It's literally what they showed in the video.

Like I said, you are substituting reality with your own imagination here.

Again, you need an ignition source. And for an explosion you need a proper fuel mix. In reality, it will just float away immediately in most cases. A fire would hardly be dangerous compared to what a gasoline fire looks like. You're entirely ignoring actual data.

Like I said, you are just fearmongering. You already are in more danger driving a regular car.

You still need an ignition source for a fire. Not to mention how fast it leaves the vehicle. It also doesn’t explode. You are basically ignoring the videos and substituting your own imagination here.

A balloon isn’t a fuel tank. It is already premixed with air. Even sugar will explode in the right setting.

Again, it is safer than gasoline. This is not a debate anymore. The evidence already made this clear.

It most likely won’t ignite at all even when vented. There needs to be an ignition source. In most cases, the hydrogen just dissipates completely.

You’re simply ignoring the other side of the video: What happens when a gasoline cars catches on fire. That is significantly more dangerous. And we already accept that danger. It’s pointless to fearmonger about something less dangerous.

This is futurology. You're just being a jerk while missing the point.

But no talked about what is better right now.

You're just making a big fuss while basically accepting my point.

It's lighter than air. It won't stay very long. And no, that's not how a hydrogen flame would work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IknzEAs34r0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bFJK5kU_UQ

Explosions technically imply detonation. But if you are going to call all big fires explosions, then gasoline explodes too. You cannot have it both ways.

Anyways, it's already proven that hydrogen is safer than gasoline because people have actually set them on fire before. You're just fearmongering on this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IknzEAs34r0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bFJK5kU_UQ

And yet it is fact that it is safer than gasoline. This is not actually a debate here. People have set both on fire and gasoline is a lot more dangerous:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IknzEAs34r0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bFJK5kU_UQ

Fires can have pressure waves, but that is not an explosion. And if you do call it an explosion, than there are thousands of gasoline explosions all time.

Hydrogen isn't propane FYI. It is a lighter than air gas. Propane is heavier than air.

Are the batteries in your EV free in this example? We're talking about a hypothetical hydrogen car that is effectively identical to a conventional car in basic material needs.

Also, this is not liquid hydrogen. You should read the article.

Even after just now, after a 80% increase in energy density? You do realize that at this density, a few tanks the size of scuba tanks will easily get you 300 miles of range in a hydrogen car? Volume wise, it's basically the same as a gasoline tank in a conventional car. So pretty vast amounts of cost is coming out of that hydrogen car.

And yet you're so certain that this can't be cheaper...

You one caught on fire? These things aren't report very accurately.

Liquid fuels are considered more dangerous because they burn in place. It is not just a "non-explosive puddle." It is a carpet of flames if it ignites. This is a very dangerous situation since it can trap someone in a car during a fire.

A gas, especially one that is much lighter than air, will quickly dissipate. It will have a much lower chance of fire and any fire that does happen will not stay in place. The danger is only during the moments when gas is leaking.

Cost would be a different subject. No one brought that up until you did just now.

Also, you should expect cost to come down for any technology. Especially one that is radically superior to what came before it.