How NASA Detected Invisible Fires... With Brooms

[@rora9553]

My dad used to work at a power plant. They also carried broomsticks because “steam -true steam- is invisible and will cut through human flesh before you know it’s there.” They would hold the broom or in front of them. They knew they found the steam leak when the broom was “cut”.

[@DreamTheory1994]

you are talking about the superheated steam. the real high pressure stuff that is so hot and dry its invisible. a pin hole leak is like an invisible knife that can cut and melt your flesh right off. wave the broom and when the bristles start getting blown apart or just cut off you found the leak.

[@IdiotSoupMan]

Bro, could you imagine an invisible knife just randomly in your path?? I would be so paranoid.

[@lyrimetacurl0]

​@@IdiotSoupMan invisible ultra sharp sword

[@eleatus2163]

That's terrifying

[@bemybff205]

I just imagine someone's first day at NASA, they get handed a broom and says "You're a scientist now, Harry"

[@angelwhispers2060]

As funny as that is now. Harry was a fairly common name back then and it probably happened several times without ever being funny without the cultural reference. Being handed the most basic piece of janitorial equipment and being told you're a scientist and then what you have to do with the broom was likely a fairly common first day gag on the newbies.

[@Archie11587]

When I fisrt webt theough my Hydrogen training I thought they were messing with me. Like "go get the glass bender." It took like the next 20 minutes for them to convince me I wasn't the butt of some joke 😂

[@3_up_moon]

I heard this in Cave Johnson's voice over

[@ScientiaHistoria]

Old lame joke: A college graduate starts his first day at a company and is handed a broom “A broom? I’m a college graduate!” “It’s okay, we’ll show you how to use it.”

[@ConanObrien22]

Lmaoo

[@jeffhurckes190]

The US Navy uses brooms to help find high pressure steam leaks.

[@berniecornali1890]

@Rockfarmer High pressure gases coming out of a small hole can act like an invisible knife; both impossible to see and very dangerous. They wave the broom in front of them and when the end falls off they have found the leak.

[@danielculver2209]

My uncle worked in a coal-fired power plant decades ago, same thing there but a mop.

[@Kremit_the_Forg]

​@@berniecornali1890this, and the fact that super heated steam is able to ignite / melt things.

[@100nanay]

My brother was a fireman (aka machinist) in the 1970’s, on the USS Coral Sea, an old aircraft carrier. He told me stories of jets of steam cutting through a broomstick.

[@ConstantChaos1]

I just use them for witchcraft

[@AILIT1]

And to think, there's a faction in the US that considers all things that relate to NASA as a waste of money. It's really short-sighted. Nearly every part of our lives is possibly effected by tech that was developed to help with space programs. Go science! Go NASA! 🚀

[@justayoutuber1906]

Spend a trillion get a million back. Great investment

[@justasandvich7168]

​@@justayoutuber1906You talking about the military? NASA gets far less than those guys

[@spvillano]

@@justayoutuber1906 typed on a computer that's a linear descendant of NASA's computers. What do we get back from our investment on a destroyer?

[@battleon81]

@@justayoutuber1906 If you only look at economic impact, NASA actually contributes 3x more to the economy than it takes from the federal budget. It had an economic output of over $71 billion on a federal budget of just $23 billion in 2021.

[@tisjester]

@@spvillano We get all kinds of ROI on a Destroyer / Thermal Nuclear Warheads / Main Battle tanks lol. Just from a science standpoint. Solving problems for military use has lead to most high level inventions. Everything from Computers to Cell phones to GPS are all due to military projects and engineering. I get your anti-war sentiment, but the truth is War and preparing for it has brought us the greatest innovations of our time. NASA and space exploration have brought us parallel innovations.

[@kerb4095]

A friend of mine worked on refurbishing a rocket engine test stand at NASA's Marshall Spaceflight Center recently, and he was actually taught to use the broom method if all other technological measures failed. It's pretty surprising that it's actually still in use today, even if only as a final backup.

[@matthewjohns1758]

It’s cheap and it works. What more could you want?

[@smnbrgss]

If it ain’t broke… don’t fix it…?

[@jaykoerner]

NASCAR and engineers for Navy steam engines also use the broom method

[@LetsTalkAboutPrepping]

Still use our noses to detect noxious fumes when all else fails, too. Much as we want to think otherwise, life hasn't come so far from yesteryear

[@markholm7050]

Hydrogen is used in rockets, not specifically because it is light, but because it has high specific impulse. This has to do with the energy released per molecule burned and the mass of the combustion product molecules. For hydrogen burned with oxygen, the combustion product is water, having a molecular weight of 18, the lowest of all combustion products. in fact, liquid hydrogen’s low density is a headache for rocket designers because it requires huge fuel tanks to hold as much mass as they need.

[@spvillano]

Well, the V2 used ethanol for fuel, around 80 proof at that. The water in the ethanol helped keep the combustion chamber cool.

[@spindash64]

That makes me wonder if any rockets have attempted to use a fuel/oxidizer mix that tries to get as much energy per unit _volume_ rather than specifically per unit _mass._ Rocket equation is a cruel mistress of course, but it does potentially mean more momentum in the exhaust. Not expecting it to be BETTER than the current method, mind you…

[@michaelmicek]

It's not because it's light, it's because it has high specific impulse, which it has ... because it's light. (Now if only we could use light, that would really be something, cf. Andy Weir's latest novel _Project Hail Mary_ , because light is really light. )

[@whatelseison8970]

@@spindash64 LOX and RP1 would be an example of that. RP1 is more highly refined form of jet fuel/kerosene. There is a rocket concept called the nuclear saltwater rocket that would be fueled by an aqueous solution of highly enriched uranium or plutonium salts. Scott Manley did a fascinating video on a paper detailing the idea. Just to give an idea of the kind of energy density that would have, fissioning U or Pu releases ~200MeV per atom while any conceivable chemical reaction used in rocketry releases a handful of eV.

[@rogerwilco2]

That is what she meant with "light and powerful", not everyone will understand high specific impulse.

[@JavSusLar]

One hundred years ago, my grandfather served in the "aerostation corps". They flew, as he used to say, hanging from a bomb. To inflate the balloon, a hose carried hydrogen from the tank to the balloon. Along the entire length of the hose was a box filled with sand. A soldier held a rope that would drop the sand onto the hose in case of fire. The soldier had to be in a standing position in order to activate the mechanism on time, because relaxed attention could mean the difference between life and death.

[@83fleafan]

I guarantee the first guy to walk around with the broom and see it catch fire, keeping him from walking into an invisible blaze, didn't feel "silly".

[@billkallas1762]

Superheated steam that was used to drive WWII warships can also leak. Being invisible it was hard to detect without coming into contact with it (which usually results in instant death from the high temps). In WWII, brooms were used to detect leaks. Brooms were held so that the straw was up by the leaking pipes. If it would come in contact with superheated steam, the straw would explode from the high heat.

[@Starphot]

I remembered watching the Mercury and Gemini flights as a kid in the 1960's. They used a broomstick to flick switches out of reach through the chain link on the gantry to get the countdown restarted at least a couple of times to prevent a scrub.

[@joewhite2610]

That hydrogen detection tape is an excellent example of why it's so important to keep NASA well-funded.

[@justayoutuber1906]

That is about a 0.000094% return on investment. Just fund tape research directly.

[@spvillano]

And NASA are renowned experts in prevention of hydrogen embrittlement.

[@spvillano]

@@justayoutuber1906 what is the return on investment on thermonuclear warheads and main battle tanks?

[@argon7624]

​@@justayoutuber1906 Bro the inventions would've literally never been researched had NASA not pioneered the technologies through necessity.

[@benblas164]

My favorite part about this is the picture of probably the most expensive "tape" on earth being held on with zipties xD

[@rustywater3219]

I've heard of boiler operators using the broom stock method to find pinhole leaks, which release steam at high enough pressure to cut through the broom stick

[@HweolRidda]

I think it is the heat of the steam that destroys the broom, not its pressure.

[@rustywater3219]

@N Allanson its the high pressure.. boilers can blow and/or shoot itself down the street if safety devices are defeated. Also look into water jet cutting.

[@zanedobler]

Fun fact that contradicts a statement in this video: Helium atoms are smaller than hydrogen atoms because their electron orbitals are pulled closer to the nucleus due to the higher positive charge from the protons. Also, gaseous hydrogen exists as H2 and is a larger molecule than helium regardless. In short, helium is even harder to contain than hydrogen, so it’s a good thing that it’s chemically inert.

[@SuLokify]

Helium will straight up phase through solid matter if it's cold enough lol

[@zanedobler]

@@SuLokify I’m pretty sure that’s not possible? Superfluid helium can climb walls because it has zero viscosity, and it can easily flow into any pores the container may have, but in general I would say it doesn’t just pass through solid material.

[@SuLokify]

@@zanedobler Doesn't even need to be that cold, he3 and he4 can both tunnel through surprisingly thick vessels. He4 as a superfluid will pass through in a big way if enough momentum is involved

[@zanedobler]

@@SuLokify Source?

[@GnomaPhobic]

I love SciShow episodes that combine History and Science. Very interesting to watch and learn!

[@starrywizdom]

That chemochromic tape is epically awesome, but there's also something epic & awesome about the lotech solution of walking around with brooms to see if the bristles ignite. Thanks for reminding me why I love science, Savannah!

[@jase_allen]

The moment I read the video's title, I envisioned the Wicked Witch of the West using a hydrogen fire to light her broom on fire to threaten Scarecrow with.

[@speckleburst5430]

Perfect pin placement by the way. Makes the toucan look 3D 👌

[@Cyberwolf9999]

I came here for the broom stick and now I want to know about that wonderful tape😂 how much it costs, what it is compounded of, so many endless questions 😂😂 I even have some ideas for kevlar 😂 I believe researchers are the true heroes in our world, doing dangerous experiments etc.

[@vinnieg6161]

"But boss, it has no smell and invisible flames with crazy temperatures and it's easy to leak!" - just walk around with a broom

[@hamsesalex7613]

I haven’t watched the video yet but based on the title, I’m assuming they held out the brooms in front of themselves, and if it ignited, they ran for their lives.

[@AlexTorres-fo5eo]

Good assumption.

[@InvictusByz]

Was just gonna comment the same. If the broom catches on (normal) fire for no apparent reason, you have detected an invisible fire.

[@ConstantChaos1]

Naw they just paired it with an athame and some sage

[@Hurc7495]

I'm told you can locate a super heated steam leak in a similar way, only the broom gets cut in half!

[@RovingTroll]

Some cases aren't visible, so I bet if the straw btoom started burning, it was a fire

[@troyclayton]

2:00 Simplest element rather than simplest matter. Hydrogen is comprised of smaller pieces of matter which are not elements. Thanks for the video! : )

[@ConstantChaos1]

And it's not really the simplest, there is muonium

[@troyclayton]

@@ConstantChaos1 Thanks, I had no idea!

[@ConstantChaos1]

@Troy Clayton yeah it's made with an antimuon and an electronic making it way lighter and it's only mase of fundamental participants

[@roystonboodoo7525]

I admire the conciseness and rapid fluency of scientific facts presented in this channel videos.

[@morsecodereviews1553]

I'm still chuckling from the thought of a bunch of smart folks walking around waving brooms 😂

[@sarahbaugher8272]

I'm so glad you all did a video on this because I have seen a meme floating around about it and was curious if it were true!

[@konradcomrade4845]

1.:19 The Hindenburg was painted with aluminum paint (from BASF?), which was supposed to be electrically conductive, but later tests proved it wasn't. So the protection against electrostatic discharges was not good enough.

[@patrickb8134]

It wasn't just the conductivity of the skin. The skin was attached in such a way that the skin and metal frame were held apart. Moving through the air built up charge on the skin and turned the whole thing into a giant capacitor. Once it was connected to ground, it discharged and the sparks between the skin and frame ignited the hydrogen. Nova just did an amazing documentary if you want to learn more.

[@juliusdorneich8546]

The zip tie's end isn't cut flushly at its head. The new cutted end is sharp and poses a risk of injury. :(

[@I.____.....__...__]

Qxir did a video about the dangers of invisible fires in car-racing using methanol. It's so surreal to see a video of a guy that's on fire but there are no flames, it looks like he's just dancing. 😬

[@rickseiden1]

"We've got this really expensive and technically complex tape that will detect hydrogen leaks. We need to wrap it around the joints in the pipes, but how are we going to do it?" "I know, let's get some zip-ties down at Lowes."

[@StonedtotheBones13]

If it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid?

[@rickseiden1]

@@StonedtotheBones13 it's still stupid, but it works, so it's ok.

[@davidt3563]

Invisible fire is terrifying. I also couldn't imagine just doing my random work and the hydrogen alarm starts going off. Surprise your workplace might just explode!

[@seriousmaran9414]

Invisible fire can and has happened on US aircraft carriers. Hindenburg burning is very visible plus hydrogen being light rises quickly.

[@I.____.....__...__]

@@seriousmaran9414 It also happens in car-racing because of the methanol. Qxir did a video about that it's bizarre to see a guy on fire but it looks like he's just dancing.

[@seriousmaran9414]

@@I.____.....__...__ the Hindenburg was covered in an aluminium paint, similar to the stuff used in Artemis/Space Shuttle boosters as rocker fuel. Light silver touch paper, stand well back. Methanol is much worse than hydrogen as it stays on the person while burning. Hydrogen takes an instant opportunity to escape up, making it much less likely to catch fire or burn something.

[@HweolRidda]

The moral of the Hindenburg was "do not store hydrogen in a highly flamable bag". A non-flamable container is relatively safe because any flame is limited by the rate that oxygen can get to it. If the bag burns you have both a burning bag and lots of available oxygen. A flame at a hole in a non-flamable hydrogen container creates the local equivalent to a blow torch, which is a very bad thing, but not the Hindenburg disaster.

[@chrstfer2452]

Pretty sure it involved the aluminum based paint with the hindenburg too, and im disappointed you didnt mention it.

[@johnpublic6582]

I'm pretty sure it involved oxygen from the surrounding air and I'm horrified they didn't mention that either.

[@chrstfer2452]

@@johnpublic6582 i was referencing a famous episode of mythbusters.

[@sleekoduck]

My cousin was one of the NASA engineers who worked on the project under Addison Bain to debunk the hydrogen gas explosion hypothesis. It was the aluminum paint. They did extensive tests on the fabric from the zeppelin at NASA's labs.

[@sleekoduck]

@@johnpublic6582 I was a chemistry major when I started college and one of my profs got his jollies from exploding balloons filled with hydrogen, oxygen, and other gases, first thing in the morning in the lecture hall. None of them behaved like the Hindenburg. 🎈🎆

[@Rubrickety]

Of course, brooms come with their own risks. #Sorcerersapprentice

[@LordOceanus]

Sounds a bit like how you check for a high pressure steam leak on a naval vessel. You stick the broom out in front of you and carefully circle it around the hallway. When you only have half a broom you've found the leak.

[@LordOceanus]

@@kellyharbeson18 Exactly hence the broom

[@peggedyourdad9560]

@Kelly Harbeson That sounds like a great premise for a horror game actually. I think having horror/thriller games just based off of having to perform highly dangerous jobs would be very interesting in general.

[@Manj_J]

@@peggedyourdad9560 I agree, I need a game like this now!

[@samramdebest]

Wouldn't you just feel the heat if you're one broomstick distance away from a 2000° fire?

[@angrypastabrewing]

Yes but the idea would be to toss the broomstick away from you. Lol

[@danielculver2209]

Heat mainly goes up because combustion product is water (18g/mol), not a mixture of CO2 (44g/mol) and water. Infrared would be less intense than sunlight, so you'd need to be close

[@spvillano]

The heat of a hydrogen fire is 932 degrees F. Nowadays, we'd just use a FLIR camera to see cold gas escaping or hot combustion products where they shouldn't be. But, the additional detection from the tape is more than welcome, as hydrogen is a royal PIA to find leaks. Still, one thing stands in the way of widespread hydrogen use as a fuel, hydrogen embrittlement. The hydrogen permeates pretty much every metal, making it brittle over time. Although, some will laughably complain about hydrogen being a risk because it's flammable. I simply ask, "Isn't gasoline flammable?" and watch their eyes cross. Gasoline burns at 532 degrees F, for those interested in trivia.

[@johnpublic6582]

Depends on the size of the fire. Can you feel the heat of a lit candle from 6 feet away?

[@johnpublic6582]

@@spvillano Yes, and we can smell a gasoline leak long before it displaces all the oxygen in a space. Hydrogen in a confined space you eather pass out and never know why, or you burn up. DOT and OSHA put severe limits on transporting metal bottles filled with 1000s of PSI of any gas, even inert ones, but we are all supposed to start driving them around next year? Silly. It's fine for NASA to spend $10 million on safety procedures while filling their tank, but I can't afford that, and there is no foreseeable way to make the needed precautions cheap enough even for commercial vehicles.

[@koharumi1]

Methanol fires are also invisible. (In daylight)

[@HayTatsuko]

Racers can point you right to another fuel capable of producing invisible fire: methanol. See: Rick Mears and his crew experiencing a methanol pit fire during the 1991 Indianapolis 500. It is something never to be forgotten, once seen -- moments of sheer panic and confusion.

[@MaxWelton]

They pointed the brooms in various directions until the end caught fire. That told them where the fire began (I commented this before seeing the video)

[@timmayer7248]

I work at a natural gas based power plant, and I can tell you all, natural gas DOES burn very clean, and the gases emitted from the burning of it are very strictly controlled so as to be very miniscule with regards to any environmental concerns. That being said, in the event of any possible fires, we have used brooms and sticks with rags on them to test areas where there could be "invisible fire", rather than simply walking into said area. Much safer that way lol.

[@brucehill1220]

Works for high pressure steam leaks also

[@tiffanymarie9750]

It's wild to me that the Hindenburg disaster was enough to kaput the passenger airship industry, but passenger plane industry is going strong after countless disasters of it's own.

[@cappie2000]

crashing and dying quickly does not sound as horrible as burning to death while you're just about to land or take off..

[@michaelmicek]

Yeah... wonder how things would have been different if Germany had a source of helium. They were also starting WW2, though. Airships don't seem very practical in wartime.

[@bhami]

3:33 That video clip is misleading, because the first stage of the Saturn V (the S-IC) was fueled by RP-1 (kerosene), not hydrogen. The second and third stages (S-II and S-IVB) were hydrogen-powered. The reason was that a first-stage hydrogen rocket would take up too much volume. RP-1 has a higher power density.

[@shawnholbrook7278]

Ok so, I remember the hint was h2, white powder , and the tube things. What is the white powder for? I did guess fuel, but brooms were a good surprise.

[@newshodgepodge6329]

Had an mmpog buddy who worked at an oil refinery in Kuwait. One day he was telling me about their hydrogen furnace and how its operating temperature was something like 2K or 3K degrees. You do you. I'll watch from over here. If that thing ever got out of control... 😬

[@jasonmajere2165]

The hydrogen zeppelins didn't go up that easily. WW1 pilots had trouble shooting them down even with tracer shots. Thought the coating of the Hindenberg was one the causes of it going up so easily.

[@snakes_shadow3539]

It was legit a form of thermite. Layers of iron paints and aluminum paints may not have mixed together like normal thermite, but the layers were thin enough that it didn't really matter. It's probably also why the flames were as visible as they were- hydrogen fires are nearly invisible in the best of lighting conditions, but the flames of the hindeburg were very, very visible.

[@llamatronian101]

​@@snakes_shadow3539 iirc the flames weren't that visible in person. The cameras of the time picked up more than humans could see.

[@snakes_shadow3539]

@Llamatronian I'm not sure I can believe that, but I can't remember at what stage the camera technology was at back then. I do know that the tests run by the Mythbusters were remarkably similar to the recorded fires of the Hindenburg, even with the different lighting conditions, different scale, and better cameras. I feel it's much more likely that it was widely known that hydrogen was used- and experts knew and were willing to share the risks of hydrogen fires- but fact that the paint was basically thermite WASN’T well known. Who would expect separate layers of paint to react that way, after all? So the belief that the cameras caught more than the human eye could spread as if it were fact, and the facts about the paint became an urban legend.

[@HweolRidda]

​​​@@llamatronian101 Silver based camera film from those days was indeed more sensitive to blue and near ultraviolet than the human eye. That said the way the Hindenburg disaster unrolled was clearly the envelope burning, not a simple hydrogen fire. A spark ignited some hydrogen leak and the hydrogen flame ignited the fabric.

[@LFTRnow]

This video feels like it got things about 80% right and the tape is cool. 1) The hydrogen in the Hindenburg did burn obviously, but there are a lot of discussions pointing out that the fire didn't START in the hydrogen, but more likely in the metal paint and then spread. The Mythbusters looked into this extensively and did some tests. 2) hydrogen has pretty awful energy density so it is unlikely to be powering cars, to say nothing of the fact that if you burn it rather than use it in a fuel cell, you still make nitrogen oxide pollution, so not THAT environmentally friendly. 3) Hydrogen is a store of energy (and not a great one short of being liquified) and is not a "fuel SOURCE", as it requires energy to produce, much more than you get out of it. 4) Hydrogen can also get into most metals, not just tiny cracks and "embrittle" metal by making chemical hydrides out of them, which makes for very risky (and expensive) pipelines and tanks. There's arguably a 5 and 6 this covers most of it.

[@peronik349]

In a similar style, (mountains of technological marvels which in fact use rather simple or even basic techniques) there is the Soviet (then Russian) soyuz ignition system. Soyuz rockets have at their base, 16 nozzles in 4 groups of 4 each of them must be ignited at the same time. the solution found by the technicians is rather simple "a match" in each nozzle. this match (in the shape of an inverted T in wood) is more like an igniter that can be found in rocket kits for amateurs

[@nathanokun8801]

Aft3er WWII the US Navy developed higher and higher pressures in its ship boilers to improve efficiency and reduce the size of the engine/boiler systems for a given ship size. In the end they were using 1200-pound/square-inch boilers in many of their later ships. If one of these had a leak, the pressure was so great that the steam formed only became visible far away from the hole causing it. If you moved in the way of such an invisible leak it could CUT YOU IN HALF! Thus, just like NASA, broomsticks were held in front of the people trying to find such leaks so that one would be sliced in two as it waved through a leak. Great minds think alike!

[@jamaririptoe8555]

When I used to work vacuumed and pressurized tanks We used napkins to identify leaks same thinking tho

[@bbbenj]

Thanks 😊

[@RaquelFoster]

It's weird that the Hindenburg still gets so much attention. In 1930 the R101 crashed and killed 48 passengers, ending the British passenger airship industry. In 1933 the airship USS Akron crashed into the ocean and killed 73 passengers. Then in 1937 the Hindenburg crashed and killed 36 people. I guess those epic pictures of the flaming Hindenburg on the front page of every newspaper really got everybody's attention. Fun fact: The Zeppelin company constructed the Hindenburg using several tons of aluminum salvaged from the wreckage of the R101.

[@riverbender9898]

Great video! Thank you.

[@robsonwilianwinchester9726]

The state aren't necessarily evil. #ancapsu #ideiasradicais

[@F_L_U_X]

🎶 Carry on, my wayward spark... There'll be peace when you are done 🎶

[@peter4210]

MAJOR CORRECTION: Hydrogen as a fuel is only clean on your high-school homework where you are given magical theoretical pure hydrogen and balance the reaction with oxygen to form H2O. In effect, all NASA's hydrogen-oxygen rockets do emit a large amount of steam which would make clouds that rained down range. How ever the problem is were the Hydrogen actually comes from. In your High school college class you are also told that hydrogen can be extracted from water using hydrolyses which gives you a vial half filled with hydrogen and a vial with roughly 2 times the amount of hydrogen in oxygen. The problem is that doing hydrolyses requires electricity, that electricity has to come from somewhere. Even with 100% efficiency in power generation and in hydrolysis, you would have to use 1 unit of energy to make a hydrogen and then you would have to carry that hydrogen somewhere, burn it as fuel to get 1 unit of energy back. So instead of just using that 1 unit of energy on what you need, you are wasting it on making hydrogen to then use it else where. When you take the inefficiency into account like the fact that 1 big power generator is more efficient then shipping the fuel off to many small units (like car engines) and burning it there and that the process of hydrolysis is inefficient you are wasting way more then 1 unit of energy to get 1 back. we are talking like over 3 units of energy to 1 unit from the hydrogen. All the hydrogen that you can buy cheaply these days for welding and other application comes from the oil industry, they don't use hydrolysis by burning petrol to fuel the hydrolysis but they actually use a simple reaction while processing the petrol to extract the hydrogen from the petrol molecules. In fact this reaction is way more efficient even on paper. sadly even though electric cars that use lithium ion batteries are making pollution from the production of the batteries. They are the most efficient form of transport as the power commes directly from the high efficiency power plant to your home and into your battery where it is then stored in your cars battery. wasting less fuel then if you were to have every one use a gas engine. in fact, Global energy efficiency would go up if every one had electric battery cars since the energy would only be produce in efficient plants and not in very inefficient gas piston engines. (this is why the unreleased Tesla Roadster 2022 is more powerfull and faster for 200k USD then the couple of million dollars Bugatti and the tesla is heavier. Battery to AC motor is just way more efficient) SOURCE OF THE "Hydrogen is the clean fuel of the future" MISINFORMATION Oil companies have invested heavenly in all car companies other then Tesla to develop functional hydrogen car. Water coming out of the car instead of CO2 makes it look cleaner on a micro scale. so they can use slogans like "fueled by water" with water droplet logos in green. basically green washing the petrol industry. As part of their massive funding efforts, they have payed a lot of mercenary journalist to make stories and independent looking propaganda on hydrogen cars and engines. I remember a period of time where my adverts on youtube were just about how green hydrogen cars were compared to electric cars when in reality, current generation of electric cars only win out due to the efficiency of powerplants and the grid. battery cars know that they can't hide the use of heavy metals in their production and all efforts on that front are on better batteries since they would also reduce the cost of production, puting a final nail in the coffin of gas and oil.

[@johnpublic6582]

Gasoline engines have now hit 45% efficiency. That doesn't help the current fleet, but it is good going forward. OTOH 50% of all electricity generated at your magical efficient power plant is lost in the transmission lines before it gets to the inefficient DC charge controller for your battery before it is run through your inefficient boost converter from the battery to the car motor that turns some of the electricity back into motion. So electric cars are at best 5% better than gas if you ignore all the steps after power plant and you ignore all the processes in creating these terribly toxic batteries.

[@michaelmicek]

I believe she alluded to the process of making hydrogen from hydrocarbons at 3:12 "fuel byproducts can be prevented from entering the atmosphere more easily".

[@peter4210]

@@johnpublic6582 I didn't give any number because they are meaningless to the average Joe but I did mention these points. The major point was the Hydrogen engines are a green wash from the petrol industry. It's also a point against gas car since when you do 40% a couple billion of times for the power efficiency when you have 60% from one big power plants, that's a lot of petrol that wont be needed anymore. the magical power plant scenario is a world were everything is at 100%. Your numbers provided are also magical. 45% on current fleet is a number gotten in a lab environment, with a perfect custom engine that is still clean and new. the real state of efficiency is around 35-40% still. a lot of that efficiency goes down when you conciser that a gas engine gets less efficient over time and that they are made in mass manufacturing and not by a team of engineer as a prototype. Powerplants all use their fuel to power steam turbine which get over 60% efficiency on a good day. their parts are always maintained and due to the nature of steam and the good alloys used, the engines don't lose that much efficiency over time. as for power line efficiency, it depends on the distance and the state of the line. electric vehicle now all come with inverters which allow for power generation from the vehicle in motion. sure it's not efficient but it still makes a huge impact. on the energy usage of the vehicle. people with electric motorcycles in cities can spend a week or two with out plugin in their bikes due to the regenerative breaking. while a road tripe on the highway will drain their batteries due to constant use of power. Even with out regenerative braking, a electric battery vehicle only uses its energy when it needs too. a gas car basically goes to 0% efficiency as soon are you are stopped with the engine on which in a city is most of the time. But wait there is more. Electric motors still have better energy to power and movement then a gas engine and have more torque which is what allows them to outperform gas cars while being heavier. you can love a good old car how ever you want. I know I do love myself some classic well maintained models but you can't fight how efficient electric cars are and the heavy metals for the magnets and the batteries are being actively reduced and researched for cleaner and cheaper alternatives. Except for the lithium batteries, the magnets can actually be recycled very well. you can take an old motor and recycle it into something more powerful with out losing much material or having to melt it all down. gas engine on the other hand need melting and then machining. all over again.

[@michaelmicek]

But the energy for making hydrogen _could_ come from carbon-free wind. They were considering this in I think the Hebrides (lots of wind but no good way to get it out), but of course they still needed to find a catalyst to make electrolysis efficient enough.

[@peter4210]

@@michaelmicek hydrolysis will never be efficient enough to make hydrogen cars worth it.

[@MrsBrit1]

I bet they felt like the Wicked Witch of the West, scaring off Scarecrow. 😂

[@DeputatKaktus]

Unfun fact: Invisible fire has also been an issue in racing. Methanol also burns with a near invisible flame. Very faint blue in fact, just like hydrogen, but in daylight it is impossible to see. There have been refuelling accidents where people were literally on fire and no one outside knew until their clothes started charring/melting. Their screaming, spastic twitching and trying to run away was the only other indication of something being wrong. Talk about nightmare fuel.

[@celticlass8573]

Really interesting video!

[@18matts]

The host in this video is a great fit for scishow

[@Dモーガン]

You unlocked a new character! > Witch in a spacesuit

[@alexSN1994times2]

That's an ominous freaking thumbnail lol

[@Yo-Me]

NASA Scientist 1: "Oh no, the gas pressure is decreasing!" NASA Scientist 2: "All right, time to get out the broom"

[@PossiblyABird]

Good shirt

[@philbowflaggon8363]

I heard the same story from a professor of mechanical engineering long ago except instead of leaking hydrogen it was supercritical steam (powerplant) and the broomsticks were sliced by the invisible but deadly supercritical leaks. I wonder if this is the true version of that anecdote. Anyone here ever heard of that?

[@RD9_Designs]

Both are true, judging by the video and the many comments about people that used the broom to detect steam leaks. Come back and read the comments.

[@stax6092]

Neat.

[@Swishy_Blue]

Iam the god of invisible fire and I bring you - Fire! (De-nah) Poke it with fiber brooms! Fire! (Dene-nah) Save you from horrid doom!

[@RaquelFoster]

0:44 Had been a-ferryin'? I like her style.

[@jangschoen1019]

YOU'RE NOT ON FIRE, RICKY!

[@fredsasse9973]

A few points: First, at least twice it was mentioned in the video that hydrogen is a "fuel source", it's not. All free hydrogen is produced at with a negative net gain in energy (i.e. it takes more energy to make it, either through electrolysis or steam reforming of natural gas) than you can get back out of the hydrogen produced. Second, refineries have been effectively producing and utilizing hydrogen for many decades prior to NASA even existing. On a side note, as an engineer in the US Navy operating 1200 PSI, 980 degree F steam plants, a broom was the preferred tool to use to locate steam leaks.

[@Dsyphus0]

isnt hydrogen only used in the main rocket of spaceships. not the booster rockets we generally see during takeoff?

[@KeithFeickert]

The Delta IV Heavy uses three boosters fueled by hydrogen 🚀

[@Imagonem]

For the SLS and the Space Shuttle, both the main engines and the solid booster rockets are fired at takeoff, but the boosters are responsible for around 80% the thrust for the first two minutes or so. The boosters also produce a very bright flame and thick smoke, while the hydrogen powered main engines are almost invisible in comparison, even at full power.

[@rednammoc]

As there's no universal definition of "booster", and different companies use different terminologies, I'll try and sidestep that here. I'm also going to ignore air-launched rockets and hybrid motors here too for brevity, but anyway to build on what's been said: Launch vehicles use either liquid or solid propellants in their first stages (lit at launch), and often both (e.g. SLS, Shuttle, Ariane 5). Liquid stages have better fuel efficiency (specific impulse) than their solid counterparts, but historically it has been easier/cheaper to get lots of thrust from solid motors than from liquid engines - though the economics changes somewhat with re-usability. At launch, while a stage's fuel efficiency is important, having more thrust is even more useful because high acceleration reduces the amount of fuel burnt simply to keep the rocket from heading downwards (gravity losses). Hence the tendency for launch vehicles to use solid props in their earlier stages, while liquid for upper stages also has the benefit of being able to be throttled/shut down to achieve the desired trajectory. Liquid hydrogen is often used on upper stages because of the high specific impulse achievable (e.g. Saturn V, Atlas-Centaur). They aren't confined to upper stages though - Ariane 5 (and 6), SLS (and Shuttle before it) all use liquid hydrogen first stages, but they do have to supplement them with solid motors to have enough thrust to launch. Delta IV Heavy is unique (AFAIK) in using liquid hydrogen stages as boosters to make up the thrust needed. If you can design in enough thrust, hydrogen has some advantages like fuel efficiency, optimised fuelling infrastructure, easier launch vehicle handling due to reduced dry mass (compared to solids), possibly common engine design/testing.

[@valiroime]

And here, all I’ve use brooms for is to sweep up dust from my floor (ooooh). Go me!

[@cabbagekitten]

This video could have been 4mins +sponsorship which I would've preferred.

[@Sembazuru]

The broom trick must have been an industry standard practice. My father told me about that trick from his job at DuPont. But your description of H2 gas being likely to ignite under pressure wasn't quite how my father explained it. His explanation was that hydrogen acts a little differently than most gasses, increasing in temperature under a sudden pressure loss. (Most gasses get cold under a sudden pressure loss.) Enough of a temperature increase to auto ignite once it has mixed with enough O2 in the air. Thus a small pin-hole leak in a vessel or pipe with high pressure H2 gas can squirt the H2 out far enough that it doesn't mix with O2 for a small distance. This small standoff distance from the flame to the side of the vessel or pipe is enough that not enough heat is right at the paint on the outside of the vessel or pipe to cause the paint to blister or burn. This small stand-off distance for the flame combined with it's nearly invisible coloration is where the broom comes in. Wipe the broom along the 100s of feet to miles of pipe and where the broom catches fire, that is where to investigate carefully to find the pin-hole. I'd love it if any ChemEs out there could confirm or refute my father's explanation (at least for pressurized H2 gas, not sure if the same issues are there with liquified H2).

[@JackClayton123]

Wasn’t the Challenger disaster also basically a hydrogen fire.

[@benblas164]

6:13 I love the image of ridiculously expensive tape being held on with $0.02 Zipties xD really i do love this tho, why spend money developing an adhesive that works with your experimental "tape" when you can just use zipties?

[@johnpublic6582]

Telegraph messages were recorded onto paper tape later in their use and computer storage was first on paper tape. Film was formatted into a tape for moving pictures and for multi-shot cameras after the first single shot cameras. Audio and video existed on magnetic tape for a long time. No one ever said tape is always self adhesive. That's why when people need to be more clear they say things like, "audio tape", "video tape", or "adhesive tape".

[@tisjester]

Possibly redundancy? I watched the video on the tape made today and it did not need zip ties to hold it on. It looked like your basic brown packing tape and stuck like it too. There could also be a different need for the zip ties than to hold the tape in place initially? Possible that due to the temperatures in the hoses and condensation it was used to make sure the take stayed where it was put?

[@MemesnShet]

R.I.P.

[@janetf23]

👍for the myriad fabulously ingenious and practical-for-everyday-life inventions that were first created as solutions to problems of space programs ~ Huzzah!

[@popguy2815]

Actually the coating on the Hindenburgs envelope is a more likely source of the fire.

[@HweolRidda]

The source of the fire was probably a burning hydrogen leak. That ignited the fabric which was the source of the disaster.

[@LOLLOF90]

Why are they saying that hidrogen has LESS carbon emissions than other fuels, and that it's byproducts can be contained better??? 2xH2+02= 2H20.. Where's the carbon???? What am I missing?

[@terrywasieleski7978]

I like this person

[@michaelmcchesney6645]

I would think those engineers were quite happy to hold brooms in front of them because otherwise they wouldn't detect a 2000 degree invisible flame until they walked through it. Ouch. My first thought on how to detect a gas leak was to submerge the pipes in a liquid that would show bubbles when gas started leaking. They could have a clear tank surrounding the pipes filled with a liquid. Actually, you could keep the clear tank surrounding the pipe empty unless a hydrogen gas leak was detected and only then flood the tank in the section where it was detected. I am guessing that one of the problems with that idea is that the pipe, since it was filled with cryogenic liquid hydrogen might freeze the water or other liquid that was used to detect the leak. Then again, the ice would probably seal the leak at least temporarily, What I would like to know is if any of those broom engineers smoked. It was the 70s after all.

[@megazombiekiller9000]

The main problem with that idea is that liquids are generally heavy and hard to move around. You also add the extra cost of doubling every pipe and maintaining every outer pipe unless you want more water/liquid leaks popping up in random places. And, you would have made maintenance on the hydrogen pipes much harder as now you have to figure out how to remove a section of clear pipe from around the inner pipe when you find a leak. At least, that is my thoughts on your idea. Though it is not a bad line of thinking, so keep up the hypothesizing!

[@camerica7400]

1:54 we actually do fill our tanks with hydrogen. . There is a few hydrogen powered cars

[@DeltaDemon1]

Invisible Ball of Doom

[@pppp3997]

"They took our job! " - Fire safety broom operators, probably.

[@filonin2]

That's also how you find live steam leaks in a boiler plant. Or else, you find them when your arm gets cut off.

[@iam_soumya]

They could use ethyl mercaptan gas for easy smell detection.

[@peterbonnema8913]

I would've expected a broom-related add

[@petevenuti7355]

Most infamous disaster next to the Challenger involving hydrogen...

[@thomasslone1964]

So this is really meant to be called, what brooms and thermal cameras have in common

[@andrewrhodes6999]

Also almost anywhere they use high pressure steam.

[@j.m.b.7449]

We do put it in our fuel tanks, just yesterday I saw a car with an hydrogen combustion engine in Amsterdam, so there's that...

[@Hurc7495]

For all practical purposes hydrogen isn’t a fuel so much as an energy storage mechanism, unfortunately in most cases it isn’t particularly green and is only really favoured by those with a vested interest in selling it to you from a centralised filling station!

[@majorjohnson8001]

Here's a demo of the detection tape in action. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hKjHqqeYZaqbh5I There's visible color distortion after 3 seconds and fully blacked in 20.

[@mnealbarrett]

This girl could be talking about the benefits of watching grass grow, and she would make me want to do it.

[@Thoran666]

Isn't burning hydrogen very inefficient compared to using it in a fuel cell to create electricity? Other than that, cool video and keep the science flowing.

[@johnpublic6582]

Depends what you are trying to do. It is way better at atmospheric rocketing if you burn it rather than use a fuel cell to make electricity so you can spin a propeller with an electric motor. If you are trying to make laser light, then use a fuel cell rather than burn it to drive a turbine to make e- to run the laser.

[@adrianthoroughgood1191]

Fuel cells are not very efficient. You lose a lot of the energy. But internal combustion engines are much worse.

[@jonni2317]

if you see dirigibles in the sky you know you either traveled through time or dimensions, no other explanation will be accepted

[@iso6203]

I clicked the video thinking the story was about how scientist tried to fly like witches with a broom. I didn't see this coming.. Talk about being a NASA Fire Hunter😅😂

[@megarural3000]

Apollo 1, in memorial: Ad Astra Per Aspera

[@tjthrash0143]

Im wondering if a crystal lattice structure could more efficiently store hydrogen gas. Something like X with + makes * but done with some other material that, when overlapped, will have holes too small for hydrogen to escape from.

[@svennoren9047]

Hydrogen can leak through solid metal. Too slow to be a fire hazard, but even so... Another problem is, to store hydrogen in any kind of reasonable volume it has to be pressurized to 200 atmospheres or so. Therefore the holding tanks have to be strong, and that makes them heavy. Believe me, there is _a lot_ of research going on about how to best store hydrogen.

[@DembaiVT]

There's nothing on earth with a bond strong enough in a full lattice where it would have gaps too tiny for a hydrogen atom to escape. Carbon is the smallest stable solid with the bonds strong enough and it's tightest lattice structure (diamond) isn't tight enough. It's just that small. Not to mention, diamonds do burn at a lower temp than hydrogen can burn at, and would make gobs of CO2. So no, that sort of thing is out of the question.

[@StWhitcomb]

Reminds me of "You gotta know where your towl js".

[@rustix3]

1:15 "you might know the reason " Yeah, it's USA refusing to sell much safer Helium. USA had most world production of helium at that time. So rest of the world went by using hydrogen.