• jia_tan@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    16 days ago

    Famously transporting large volumes of hydrogen has never gone wrong and hydrogen charging stations have proven very reliable and also hydrogen as an alternative to electric is definitely not a ploy by big oil to keep drilling for fossil fuels!

    Good job hyundai 👍 Very credible 👍🏿

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      In the case of military vehicles, hydrogen is about the greenest option that we’re gonna get. No one is going to make a battery powered AFV, because where the fuck would you charge it?

        • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          16 days ago

          Yes, obviously, putting explosives and projectile propellants in an armored vehicle is dangerous and should be avoided

          /s

          OSHA is not a credible military threat

          • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            16 days ago

            Right, but you are going to want to choose a fuel that has the least chance of flaming up if you’re making a military vehicle.

            Hydrogen has (compared to petroleum) a Wider Flammability Range, Lower Ignition Energy (0.02 millijoules) which is really low and much smaller than petroleum, and a higher diffusion rate.

            All of which make it more likely to go kaboom.

            • Uranium 🟩@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              16 days ago

              Silly one, and but do tanks run on diesel?

              Every other heavy machine I can think of typically uses diesel for their engines: tractors, lorries, boats.

              Also diesel is less flammable then petrol or hydrogen in the event of a spill of leak…

              • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                16 days ago

                The problem with diesel is that there has been a cap in their efficiency for quite some time. We’ve pretty much tweaked as much speed and efficiency out of what is possible with diesel tanks, which is why the Abrams has a turbine engine.

                As tanks become heavier and heavier the only real solution is to migrate to electric motors, which are more efficient and vastly more reliable than diesel or turbine.

                Just like with trains, the future of tanks are electric motors, and until we find a battery material more efficient and safe than lithium, hydrogen fuel cells are likely going to be the solution.

      • DrunkenPirate@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        16 days ago

        Who if not the Germans built an electric tank in 2020 https://efahrer.chip.de/news/geraeuschlose-einsaetze-weltweit-erster-elektro-panzer-kommt-aus-deutschland_103179

        Sounds crazy at first but comes with some good advantages: it can cross rivers as it doesn’t need air for combustion, it’s silent, and you can load it anywhere at the battle field if you have solar panels, time and sun. Still you can rely on military logistics to carry a swap battery. But isn’t the military supply chain the first target to disrupt? My two cents, this is the next thing at battle fields.

        Oh, and if all your equipment runs on electricity, you can load and reload power at your needs. Tank needs power but car not? Combat robot out if power and car is full? Transfer the power

        • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          16 days ago

          Honestly if MILITARY applications are what kicks renewable energy and mass storage into high gear, I won’t be surprised, but I will be disappointed.

          But hey, improvement is still improvement and if a military organization sees renewable as the future, they’re gonna try to make sure they get there first. As long as whoever gets there shares the progress with the rest of the world, I’m okay with it.

          But who am I kidding, it’s gonna be China or the US and the rest of the world won’t see shit for decades due to suppression of research and technology that would allow for similar specs to be achieved privately…

          … How credible is my aluminum foil hat guy?

          I must admit though, it’d be cool to see an armored combat battery sliding across a field to quick charge a tank that died mid-battle. 10 seconds of charging to get it up and running, and the battery moves to the next low power thing. I’m imagining a semi-autonomous hot-swap of a battery compartment and eventually recharging like modern airplane mid-air refueling. Insert Rod A into Slot A and wait a little bit. The faster they want it to charge, the more they’ll dump into R&D.

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      My dude, the military transports more volatile materials than hydrogen every day. Just because something doesn’t make sense for civilian use doesn’t mean it’s never going to be viable for military use.

      If you’re worried about the dangers of transporting something like hydrogen, you’re going to lose it when you find out what bombs are made out of.

      Electric motors are just more efficient in just about every way at scale, the current diesel motors being used in tanks aren’t really able to be improved upon. They’re at their technological peak, so the only way to move forward with mbt is by figuring out how to make electric motors work.

      • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 days ago

        An unarmed bomb can be dropped from cruising altitude onto a hard surface and not detonate. The US military has had nukes fall out of planes without breaching the radioactive core.

        Also, the energy density of hydrogen is pretty poor, diesel electric hybrid on the other hand is a proven technology.

        • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          An unarmed bomb can be dropped from cruising altitude onto a hard surface and not detonate. The US military has had nukes fall out of planes without breaching the radioactive core.

          And yet you don’t think they could produce the same safety features for less volatile materials?

          diesel electric hybrid on the other hand is a proven technology.

          Yeah, you just have to add a diesel engine, electric engine, and a giant battery…The whole point of moving to electric is to increase efficiency and decreasing the weight of primary motive components.

          • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            15 days ago

            Hydrogen isn’t less volatile though, it’s actually much easier to ignite than any modern explosive.

  • BluesF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    15 days ago

    The next-generation tank will have stronger preemptive strike capabilities using an artificial intelligence-based fire control system

    Well that’s disturbing. I wonder what level of buzz word AI this is? Safe to assume computer vision is involved, target/threat identification… Does “preemptive strike” imply the fire control system is firing by itself? I know it’s not the case but it’s hilarious to imagine it’s ChatGPT doing it.

    • RobertoOberto@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      15 days ago

      My heart smiles at the thought of the first crew to actually command this thing in a war zone pulling security on some unknown pile of rubble and being awoken at 0347 by their tank unexpectedly dumping its entire payload on an “enemy” that it hallucinated.

      Granted, dumb privates do this too, but it’s funnier to think about the tank doing it all by itself.

  • Hubi@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    16 days ago

    Does noise really matter that much on a modern battlefield with one surveillance drone every 200 meters?