• gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 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.