No, no. It's not. But the price of nitrogen fills versus Bill_S's special blend is above zero (Fahrenheit).

LOL... you're on form tonight... my typo above, and aloud/allowed in another thread...

I'll admit that my tires in Ohio contain more sulfur dioxide than yours.

Passenger Jets use nitrogen 'cos it doesn't heat up as much as air, and so it cuts down maintenance time.
For car tires it's just another way of raising prices and tying a client to a vendor.

Not true. It heats up exactly the same amount, but unlike the oxygen in air, it doesn't tend to oxidise the hot rubber from within.

Reduces the weight of the car acting on the road though!

Assuming we're back to hydrogen, then yes, it would... by about the same amount as emptying the ashtray.

Wow - that much! But then again I use my ash tray to keep my pet black hole in...

Hey - so much info! How clever you lot are....

I often think of my ashtray as a bit of a black hole as well. Have you seen the price of smokes these days?

Oxyen in the air is oxidizing them from "without."

Boeing ordered nitrogen to be used 'cos: doesn't heat up as much as air thereby reducing maintenance times, and is inert (oxygen in air can ignite in a jumbo jet tire under certain conditions).

<Deep breath. Try again without being rude.>

The oxygen in the air outside is cold. Molecular oxygen at ambient temperature is not a strong oxidant.

Bolded part: not quite, it can ignite the rubber, which is what I said earlier.

First part, nonsense. When you get bored with theology, I suggest you take a peek at statistical thermodynamics. Perhaps Boeing should as well.

<exhales slowly, wonders if that was less rude>

Hey I'm only quoting Boeing Wot's car tires got to do with theology? Try not to get so stressed!

And forgive me - I forgot you were an expert in hot air! (couldn't resist that!)

Theres some hocus pocus about this N2 thing.

O2 and N2 are more or less the same size and Ar & CO2 is bigger than either so (assuming diffusion relates to MW and molecular size - which it kinda does) thats, what 99.5% of the gases in air not-very-likely to leak out.

The only differences I can think of between O2 and N2 is that one is a strong oxidiser and the other isnt which suggests if could be an oxidation matter for something on the inside of the aircraft's tyre. Maybe something from the vulcanisation makes H2SO4 that eventually affects the rims or valves...?

Could it be that having a bunch of O2 nearish to fuel tanks at altitude might be a bad idea?

If neither of those could it be an elasticity thing? Could having 20% more N2 affect the performance of the aircraft tyre under load?

Or could it just be marketing garnish. Boeing making out they are being ultra-safety-conscious when really its all bollocks.

Well its all beyond me. But my curiosity is kinda piqued.

Cars on the other hand.... in crappy tire the other day I saw an ad that said N2 "could improve your gas mileage by up to 6%". Hmmm. I doubt that would stand up to scrutiny.

Inflation to the correct pressure is probably what helps significantly. I won't rehash the comments above but suffice to say I struggle to think of any good reason for this. If the compressed air contains significant amounts of water perhaps...

quite.

i found this...

http://www.millertire.ca/Services/Nitrogen.php

6% claimed again. Like you I tend to think 5.99 out of the 6% quoted is simply down to having the right pressure, harder compounds, running strip, alignment and so on.

it is interesting what the web page says about reducing hub corrosion. maybe thats where boeing are coming from too...?

as for N2 being a larger molecule than O2 - the difference is very small, about 3%. the imperfection in the tire would have to be exactly the right size to differentiate between O2 and N2. Besides regular air is only 18% anyway so its not like the tyre is going to go flat.

lies, damn lies and statistics!

a stroke of genius though, charging 20$ to sell people N2. Which is basically a byproduct of O2 production for other applications such as medical and engineering.