Comments on: The Hindenburg and Hydrogen: Nonsense from Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki

By: The Doctor

The Doctor — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:25:40 +0000

You aren’t serious about using Halon are you… please tell me no.

By: Tim Laidler

Tim Laidler — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:58:44 +0000

Well I have to say that when I first read the correction I was confused as they both said the same thing. In this case the most Karl is guilty of is an error of omision.

In terms of the phrase “refused to supply it to the Nazi government” reaplace “Nazi” with British, French, or Canadian and the statement retains perfect sense. The implication is built through the other statements about the regime and the general public opinion.

By: Dan (Airships.net)

Dan (Airships.net) — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:24:08 +0000

I think the phrase “refused to supply it to the Nazi government” certainly implies that the refusal was due to opposition to the Nazi regime, and it is only on the most literal, lawyerly level that Dr. Karl’s statement can be viewed as accurate.

By: Timppa

Timppa — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:22:55 +0000

Greeting,

Are there any other gasses that are lighter than air and non flammable?

I found

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halon_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromochloromethane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_gas
http://blimpsballoons.suite101.com/article.cfm/lighterthanair_transportation

I mean that the hydrogen flammability should be reduced with some other gas.

By: Tim Laidler

Tim Laidler — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:43:35 +0000

“At that time, the US government controlled the only significant supplies of helium (a non-flammable lifting gas), and refused to supply it to the Nazi government. So the Hindenburg had to use flammable hydrogen.

THE TRUTH: The American restriction against selling helium to other countries was imposed under the Helium Control Act of 1927, which was enacted six years before Hitler took power in Germany and was obviously unrelated to the Nazi regime.”

There is no mistake in Karl’s statement, he doesn’t state that the refusal was unique to Germany. If it was implied then that was because of his previous errors rather than this statement.

By: stolennomenclature

stolennomenclature — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:57:48 +0000

I have often wondered about the possibility of using a helium/hydogen mix, based on the idea that if you mix enough helium with hydrogen, you would dampen down the flammability of the hydrogen. I assume this would happen, but I do not know for sure. If it worked, it might be possible to improve the economics of this hybrid lifting gas over that of pure helium, coming up with a gas that was almost as safe as helium but cheaper and with a higher lifting capability. Of course, the mixture would prbably need to have at least 30% hydrogen for the gains to be worth the bother. I wonder if this have ever been considered?

By: stolennomenclature

stolennomenclature — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:53:01 +0000

I suggest you look at the film footage of the Hindenburg disaster captured at the time, and it is obvious from the way the fire progresses that the hydrogen is burning behind the skin and then burns through the skin from inside, and not the skin itself that is burning. take note of how as the ship rises at the nose the fire burning INSIDE the ship burns through the nose section and pours out like the flame from a blowtorch, even though the skin of the forward part of the ship is not alight. Then the fabric panels burn through very rapidly and almost simultaneously as the fire buring behind them eats them away. I find it difficult to see how anyone reconcile the rocket-fuel-fabric theory with the visual record of the incident. It simply does not fit.

By: stolennomenclature

stolennomenclature — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:44:32 +0000

I don’t think he is nuts, but it seems his attachment to the hydrogen fuel movement has caused him to lose his sense of perspective, as often happens when people have a hidden agenda. The desire to win results in people cutting corners and pushing the boundaries in order to press home their point of view. I am sure that when he is properly opened minded and un-biased as a scientist is supposed to be, he is no longer “nuts”.

By: stolennomenclature

stolennomenclature — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:31:26 +0000

From what I can understand about the disaster, this misconception about the role the hydrogen played in the disaster is because of the relative lengths of time the hydrogen fire burned (about 60 seconds) versus the protracted ground fire that burned for several hours, and was fueled by diesel fuel and other solid parts of the ship and its structure. It seems logical that many of those people who were badly burned but who were not in the interior of the ship during the short hydrogen fire, must have been burned by the on ground fire as they walked through the burning wreck to get away from the ship. I have always been under the impression that most of the burns that the passengers recieved was from burning diesel fuel on the ground rather than the burning hydrogen. Since the hydrogen burnt out in the first 60 seconds, and the passengers were in the passenger compartment, unless the fire was able to burn right through the passenger compartment in that time, then the hydroegn fire could not have been directly responsible for their injuries. Of course the hydrogen fire was the cause of the ship losing its lift and crashing to the ground, so the hydrogen fire is still the root cause of everything that subsequently happened.

By: stolennomenclature

stolennomenclature — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:22:08 +0000

I am not in the least surprised about the lengths to which the hydrogen fuel advocates will go to persuade people that hydrogen is a wonderful fuel. It is nothing of the kind. It is an appalingly hard to handle substance that makes a terrible fuel as it is extremely hard to store in any safe, economical or convenient way. There are fuels in use that are gaseous at room temperature, but these have a very moderate boiling point and can be stored relatively easily as a liquid at room temperature in containers of moderate strength and weight. This is not true of hydrogen, which must either be stored at very high pressure in strong heavye containers or liquified by cooling to extremely low temperatures. I still struggle to come to terms with the fervour and enthusiasm which people show towards hydrogen, which seems to be based on fantasy, not reality. If you want a useable convenient fuel for fuel cells then you should be looking at ethanol, methanol or perhaps even ammonia (at a stretch), but anything other than hydrogen. Unless there is a technical breakthrough in the technology for storing hydrogen as a hydride, then we really should not be seriously considering it.