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

By: andrew husband

andrew husband — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 00:57:58 +0000

I can understand the need to find a usable gas but looking into gases such as halon is not a good idea lol i think looking into proper reports and the video of the tragedy can show it was the gas that was the cause and not the skin as it was burning from the inside also it doesnt matter if its flamable comes at diffrent % the skin seems to be forced to burn with the high force of flams and temp is also shown in pictures and video of the incident flames coming out of the nouse of the ship before the skin was burned

By: Dan (Airships.net)

Dan (Airships.net) — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 20:18:06 +0000

Both of those statements are simply false.

By: bananabender

bananabender — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:10:49 +0000

The internal report by the Zeppelin company determined that the skin caught fire first. NASA also came to the same conclusion independently.

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.