Comments on: Myths about the Hindenburg Crash

By: stolennomenclature

stolennomenclature — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:50:03 +0000

Sometimes the inherently more dangerous situation can prove to be actually safer, owing to the human psyche. When something is inherently relatively safe, people tend to become complacent and so tend to become careless, whereas something that is very dangerous keeps them on there toes and maintains their vigilance. Since humans are often the weakest link in these types of cases, the more dangerous substance can end up being the safest. I’ll bet that people who smoke on a hydrogen filled airship will be much more careful with what they do with their cigarettes than those smoking on a helium filled airship. Whilst the helium itself will not burn, the rest of the ship can, and so it might be the case that in time more helium filled ships would be destroyed or damaged by fire in time than hydrogen filled ones (from cigarettes that is).

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:35:40 +0000

A basic advantage of hydrogen as a fuel is………..no pollution. Burn it over-rich or lean, any thermal reaction between hydrogen and oxygen produces heat, and H2O. Compressing hydrogen to the point that it’s liquid at room temperature would need such a thick-walled container that its weight would have a very negative effect on the fuel efficiency of whatever it’s propelling. Where would the hydrogen come from? Power station boilers can’t be turned off for a couple of hours when the load drops, so why not use the excess electricity to break up H2O and collect the H? I’m asking these questions with absolute zero specialist knowledge; just a keen sense of curiosity.

By: Monte Matney

Monte Matney — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:09:48 +0000

I have only just recently got a computer–never had one before. Many years ago I was turned on by the sparking-burning-paint theory, and in my reclusive, non-communicative life, I kept dreaming about hydrogen based dirigibles. I am saddened about the general thumbs down verdict yet I want the truth. Question: can hydrogen burn without oxygen? If pure hydrogen and pure oxygen are combined will they spontaneously combust or do they still need a sparking catalyst? If the hydrogen requires oxygen to burn, it seems that the fault lies not with the hydrogen, but with leaking floatation bags. If the myth-busters are laughing at the idea of a hydrogen airship, then they should know what they are laughing at if the flammability problem was resolved: a profoundly fuel-efficient airship capable of going anywhere upon the surface of the planet without the use of rails, runways, or roads. I have a design in mind of a computer driven dirigible with two swiveling, hydrogen-based engines on either side allowing for the four propellers to aim up, down, forward or backward for excellent maneuverability. If not too weighty, very thin, super light solar panels on the surface can facilitate electrolysis and turn the exhaust water back into hydrogen and oxygen for a self-fueling ship. I am hesitant to turn this dream into a mere fantasy. A number of things I know for sure. If the engines were to fail, a dirigible would not crash like a plane or a helicopter would as it would remain afloat never having to land. A dirigible could never bring down the World Trade Center. Dirigibles did not cause the huge amount of carnage from the fourth leading cause of death– automobiles. My mother died in a car wreck in which my femur bone was broken. Moreover, if a dirigible was computer driven without a pilot, and cargo only, no one could die if it happened to catch on fire. Well, I am quite curious about the questions I have asked. This cat still has some lives left.

By: Col South

Col South — Sun, 22 May 2011 21:45:01 +0000

I thought this was now well known. The Hindenberg had just flown through a thunderstorm, when the first moring ropes contact, they earth any static from the airship. There was poor electrical bonding between one/some of the fabric panels, so when it was earthed there was a spark acros the gap, enough to ignite the fabric, thence the nearest gas envelope, and the rest , as they say, is history.
Sorry, no conspiracy theory, I’m afraid.

By: Kevin Curcuru

Kevin Curcuru — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 06:23:42 +0000

Hi,
I just saw the episode of the Mythbusters dealing with the Hindenburg disaster.
They just wanted to prove/disprove that the skin paint alone could cause the rate of burn seen on the real airship.

These guys (The Mythbusters) definitely have many screws loose, which makes the show GREAT. But they really do a job on things and make it fun. While this disaster was not fun, the three tests done were very informative. The rate of burn of a scale (1/50) model with skin approximating that of the Hindenburg was set on fire with a torch. Thus, the method of initial ignition was not the issue. They wanted to know if the external skin alone could cause that rate of burn.

That one took about 2 minutes to burn.

They built one with the same skin (approximate formula of original) and then pumped in hydrogen after igniting the skin. The hydrogen was most definitely an accelerant. This model burned in less than one minute.

But the third model with skin of thermite (whatever formula The Mythbusters have) with hydrogen being pumped in during burn was gone in 30 seconds. Thus, the hydrogen was definitely involved in the burn rate. But it was interesting that the skin that most closely approximated “rocket fuel” (with hydrogen pumped in) had the same burn rate as the original Hindenburg, twice as fast as the skin (with hydrogen pumped in) that approximated the original Hindenburg’s.

The Mythbusters made a point that, if the original machine had been covered with their “rocket fuel” paint mixture it would have been too heavy to fly. But it sure burned at the same rate as the original.

The photos of the burn with the skin that approximated the original plus hydrogen pumped in, once it got going, alongside the video of the original disaster were eerily similar. VERY CLOSE indeed. So it seems that the original may have been burning slowly somewhere before the actual “big burst” occurred.

It seemed to me after seeing this episode that the skin paint had something to do with accelerating the fire, but the big burst coming out of the Hindenburg looks like a huge explosion (being caused by igniting gas). The ship just did not burn as a sole result of skin compound.

This still does not explain how it began, why, etc. But The Mythbusters certainly had an interesting episode with some conclusive results (as ever). The episode in question is one from 2006. I’m sure it’s listed on imdb.com if you want to look for the details of 1st airing date, etc.

By: Rip Tragle

Rip Tragle — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:13:44 +0000

Jake,
I wouldn’t mind seeing that color photo.
I believe you mean “autochrome” above invented
by the Lumiere brothers in 1903. But this was a slow positive emulsion spred on glass plates with RGB dyed starch grains with a lampblack filler. Not suitable for moving objects.
It is entirely possible that a color Kodachrome was
shot with a Contax or Leica by someone who had such on hand.
I agree that Autochromes are lovely and I have
tried to recreate the effect in Photoshop.
There were several other early, turn of the century
color processes as well and each had it’s own charm. But all required long exposure, special
equipment and were well out of date by ’37.
Hindenburg color movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSuR2IgnimA

By: James Yarger

James Yarger — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:17:49 +0000

Apologies about the couple of spelling/grammar errors, in my previous long post.
Thanks again for keeping up this great site, this article really does point out some of the good intentioned but equally damaging remarks and statements by proponents of hydrogen.
While I do believe that the safe handling of hydrogen as a lifting gas can be achieved. In the short term and in order to move past this small aviation mishapnot a disaster by today’s standard and excepted life risk of flying commercial, helium must be used first to achieve and prove flight.
I believe that the fates of Lighter than aircraft, and hydrogen are connected and work should be done that advances both.

@AirshipAdmiral on twitter

By: Rip Tragle

Rip Tragle — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 01:07:08 +0000

Yup, with all that surface area passing
through the air and building up a charge it
well…. blow your sox off? I used to rappel
outtta Huey’s in Vietnam.

By: James Yarger

James Yarger — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:52:40 +0000

Your absolutely correct. When I was in the Navy they taught us not to tough lines being lowered from a helicopter until they had hit the water for the same reason. I’m sure an Airship would stop your ticker.

By: Rip Tragle

Rip Tragle — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:16:34 +0000

I believe all airships built up a static charge while
passing through the air whether circling or not.
If I remember correctly ground crews did not
touch the landing lines until they hit the ground
and dissipated said charge …. which I believe
was enough to possibly kill you.