Comments on: Rocket Fuel, Thermite, and Hydrogen: Myths about the Hindenburg Crash

By: christian

christian — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:28:03 +0000

i have to say, a very interesting discussion. i agree that the ultimate cause of the explosive fire was indeed ultimately due to H gas. i would not say it cant be more safely used in the future. as for R101, well thats much safer for storage – you cant light it with a match in its liquid state. however, it has claimed far more lives in single air crashes by far – many times over. any jumbo jet you see crash, for example, huge explosion. there have also been planes that blew up in the air from diesel fuel vapors, in a nearly empty center fuel tank, also from electrical arcing. airliner slammed into the ground killing everyone on board.

all fuels are dangerous when used to generate power. lithium-ion batterys – VERY explosive if you disrespect them, but you haven’t heard of anyones cell phone killing them. (having said that, ill probably here that one the news later today).

anyway, interesting arugements from all of you. im pro hydrogen as a fuel within reason. would i use it to float something i was flying in? pffff, no way. i also like how it seems everyone here (myself included) filled bags or balloons up with hydrogen and lit them on fire. if we can all agree on one thing… YES YOU CAN SEE THE FLAMES! cheers!

By: stolennomenclature

stolennomenclature — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:02:50 +0000

Hydrogen may burn cleanly and works well in a simple fuel cell, but everything else about it makes it quite unsuitable as a general purpose fuel. For one thing its very difficult to store – you either need to put it under very high pressure in a very strong, expensive and heavy container, or need to cool it down to cryogenic temperatures and store it a large, expensive, insulated container that can handle very low temperatures, and have a system which allows the fuel to vent off as it boils away, or a refigeration system to continually remove heat. Alternatively the fuel can be stored in a very large, heavy and very expensive metal hydride storage facility composed of rare earth metals. Frankly hydrogen makes more sense as the lift gas for airships than a fuel for automobiles and buses.

By: stolennomenclature

stolennomenclature — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 07:51:58 +0000

The “hydrogen as a fuel” supporters who seek to bolster there cause by blaming the cause of the Hindenburg tragedy on something other than hydrogen, would do much better to offer up more convincing arguments as to why hydrogen would make a good fuel in the first place. Quite obviously it does not. Hydrogen is as close to being the worst substance to use as a fuel as there could be. A very low density gas that leaks through solid metal, is highly explosive, liquifies at a very low temperature, and embrittles metal containers. Just what about it is there to like? Obviously any sensible choice for a fuel would be a either a liquid at room temperature or close to it. No one with any sense would choose hydrogen. The only thing it hasa going for it is its ease of use in simple fuel cells, and that’s it. The sooner this idiotic idea goes away the better.

By: another Zeppelin Enthusiast

another Zeppelin Enthusiast — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:44:16 +0000

I would like to make an observation: in my first year at the university our chemistry professor made a demonstration: a hydrogen-filled balloon was floated up some distance in the hall and a lit match on a long staff was touched to it. The balloon instantly disappeared with a bright reddish flash. It was distinctly reddish.
I have seen Robert Wise’s “Hindenburg” film many times. It’s incredible how realistic the interiors were rendered (so much that I think they re-used the control car for the recent documentary about “USS Macon”) , but of course there is no proof that the “Hindenburg” was sabotaged, even though there were many who had a motive to do so. It makes a fascinating story nevertheless, and seeing LZ-129 inside as it most probably was certainly makes it worth the while. (but for a really hands-on experience the Zeppelin Museum in Friedrichshafen is very recommended, and if you happen to be there don’t also miss the smaller Zeppelin Museum located in the castle at Meersburg about 10 miles away.)
And certainly the covering fabric would not have self-ignited. It was very much like the fabric used for a long time to cover the wings of many biplanes and the control surfaces of most aircraft until the jet age.
A few years back another documentary described what was probably the cause: a sharp turning maneuver caused one of the bracing wires to break, which in turn slashed one of the gas cells. Escaping hydrogen gas was then ignited by static electricity. This is corroborated by Lehmannn remarking that the ship was heavy towards the stern, (and he also asked if a bracing wire could have ruptured a moment later when the fire had broken out) and that at least one witness on the ground saw the fabric fluttering immediately before fire broke out. (btw. when LZ-4 crashed near Echterdingen and caught on fire immediately this too happened during a thunderstorm, and when R-101 touched the ground near Beauvais in 1930 this happened quite slowly yet the fire that broke out almost immediately was equally violent and catastrophic; even though it was raining quite heavily. With such a large quantity of hydrogen it couldn’t be otherwise, and the smallest spark sufficed t set it off. A lightning strike would have passed through the aluminum frames which acted as a Faraday cage (at least one Zeppelin was struck by lightning during World War I, yet survived with only small burn marks), but if there was an hydrogen leak this was certainly fatal. During World War I at least two German airships were lost while flying in or near a thundertstorm.

By: frank

frank — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:45:15 +0000

A pure h2 and air or o2 flame will burn invisible.The addition of too much air can give a yellow flame.In a fire such as the hindenburg so much other material also was being burned it added to the visibility of the flame.I dont know what caused the disaster but I found your website very informative.I think you offered a well researched investigation into the probable cause with compelling evidence.
Thermite does not spontaneously ignite and the components must be finely divided and intimatly mixed in the proper ratios.The temperature required to ignite it is high I used magnesium ribbon.
I too like hydrogen as a fuel it burns clean and can produce electrical energy in a fuel cell.If we can solve the problems of producing it cheaply enough to compete with other fuels and storing it for use in usable amounts it would be viable as a motor fuel as your car engine needs very little in the way of modification to run off of it.You could burn air and hydrogen and run a steam engine directly without the use of a boiler or transmission.
Thanks again for the website.

By: Rip Tragle

Rip Tragle — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:17:19 +0000

Of the volumes of testimony from eye witness
reports at the time: nobody mentioned lightning.

By: henry

henry — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:46:41 +0000

There was lightning and a storm.I saw a video.Someone who survived said(along with many others)they saw lightning.:)

By: Spencer D. Chew

Spencer D. Chew — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 04:04:49 +0000

i know what brought down the beloved Hindenburg: as Captain Pruss turned, a bracing wire snapped slicing a hole in gas cell 4 or 5 the whip-lash effect would be so violent that it slices the cell open and hydrogen leaked out, then the ship’s skeleton reached a dangerous voltage, then a spark jumps from the outer skin to the metal igniting the leaking hydrogen, what eyewitnesses were seeing burning was the fabric, the guys in the engine cars were the luckiest, they escaped without a single scratch on them,

By: Rip Tragle

Rip Tragle — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:08:15 +0000

What lightning?

By: Patrick Russell

Patrick Russell — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:31:38 +0000

The fire started far aft of the passenger decks. Testimonial evidence (particularly that of crewman Helmut Lau, who was standing on a small catwalk about halfway down into the lower fin, and saw the fire moments after it began) places the initial point of ignition somewhere between gas cells 4 and 5. I have heard it both ways about the passengers’ lighters – that they had been returned already, and that they would be returned after landing – but either way, that would have had no bearing on the disaster, as no passenger was anywhere near the area in the tail of the ship where the fire began.

The most likely theory as to the cause of the fire is that there was a hydrogen leak in one of those cells (supported by Captain Albert Sammt, who would later recall repeatedly dropping ballast from the tail of the ship as the tail kept getting heavier and heavier, which he believed indicated a significant hydrogen leak) and that hydrogen was ignited by static electricity atop the ship (supported by a witness, Professor Mark Heald, who saw static discharge flickering along the top of the ship’s hull for approximately a minute before the fire began.) Since crewman Helmut Lau saw the first signs of fire deep inside of the airship, near the gas release valves for cells 4 and 5, it’s probable that once the leaking hydrogen caught fire, the fire burned back down to the source of the leak (either a tear in one of the gas cells, or a gas release valve that hadn’t closed properly) and then further ignited the gas cell material and other combustible materials (rope, fabric from the gas vent shaft, et cetera) in that spot. The fire then spread from there.

So yes, it is by far the most likely probability that hydrogen DID start the fire. This is more or less the conclusion Dr. Eckener and the Board of Inquiry arrived at back in 1937, and though there have been those through the years who have attempted to turn the cause of the fire into a big dramatic mystery (saboteurs, exploding paint, yadda yadda) a thorough analysis of available facts (testimonial and photographic) indicates that Eckener and the Board were pretty much right on the money.