Chemical Forums
Specialty Chemistry Forums => Citizen Chemist => Topic started by: billnotgatez on December 04, 2005, 06:53:10 AM
-
On several posts in this forum, people have restated the myth that hydrogen was not the driving force behind the Hindenburg fire. When the initial proposal that the outer covering was to blame (Incendiary Paint Theory or IPT), it was taken by many as a possible cause. Although initially slow to act, the preponderance of the Lighter Than Air (LTA) aviation community has not accepted IPT. Recently, a highly experienced physics professor, a past Goodyear engineer and a citizen scientist have separately and jointly published papers and experiments that refute the IPT. As a result many of the scientific institutions and others have withdrawn active support of IPT. As stated before the majority of the LTA community rejects IPT. In my opinion any scientist (chemist) worth there salt, will reject and not propagate the IPT. It is my hope that this quasi urban myth will fade away, but alas like all myths there will still be some adherents. In any case discussion on this forum using the IPT is highly suspect.
This is the site that has pointers to the papers.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~dziadeck/zf/LZ129fire.htm
These are the links to the papers
http://spot.colorado.edu/%7Edziadeck/zf/LZ129fire2005jan12.pdf
http://spot.colorado.edu/~dziadeck/zf/LZ129fire.pdf
http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues/2004-12-17/project1/index.html
Regards,
Bill
-
People can argue all they want on that tpic, but what use is it? No one will ever know, and what is there to argue for. IPT is not responsible, so what? In my view it is a usesless argument the proves nothing at all.
-
IPT is proven wrong because it is flawed. Many other possibilities have not been proven wrong and the mystery still persists. NTSB (National Transportation and Safety Board) routinely analyzes aircraft accidents in order to try to prevent a repeat. In the Hindenburg case the fire would not have started or been so serious if the ship were filled with helium rather than hydrogen. That is why regular FAA certified airships can not use hydrogen as a lifting gas. If you are truly interested in science, I suggest you read the links I posted. The IPT gives the wrong impression about hydrogen safety, so we should make every effort to expose its flaws.
-
I don't get how someone couldn't believe it wasn't hydrogen's fualt.
1)It's small and leaks out of containers easily.
2)Will readily burn with the slightest spark at room temperature.
3)Plenty of possible places for a slight shock.
Note: See my next post.
-
maybe the hydrogen was involve, and cuased the desastrous explosion but then again maybe the fire started on the flammable exterior and ignited the hydrogen.. Has anyone actually read the entire Addison Bain theory on the cause of the fire?
-
3.3.141592653 =
Did you read the papers at the links I have posted?
Those researchers read Bain and refuted each of his arguments.
-
I don't think they read the links. They probably posted before they even read them.
-
I personally think it's naive to say that the hydrogen wasn't the cause of the explosion, or that the skin wasn't the cause of the explosion. Combined, the two aspects of the Hindenburg's construction led to the resulting disaster. I wouldn't put the blame on any one aspect of it.
-
I agree with jdurg.
-
Yea.. :-[
Looking at you guys are right. I have to admit I didn't fully read the papers. I skimmed them extremely fast. Not enough to get the full drift of it. Sorry guys.
-
Constant Thinker, et al -
Actually I do not think Jdurg or P-man fully read the papers either.
They made no specific reference to the logic discussed in the papers.
There have been subsequent claims to IPT and due to IPT that hydrogen is exonerated in the fire of the Hindenburg and therefore hydrogen is safe. That is the problem.
I am fairly well read in airship history, so it is hard for me to understand why people do not see the situation. Obviously, I have to come up with a concise explanation that does not assume knowledge on the part of the listener. I am working on it. Still I hold that if one reads the papers they should see the point I am trying to make. I will continue to try. I just need time to formulate the concepts or get help doing so.
-
Let me try this analogy, maybe it will help.
Previously on the forum, someone passed fluorine gas though a hose and the hose caught on fire. Let us hypothetically add that the fire spread and burned down the laboratory. Let us also suppose if plastic tubing was used the same fire scenario would happen. Would you say that the hose or tubing caused the fire, I think not. Would you say the laboratory caused the fire, again I think not. What you would say is that fluorine gas caused the hose to catch on fire and that caused the laboratory to burn down. The reason is that it is a common denominator. Either the hose or the tubing would be set on fire by the fluorine.
No matter what the typical doping painted cover was made of, the Hindenburg would have burned rapidly due to hydrogen in the gas cells. It is likely that if the Hindenburg was filled with helium and somehow the outer cover was set fire, there would have been a good chance that the fire would be extinguished. If the gas cells were filled with just air, then it would have taken many hours to burn. Actually, long enough for crew to scamper topside and put out the fire. I would wager (purely educated guess) that if the cells were filled with oxygen it still would have taken a long time to burn. The Hindenburg burned entirely in 34 seconds and the hydrogen caused it.
As a postscript to the above the thought of doing burn test with oxygen is intriguing. One would have to set up the experiment very carefully and with protections.
Hopefully this makes things clearer. As was noted before, the papers cited by me address the IPT point by point and show it to be flawed.
-
I did read the papers and totally agree with them. If the paint had burnt, then the blimp would have taken hours to burn. Instead it took seconds. It totally makes sense.
-
P-man -
Thank You for taking the time to read all the papers
-
Hey, no problem. I love reading about stuff like that.
-
I resurrect this post because the Mythbusters basically proved the same as the original papers I posted. Again IPT is busted.
IPT = Incendiary Paint Theory
-
Thanks for bumping this, I didn't notice it earlier. I just saw the Mythbusters episode, which was pretty cool. (I also liked the crocodile-escaping-zig-zag test :) )
I'd heard of the paint burn theory before, and without really thinking about it much, I kind of liked it. After reading those links (well, at least the first pdf), I am totally convinced otherwise. I stand corrected.
-
I MISSED THAT EXPERIEMENT. I was so mad. I was watching mythbusters. Then I got hungry, and I thought that I'd have time to go make myself a sandwich and then go back to the TV to see it. No, I got distracted along the way when I couldn't find the bread. Then I couldn't find any water (it was too late to drink Mountain Dew, and I don't like tap water). I came to see the ending credits.
Thanks though for posting the results. :)
-
They did show that the paint did burn faster than the unpainted fabric. Still, I think that when you get to something the size of the actual Hindenburg the scale of the reaction taking place makes it difficult to reproduce on the small scale. With so much material burning, the energy given off can't be properly replicated on a smaller scale. I don't think the paint can be entirely exonerated as aluminum gives off quite a bit of energy when it burns. I think it's a bit naive to say that the paint played no part in the burning of the Hindenburg. It's also just as naive to say that the paint was the sole reason for the burning when that's obviously not true.
-
I also have to question though, at what temperature does the paint reaction take place? I mean, unless you believe it was sabotage and somebody held a torch to the Hindenburg; which happens first. The skin "melts" enough so the hydrogen can escape and ignite with the oxygen with a lower temperature flame, or the reaction of the paint starts? Also, how sensitive is the paint to spark ignition, as that is where most people tend to think what caused the initial ignition. As it was landing when it happens, and when dirigibles land they must exhaust gas, so the hydrogen was being mixed with the air, at that point.
So which is more likely to have started it, could have been easily answered though.
-
Yes the size of the Hindenburg does make a difference. The volume of hydrogen increases due to the cube rule and the surface skin increases due to the square rule. There was not just a little hydrogen to waft away, but a vast amount (over 7 million cubic feet) that created a very hot large fireball. That fireball was so large and pervasive that it ignited everything burnable around it extremely rapidly. Being pure at the center of the fireball and not contaminated with enough oxygen it burned around the whole cell rather than explode albeit rapidly. The airship would have burned only slightly differently had the skin been just untreated cotton. Various burn tests show that to be likely. The Mythbuster episode merely discounted the central premise of IPT in a grand way. If you read the experiments and papers from the links I posted, you get a more in depth knowledge of what happened.
-
Well I don't think that blaming hydrogen as the sole source of the accident is vaery fair either.
-
Well I don't think that blaming hydrogen as the sole source of the accident is vaery fair either.
Because it was not, it was methane, actually. Bob had a big bowl of beans on the flight...
-
Well I don't think that blaming hydrogen as the sole source of the accident is vaery fair either.
Because it was not, it was methane, actually. Bob had a big bowl of beans on the flight...
That's funny. Where did you get that?
-
Methane was not used as the lifting gas in the Hindenburg.
On the other hand "Town Gas" was used as a lifting gas for balloons in the past. This gas (depending on how it was made) was a combination of methane, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen. It was manufactured at various urban areas using assorted coal products (byproducts). The lifting capability was far less than hydrogen or helium.
Another side note is on the forgotten airship, Graf Zeppelin One. This airship out performed all of the airplanes of the day. It did a trip near to the North Pole, an around the world flight, plus regular non-stop transatlantic flights. This airship had a long and distinguished career. The kicker was that the fuel was also a fire issue. Blaugas was used which was a mixture of propylene, methane and hydrogen with density similar to that of air. Fortunately this airship never caught on fire.
-
Methane was not used as the lifting gas in the Hindenburg.
No body said anything as to such....It was a joke.
Methane, beans, farting to much....
-
I am sorry – I did take the methane entry as a joke. I apologize for not snickering ;D
But, I decided to add some additional information that came to mind because of the entry. Chemical history is interesting.
By the way there was one person named Robert on the airship that day.
-
P-man
Well I don't think that blaming hydrogen as the sole source of the accident is vaery(sic) fair either.
Whether or not hydrogen was the sole source of the accident, it was the sole source of the catastrophe. Had the airship been filled with helium it would have taken more than 34 hours to burn and not the 34 seconds it did take. More than enough time to land, allow the passengers / crew to exit, and allow the fire department to render the fire harmless.