[billnotgatez]

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 As a result many of the scientific institutions and others have withdrawn active support of IPT.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

[P-man]

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.

[billnotgatez]

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.

[constant thinker]

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.

[buckminsterfullerene]

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?

[billnotgatez]

3.3.141592653 =
Did you read the papers at the links I have posted?
Those researchers read Bain and refuted each of his arguments.

[Mitch]

I don't think they read the links. They probably posted before they even read them.

[jdurg]

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.

[P-man]

I agree with jdurg.

[constant thinker]

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.

[billnotgatez]

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.

[billnotgatez]

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.

[P-man]

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.

[billnotgatez]

P-man -
Thank You for taking the time to read all the papers

[P-man]

Hey, no problem. I love reading about stuff like that.