[billnotgatez]

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

[pantone159]

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.

[constant thinker]

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.

[jdurg]

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.

[enahs]

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.

[billnotgatez]

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.

[P-man]

Well I don't think that blaming hydrogen as the sole source of the accident is vaery fair either.

[enahs]

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...

[constant thinker]

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?

[billnotgatez]

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.

[enahs]

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....

[billnotgatez]

I am sorry – I did take the methane entry as a joke. I apologize for not snickering 

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.

[billnotgatez]

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.