Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> There's an interesting "Myth Busters" episode regarding the Hindenberg.
> They concluded that the rapidity of the fire had to do more with the
> flammability of the coating on the fabric covering of the frame than
> with hydrogen.
Right, but what about the source? The PBS (Nova?) program about the
fellow who tracked down the source, then was able to confirm that his
conclusion was the same as the manufacturer's conclusion back at the
time is much more informative. He did flammability tests too, but didn't
bother to build models.
Simplistically, they changed fabric "dope" (paint) for the Hindenberg
from that used before to one with some or more aluminum powder and
didn't test it sufficiently. The exterior panels were simply painted
canvas with grommets around the perimeter that were laced to the rigid
frame.
What happened is that it was landing during an electrical storm. No
lightning hit it, but there was insufficient grounding of the panels to
the frame, allowing static charges to build up until at least one
sparked from panel to frame. That spark was enough to set the dope on
the panel aflame - and off it went.
The hydrogen bigs didn't catch fire until long after the other parts of
the dirigible were burning madly. The heat initially caused the bag
safety vests to allow gas out the top back, and it burned before the
bags themselves. A hydrogen flame is almost colorless. All the bright
flames in the film footage is from other things burning.
Had they separately grounded the panels or made sure the lacing cord was
sufficiently conductive or continued to use a less flammable dope, no
disaster. The hydrogen actually had nothing to do with the cause of the
fire and contributed nothing to the deaths and injuries, as it burned
late and up in the air above the other flaming materials.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|