Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 2 votes

Hindenburg mystery solved after 76 years?

hindenburg lakehurst airship atlantic

  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#16    CRIPTIC CHAMELEON

CRIPTIC CHAMELEON

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 766 posts
  • Joined:27 Feb 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Annwyn

  • Without going out of my door
    I can know all things of earth
    Without looking out of my window
    I could know the ways of heaven

Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:30 PM

Ah yes good old uncle Hans he did like to sneak of for a cigarette.  :whistle:


#17    Starseed hybrid 1111

Starseed hybrid 1111

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Joined:28 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:salinas,ca

  • "Take the Red Matrix pill" be your own authentic self neo

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:54 PM

yeah it sounds about right or aleast a possible explanation anyway.it could also be something else as well.anyway I am saying that its one of many possible reasons not that it its the only one.but why don't we make them as much like before.airships and etc.another cool and amazing feature to add is the following:replace the fuel sources with like solar power and wind power lol.and make them bigger and safer of course and faster.


#18    Chooky88

Chooky88

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 311 posts
  • Joined:03 Jun 2005

Posted 05 March 2013 - 10:32 PM

Bring back air ships. Helium of course. It might be expensive but surely they only need to be filled once with a small reserve for emergencies, and jets instead of props.


#19    GirlfromOz

GirlfromOz

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 153 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2011

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:21 AM

A documentary a few years ago was the supposed explanation.It was stated that the chemicals used in that day on the outer shell,were meant to be fire retardants.But the discovery from the research crew led to the discovery that the very same supposed retardants,caused the fuelling of the fire that brought the Hindenburg down.The static might have been another factor in the ignition,but the requirement of the continual combustion was from the outer treatment of the materials & the volatile gases that had the combined effects that contributed sadly to the disaster.
.

Edited by GirlfromOz, 06 March 2013 - 09:42 AM.


#20    skookum

skookum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,533 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Sussex, UK

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:42 AM

Hydrogen is extremely flammable, but so is aviation fuel. Lets remember the Hindenburg was a product of 1920/1930's engineering.  Today rigid airships would be built from composites which would make them far lighter and require less Hydrogen to lift, you also eliminate static.  Super strength, lightweight tanks made out of maybe titanium or something could be used for the hydrogen.

I bet a well designed rigid airship would be no more dangerous today than a Boeing 747 carrying many tonnes of aviation fuel.

Posted Image

#21    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,218 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin USA

  • "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
    -Buddha

Posted 06 March 2013 - 03:56 PM

View Postskookum, on 06 March 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

Hydrogen is extremely flammable, but so is aviation fuel. Lets remember the Hindenburg was a product of 1920/1930's engineering.  Today rigid airships would be built from composites which would make them far lighter and require less Hydrogen to lift, you also eliminate static.  Super strength, lightweight tanks made out of maybe titanium or something could be used for the hydrogen.

I bet a well designed rigid airship would be no more dangerous today than a Boeing 747 carrying many tonnes of aviation fuel.

This is incorrect. No sane company would ever consider using hydrogen as the lifting gas ever since the 1930's, even with composite materials the risk is too great. Hydrogen is just too reactive. Here is a site with more information: http://www.airships....drogen-airships. The bad thing about helium is that it has about 88% of the lifting power of hydrogen, and is WAY more expensive, and becoming rarer and rarer and more expensive with each passing year.

Edited by Einsteinium, 06 March 2013 - 03:58 PM.


#22    skookum

skookum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,533 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Sussex, UK

Posted 20 March 2013 - 01:16 PM

View PostEinsteinium, on 06 March 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

This is incorrect. No sane company would ever consider using hydrogen as the lifting gas ever since the 1930's, even with composite materials the risk is too great. Hydrogen is just too reactive. Here is a site with more information: http://www.airships....drogen-airships. The bad thing about helium is that it has about 88% of the lifting power of hydrogen, and is WAY more expensive, and becoming rarer and rarer and more expensive with each passing year.

In an ideal world of infinite resources I would totally agree.

However the world is far from ideal with dwindling resources.  We may be forced to explore hydrogen alternatives to avoid returning to the dark ages when oil gradually runs out.  Many car manufacturers already are developing hydrogen cell cars.

Posted Image

#23    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,218 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin USA

  • "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
    -Buddha

Posted 20 March 2013 - 07:39 PM

View Postskookum, on 20 March 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

In an ideal world of infinite resources I would totally agree.

However the world is far from ideal with dwindling resources.  We may be forced to explore hydrogen alternatives to avoid returning to the dark ages when oil gradually runs out.  Many car manufacturers already are developing hydrogen cell cars.

I agree. Hydrogen is great for use as a FUEL, but as a lifting agent for airships-not so much. Hydrogen is simply too reactive, too explosive, and too hard to totally contain without any leaks in such a large volume. Airships are not necessary for transportation or otherwise in this age of airplanes, jets, etc. Hydrogen might find its way into a jet fuel or airplane fuel of some kind. But it is extremely unlikely to ever be used again as a lifting gas for airships. You are comparing apples to potatoes here.


#24    skookum

skookum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,533 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Sussex, UK

Posted 21 March 2013 - 01:43 PM

Look at it this way then. We call it a lethal gas which is too explosive to work with.  The Hindenburg carried 36 passengers and 61 crew.  We all agree it crashed during landing procedure.  13 passengers died and 22 crew, which means more than 50% survived this.  How many usually die in an airline crash?  Complete the opposite I think we will find, in fact a major airline crash classed as a disaster like the Hindenburg rarely sees any survivors.  Yet we deem airships far more dangerous.


#25    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,218 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin USA

  • "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
    -Buddha

Posted 21 March 2013 - 06:00 PM

View Postskookum, on 21 March 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

Look at it this way then. We call it a lethal gas which is too explosive to work with.  The Hindenburg carried 36 passengers and 61 crew.  We all agree it crashed during landing procedure.  13 passengers died and 22 crew, which means more than 50% survived this.  How many usually die in an airline crash?  Complete the opposite I think we will find, in fact a major airline crash classed as a disaster like the Hindenburg rarely sees any survivors.  Yet we deem airships far more dangerous.

Okay I will give you that. However, there have never been NEARLY the number of airships flying around as we have planes now. The fact that more than 50% survived the Hindenburg does not mean this would be the normal case. Consider the fact that the disaster luckily happened during landing procedure when it was close to the ground. If it had been in flight it would have been much higher up, and the death toll would have been vastly higher than it was. Helium airships are extremely safe, but hydrogen-no. Just No. Just NO. A jetliner is much safer and has been proven to be much safer than any hydrogen airship. That is fact.


#26    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 21 March 2013 - 07:12 PM

I recently watched the Encore mini series, "Hindenburg: The Last Flight". I thought it was okay, not that great. But, I did enjoy seeing how the recreated the inside of the airship, and all the rooms, and everything. It looks like it was a very classy way to fly!


#27    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tokyo

  • When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.
    (Oscar Wilde)

Posted 02 April 2013 - 02:06 AM

What friggin mystery? That flying a gigantic cylinder filled with hydrogen through a thunderstorm is not a bright idea is hardly rocket science. "Mystery"???






Also tagged with hindenburg, lakehurst, airship, atlantic

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users