Monday, June 27, 2016
Contact us    |    Advertise    |   Help   RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon
    Home  ·  News  ·  Forum  ·  Stories  ·  Image Gallery  ·  Columns  ·  Encyclopedia  ·  Videos
Find: in

Hindenburg mystery solved after 76 years ?


Posted on Tuesday, 5 March, 2013 | Comment icon 26 comments | News tip by: Still Waters


Image credit: US Navy

 
Scientists believe they have explained what caused the Hindenburg to explode back in May 1937.

The Concorde of its day, the Hindenburg was a technological marvel that was capable of transporting passengers across the Atlantic in half the time of a sea-based vessel. Disaster struck in 1937 however when the airship burst in to flames as it came in to land at Lakehurst, New Jersey. For years experts have pondered over what exactly caused it to explode, but now a team of engineers think they may have the answer.

Using a small scale model of the airship, the team led by aeronautical engineer Jem Stansfield was able to piece together the series of events that conspired to destroy the Hindenburg. It turns out that the hull became charged with static during an electrical storm while at the same time a broken wire or faulty valve leaked hydrogen in to the ventilation shafts. "I think the most likely mechanism for providing the spark is electrostatic," said Stansfield. "That starts at the top, then the flames from our experiments would've probably tracked down to the centre. With an explosive mixture of gas, that gave the whoomph when it got to the bottom."

"The dream was a fleet of hydrogen-filled airships criss-crossing the globe, silvered hulls shining in the sunlight."

  View: Full article |  Source: Independent

  Discuss: View comments (26)

   


 
Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #17 Posted by Chooky88 on 5 March, 2013, 22:32
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.
Comment icon #18 Posted by GirlfromOz on 6 March, 2013, 9:21
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. .
Comment icon #19 Posted by skookum on 6 March, 2013, 9:42
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.
Comment icon #20 Posted by Einsteinium on 6 March, 2013, 15:56
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 ev... [More]
Comment icon #21 Posted by skookum on 20 March, 2013, 13:16
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... [More]
Comment icon #22 Posted by Einsteinium on 20 March, 2013, 19:39
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 air... [More]
Comment icon #23 Posted by skookum on 21 March, 2013, 13:43
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.
Comment icon #24 Posted by Einsteinium on 21 March, 2013, 18:00
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 p... [More]
Comment icon #25 Posted by Kowalski on 21 March, 2013, 19:12
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!
Comment icon #26 Posted by Zaphod222 on 2 April, 2013, 2:06
What friggin mystery? That flying a gigantic cylinder filled with hydrogen through a thunderstorm is not a bright idea is hardly rocket science. "Mystery"???


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


  On the forums
Forum posts:
Forum topics:
Members:

5706572
259115
160942

 
Weird machine enables a dog to pet its owner
6-26-2016
A bizarre contraption called the 'Affectionator' gives a dog the chance to pat its owner on the head.
Arctic turning bright pink color due to algae
6-26-2016
The pristine white of the Arctic landscape seems to have been turning a rather unusual shade of pink.
Batman would be 'ill-equipped' say scientists
6-25-2016
Researchers at the University of Leicester have determined that Batman would be rubbish in real life.
Scottish UFO plaque replaced after 24 years
6-25-2016
The plaque is located at the site where Bob Taylor famously encountered a strange object back in 1979.
Other news in this category
Mystery surrounds Muscatine 'Men in Black'
Posted 6-22-2016 | 13 comments
Mysterious individuals dressed in black have been reported standing at the side of roadways in Iowa....
 
Mystery surrounds Great Island stone marker
Posted 6-21-2016 | 3 comments
The origins of a granite marker on an island in Massachusetts have remained a mystery for years....
 
Man finds 'Nazi nukes' inside a German cave
Posted 5-17-2016 | 29 comments
70-year-old Peter Lohr claims to have located five nuclear bombs inside a network of underground caverns....
 
Who was the mysterious Man in the Iron Mask?
Posted 5-8-2016 | 8 comments
History professor Paul Sonnino believes he has finally uncovered the story of the man behind the mask....
 
Workers film peculiar blowhole in the desert
Posted 5-7-2016 | 17 comments
Workmen in Saudi Arabia were left scratching their heads when sand started erupting from the ground....
 
DNA to help solve Leonardo da Vinci mystery
Posted 5-6-2016 | 9 comments
Scientists are hoping to extract DNA from skin and hair samples found on some of Da Vinci's paintings....
 
What happened to New Zealand's terraces ?
Posted 5-1-2016 | 3 comments
Were the Pink and White terraces of Lake Rotomahana really destroyed when Mount Tarawera erupted ?...
 
Strange foam fills streets after Japan quake
Posted 4-17-2016 | 18 comments
Residents of Fukuoka were perplexed when a thick layer of foam started to engulf the city's streets....
 
Is there really a London Olympics 'curse' ?
Posted 4-16-2016 | 12 comments
The deaths of 18 athletes who took part in the London 2012 Olympics have sparked rumors of a curse. ...
 
Mystery surrounds strange building in Egypt
Posted 4-9-2016 | 34 comments
A peculiar structure in the Egyptian desert near Cairo has been generating a lot of speculation online....
 
Wright Brothers' patent discovered in a cave
Posted 4-5-2016 | 8 comments
A missing patent for the world's first powered flying machine has been found in an old archive in Kansas....
 

 View: More news in this category
 
Top   |  Home   |   Forum   |   News   |   Image Gallery   |  Columns   |   Encyclopedia   |   Videos   |   Polls
UM-X 10.7 Unexplained-Mysteries.com © 2001-2015
Privacy Policy and Disclaimer   |   Cookies   |   Advertise   |   Contact   |   Help/FAQ