Air Date: January 10, 2007
The Hindenburg was destroyed by the flamable compound used to paint the bladder, not by the hydrogen gas within.
busted
The MythBusters built 1/50th scale Hindenburg models to test this myth. The model that contained hydrogen gas burned twice as quickly as the model without hydrogen. While the painted skin did burn vigorously, it is not what caused the Hindenburg to burn as quickly as it did.
If you are being chased by a crocodile, you can escape it by running in a zig-zag pattern.
busted
The MythBusters were not successful at luring a crocodile into a chase. They first tried using a baited dummy suspended from a rig, then a robot, and finally they actually held the bait in their hands in an attempt to get the crocs to chase them. The myth was busted because the premise is bad: crocodiles are ambush predators so they aren’t likely to chase you in the first place.
Newer: Episode 71: "Pirate Special"
[...] Originally Posted by ricechickie All right. Make fun of me. Actually, Mythbusters had an episode about whether it was really hydrogen "exploding" or whether the skin was highly flammable. I believe they concluded that it wasn’t an "explosion" but a rapid burn. I’ll have to check again. Nope, busted MythBusters Episode 70: "Hindenburg Mystery" [...]
April 17, 2008 at 4:43 PM[...] Posted by TakuanSoho Nope, busted MythBusters Episode 70: "Hindenburg Mystery" Yes, dear. I just got back from looking it up. But the skin didn’t HELP. __________________ [...]
April 17, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Wasn’t the culprit static? If it was, then it makes sense that the coating allowed for the initial sparks, as such as a petrol tanker would blame a spark caused by static electricity, or uncharged electricity, rather than blame the fuel.
I conducted the hydrogen experiment at a kid’s party. Namely different gases. We used three balloons, filled them with different gases. I used air, argon and hydrogen, which I made by adding aluminium pieces to a mixture of sodium hydroxide and water, and it gave off lots of hydrogen. Unfortunately, the balloon got hot, and before I’d realised it, most of the hydrogen had gone. (Next time I do this, I will cool the hydrogen balloon as it is filling up.) The remaining gas I put into a fire, and it was a slow explosion, much more slower than expected. Maybe it was because of low pressure, as the balloon was too heavy to float.
June 26, 2007 at 11:04 AMProbably I should say ’slow fireball’ rather than explosion, technically speaking.
June 26, 2007 at 11:05 AMI think Ray is right here. The initial cause of the Hindenberg tragedy may very well have been a static spark igniting the painted skin on the exterior. Of course afterwards the hydrogen provided fuel but the INITIAL CAUSE of the tragedy is what most people care about. That, at least, may very well have been the paint. I think Mythbusters misunderstood the issue here.
June 27, 2007 at 9:30 AMwe did hydrogen experiments in Junior high. MANY years ago when it was ok to blow up students and classrooms.
We used Seashells and Hydrochloric acid and made balloons of the stuff. It was awesome and nobody died! It was a slow and steady burn! I feel that the “explosion” was a slow burn caused by static electricity NOT a bomb!
After that, we went into nitric acid and Iodine crystals. See! I am from the old school of chemistry! I still experiment to this day nas still have all of my fingers!
June 28, 2007 at 11:32 PMDon’t forget, the airship did not come crashing to the ground. I don’t know the weight of this thing, but unlike a blimp it would come crashing down if the hydrogen envelopes were destroyed. This is the key point in the flamable skin argument.
June 30, 2007 at 12:13 PMThe hydrogen test was flawed for one very simple reason. In the Hindenburg the hydrogen was isolated in bags. Hydrogen, by itself, can not burn! The only way that the hydrogen could have ignited is if there were a leak. Any leak of hydrogen escaping from the Hindenburg would simply have flashed as a quick “pop” with hardly enough force or heat to damage the ship. At no time could a hydrogen fed flame work its way back inside the ship to cause an explosion. If you lit a match inside one of the bags, the match would be immediately snuffed out! Simply put, the cause of the disaster could not have been the hydrogen.
September 14, 2007 at 4:52 PMSorry, forgot to note: The Mythbusters conducted their test with a model of the Hindenburg that was filled with a mix of hydrogen and air. A proper test would have had the model filled with bags of pure hydrogen.
September 14, 2007 at 4:54 PMI’m sure glad the Myth Busters didn’t build the real Hindenburgh. It would still be in Germany.
I don’t understand it. They had the plans but continued to build a ballon with a metal framework resembling the dirigible. Then they filled it with a gas.
WRONG! The outer skin of the Hindenburg was merely an aerodynamic shape. Inside was standard atmosphere and a huge 3D puzzle of catwalks to service the SEPARATE HYDROGEN BAGS inside the framework.
Static electricity (like a small lightning bolt and probably St. Elmo’s fire) started the skin to burn at the tail where the electrical charge found a natural shape to jump from. The burning skin started one of the Hydrogen gas bags on fire. As the Hydrogen burned off, the tail end of the dirigible lost lift. By losing lift, the burning outer skin had a faster path to follow causing more Hydrogen bags to burn open and feed the fire.
The Myth Buster dirigible was kept level at all times and did not duplicate the tail going down first nor the slower release of Hydrogen from scores of separate gas bags.
September 24, 2007 at 11:29 PMYeah, I thought the myth to be tested was; was static electricity created in flight and discharged at docking, applied to the weird paint used on the blimp, enough to START the explosion? I mean, with a flammable shell and flammable contents, its obvious that the thing would keep going once started, but what would GET it started? Was it a flaw in the design, or a flaw in the paint? Would the static set it off if there was a small leak in one of the bladders, and would the static set it off if there was no leak, and just the stupid paint job?
Frankly, using rocket fuel (or the elements of a thermite bomb) to paint a blimp full of flammable gas does strike me as poor decision-making….
October 27, 2007 at 4:34 PMRE: Exploding Hindenburg Episode
One factor that was not taken into account during the testing was the large diesel fuel tanks installed in the Hindengurg. The tanks would have been nearly empty after a long flight but filled with oil fumes. The tanks would have acted like bombs in the fire and the remaining fuel would have significantly added to the fire.
November 6, 2007 at 8:39 AMdiesel has nothing to with it… diesel fuel is completely safe at atmosphere and will not burn nor will its evaporated fumes. Much like most oils these are safe when not underpressure, try it. Buy some diesel and use a blow torch to lite it… it won’t combust.
November 14, 2007 at 4:12 AMI think this myth was a little outside the scope of mythbusters expertise. The best test is to initiate a burn on two floating scale airships with multiple internal bags. One should be filled with pure H2 and one with pure He. I have a feeling that both tests would result in fairly quick crash and burn.
Or, they could perform the test burns on simple balloons filled with H2 and He. As long as the balloons have low backpressure, I suspect the result would be a rapid crash and burn in both cases.
In these tests, the hydrogen airship would likely crash faster than the helium airship because it would lose its lifting gas more rapidly. Exacly how much faster is outside my ability to predict… But in the end, both airships would have crashed and burned. The hydrogen would not have caused the crash. It simply would have accelerated it.
November 22, 2007 at 11:27 PMThe mythbusters tested a balloon with the flammable paint and a balloon with hydrogen. Then they compared the results. However they did not test a balloon with both hydrogen and flammable paint. Then you would know how much influence the paint had. A single minute slower burn would have saved many lives. Without this test we cannot know the plausability of the myth. Roelof Jan
November 24, 2007 at 2:17 PMThe Netherlands
THE CROC ONE SCARRED ME DOG SHE DOSN’T LIKE THE CROCS. ME WIFE WAS SCARRED A MYTH BUSTER WAS GOING TO GET A HURT!!
December 17, 2007 at 7:04 PMa tv series “Air Crash Investigation” or Mayday has got a very good explanation of this case. there are many causes. the static charged in the atmosphere and leaked hydrogen etc
January 2, 2008 at 6:40 AMwat ya talkin bout
January 8, 2008 at 2:03 PMI believe that a static spar could not have made the Hindenburg explode.
January 29, 2008 at 1:26 PMi believe that the pistol found in the wreckage had something to do with it.
Yeah, diesel is combustible but not flammable…it will burn but it’s not easy to light off with just a spark or lack of a direct flame.
March 7, 2008 at 12:10 PMawesome my class is doing a subject on the hinden burg
May 5, 2008 at 9:35 PM