Posted by Alan Connor on September 22, 2006, 4:29 am
http://tinyurl.com/zmahk
Alan
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/cr.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/publickey.html
Posted by Malc on September 22, 2006, 7:44 am
Alan Connor wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/zmahk
Without ploughing through all that in detail I recall a programme on the BBC
which dealt with the accident. The colour of the flames was a giveaway in
that hydrogen burns nearly colourlessly. The cause was the doping they put
on the fabric (a piece was still extant and was analysed) and it proved to
be highly inflammable and was ignited probably by a spark of static
electricity.
--
Malc
"You cannot do better than go by Dover or Calais"
Chairman of the Royal Geographic Society when asked the best route to
Bolivia
Posted by Alan Connor on September 22, 2006, 8:47 am
On alt.energy.homepower, in
> Alan Connor wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/zmahk
> Without ploughing through all that in detail I recall a
> programme on the BBC which dealt with the accident. The colour
> of the flames was a giveaway in that hydrogen burns nearly
> colourlessly. The cause was the doping they put on the fabric
> (a piece was still extant and was analysed) and it proved to
> be highly inflammable and was ignited probably by a spark of
> static electricity.
That's about right.
The Hindenburg was only using hydrogen because the U.S. had
cut Germany off from helium.
Dirigibles were a serious threat to many industries that were
growing like crazy at the time, especially in America, because
of their efficiency: Busses and trucks and planes and ships and
trains.
Dirigibles don't require ports/wharves, tracks, airports, or
roads, which has to be calculated into the cost of shipping
freight and passengers.
The Hindenburg could have carried 130 passengers with a
100 pounds of luggage apiece...
They were on the slow side compared to planes, but won out in
every other category, and were said to be much more pleasant to
travel in than even oceanliners.
They were much faster than oceanliners or trains or busses.
There are some who believe that the Hindenburg was deliberately
ignited by something fired at it from the ground or a building.
Or a device planted on the craft. Be pretty easy to do.
The fuss made over the accident in the Media was way out of
proportion. It wasn't anywhere near as lethal as the typical
powered airliner crash. The coverage reeked of propaganda.
Especially considering the safety record of dirigibles:
"The safety record of the Zeppelin dirigibles as a whole is very
favorable. In the whole commercial German airship operation from
before World War I until 1937 there was not a single incident
with fatalities."
There was one with a British dirigible and two American (navy)
but very little loss of life.
Compare that to the number of people killed in passenger
airplanes during that period.
Alan
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/cr.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/publickey.html
Posted by no spam on September 22, 2006, 1:08 pm
>> colourlessly. The cause was the doping they put on the fabric
>> (a piece was still extant and was analysed) and it proved to
>> be highly inflammable and was ignited probably by a spark of
>> static electricity.
> That's about right.
> The Hindenburg was only using hydrogen because the U.S. had
> cut Germany off from helium.
As did others. Seems there was a little of fear that Germany might just try
to use it to make some type of strange new bomb.
> Dirigibles were a serious threat to many industries that were
> growing like crazy at the time, especially in America, because
> of their efficiency: Busses and trucks and planes and ships and
> trains.
I'd like to see more info on that. See more below.
> Dirigibles don't require ports/wharves, tracks, airports, or
> roads, which has to be calculated into the cost of shipping
> freight and passengers.
> The Hindenburg could have carried 130 passengers with a
> 100 pounds of luggage apiece...
> They were on the slow side compared to planes, but won out in
> every other category, and were said to be much more pleasant to
> travel in than even oceanliners.
They have several problems.
1) Their max air speed is fairly slow. Which means you can not fly into a
stiff head wind.
2) They have problems with cross winds
3) They don't handle bad weather. Although their size tends to smooth out
the ride in most cases compaired with small heavier than aircraft, that same
size tends to cause really bad stresses on the frame.
4) This one wasn't as big of a problem then as it is to day but, they
require large storage space on the ground compaired to their payload size.
(ever rent hanger space at a major airport?!?!?)
> They were much faster than oceanliners or trains or busses.
I'll give you oceanliners of the day. I can see busses of the day. But in
a fair comparrision, i.e. airship from say D.C. to St Louis to express train
service, I'd think the train would win.
> There are some who believe that the Hindenburg was deliberately
> ignited by something fired at it from the ground or a building.
> Or a device planted on the craft. Be pretty easy to do.
People believe all kinds of things. Especially in cases where nothing can
be proven one way or the other.
> The fuss made over the accident in the Media was way out of
> proportion. It wasn't anywhere near as lethal as the typical
> powered airliner crash. The coverage reeked of propaganda.
I don't see it that way. What made the coverage way out of proportion was
the fact that air travle was fairly new AND the fire and crash was broadcast
live. Who hasn't heard the recording of the old radio broadcast? It'd be
like having one of the first passenger airplane crashes shown live on TV.
All across the nation the newspapers of the time had to splash the pics and
story on the front page because of the interest generated by radio. If it
hadn't been for that it MIGHT have made a page 2 or 3 entry east of the
Mississippi and a small spot in the national news section of a few papers
west of there.
Posted by Alan Connor on September 22, 2006, 6:28 pm
On alt.energy.homepower, in
>>> colourlessly. The cause was the doping they put on the fabric
>>> (a piece was still extant and was analysed) and it proved to
>>> be highly inflammable and was ignited probably by a spark of
>>> static electricity.
>>
>> That's about right.
>>
>> The Hindenburg was only using hydrogen because the U.S. had
>> cut Germany off from helium.
> As did others. Seems there was a little of fear that Germany
> might just try to use it to make some type of strange new bomb.
>> Dirigibles were a serious threat to many industries that were
>> growing like crazy at the time, especially in America, because
>> of their efficiency: Busses and trucks and planes and ships
>> and trains.
> I'd like to see more info on that. See more below.
All major industries try to eliminate the competition, while
claiming to thrive on it.
The beer/wine/spirits/trucking/glassmaking/aluminum industries
managed to get pot outlawed...
That's a would be a _lot_ of jobs and investment income lost
because pot is so easy to grow and only needs to be dried
to be ready for consumption.
People could grow it on containers on their decks, easily.
>> Dirigibles don't require ports/wharves, tracks, airports, or
>> roads, which has to be calculated into the cost of shipping
>> freight and passengers.
>>
>> The Hindenburg could have carried 130 passengers with a 100
>> pounds of luggage apiece...
>>
>> They were on the slow side compared to planes, but won out in
>> every other category, and were said to be much more pleasant
>> to travel in than even oceanliners.
> They have several problems.
> 1) Their max air speed is fairly slow. Which means you can not
> fly into a stiff head wind.
The direction of the wind changes at different altitudes so theypick the
altitude with the wind going in the right direction.
Like hot air balloons, which only work at all because of that
feature of the atmosphere.
They also change direction at the same altitude in different
locations.
Like ocean currents but in three dimensions.
> 2) They have problems with cross winds
Sure. So do all aircraft, but for dirigibles it is usually
when they are taking off and landing and finding the right
altitude.
> 3) They don't handle bad weather. Although their size tends
> to smooth out the ride in most cases compaired with small
> heavier than aircraft, that same size tends to cause really bad
> stresses on the frame.
They really should be about half the size of the Hindenburg
for that very reason. They'd still be a very smooth ride,
most of the time.
> 4) This one wasn't as big of a problem then as it is to day
> but, they require large storage space on the ground compaired
> to their payload size. (ever rent hanger space at a major
> airport?!?!?)
Good point. But they don't really need hangars except when
they are being built. And perhaps not then. They are obviously
weather resistant.
>> They were much faster than oceanliners or trains or busses.
> I'll give you oceanliners of the day. I can see busses of the
> day. But in a fair comparrision, i.e. airship from say D.C. to
> St Louis to express train service, I'd think the train would
> win.
Not a chance.
>> There are some who believe that the Hindenburg was
>> deliberately ignited by something fired at it from the ground
>> or a building. Or a device planted on the craft. Be pretty
>> easy to do.
> People believe all kinds of things. Especially in cases where
> nothing can be proven one way or the other.
And you can't prove anything one way or the other.
>> The fuss made over the accident in the Media was way out of
>> proportion. It wasn't anywhere near as lethal as the typical
>> powered airliner crash. The coverage reeked of propaganda.
> I don't see it that way. What made the coverage way out of
> proportion was the fact that air travle was fairly new AND
> the fire and crash was broadcast live. Who hasn't heard the
> recording of the old radio broadcast? It'd be like having one
> of the first passenger airplane crashes shown live on TV. All
> across the nation the newspapers of the time had to splash
> the pics and story on the front page because of the interest
> generated by radio. If it hadn't been for that it MIGHT have
> made a page 2 or 3 entry east of the Mississippi and a small
> spot in the national news section of a few papers west of
> there.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You can't prove anything one way or the
other.
The big corporations, who control the Media, are utterly amoral,
and if you don't know that, you need to get out more.
The Media is their propaganda tool, first and foremost.
Take the situation in Iraq: The Media refers to the _citizens_ of
that country who are resisting the invading Americans and their
collaborators, as "insurgents", and have from the outset of the
invasion.
"Insurgents" are people who are fighting an _established_ and
lawful government, not patriots fighting a puppet government
installed by an invading force from across the ocean.
Alan
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/cr.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/publickey.html
XML site map