Grumpy Old Sod Dot Com - an internet voice for the exasperated. Sick of the nanny state? Pissed off with politicians? Annoyed by newspapers? Irate with the internet? Tell us about it!

Send us an email
Go back
11th September 2013: The world's gone mad and I'm the only one who knows
30th August 2013: Isn't sarcasm a wonderful thing?
25th August 2013: Operation Yewtree has turned British justice on its head
13th August 2013: Black is white. Fact. End of.
11th August 2013: Why 'human rights' is nothing of the sort ...
11th August 2013: Electric cars, not as green as they're painted?
6th August 2013: How the British nation treats its friends ...
8th July 2013: The BBC biased? How can that be? They're so NICE!
26th June 2013: Think this country is a bastion of freedom and justice and a shining model for the world? Think again.
18th June 2013: Wrinklies unite, you have nothing to lose but your walking frames!
17th June 2013: is the end finally approaching for this evil woman?
31st May 2013: Now it's official - the BBC really is a left-wing propaganda machine
31st May 2013: Those evil bastards are at it again. Yes, you've guessed it - social services!
27th May 2013: Well-known TV presenter talks sense. No good will come of it.
24th May 2013: British justice is best? Only for the very poor, apparently ...
17th May 2013: Some actual FACTS about climate change (for a change) from actual scientists ...
10th May 2013: An article about that poison gas, carbon dioxide, and other scientific facts (not) ...
10th May 2013: We need to see past the sex and look at the crimes: is justice being served?
8th May 2013: So, who would you trust to treat your haemorrhoids, Theresa May?
8th May 2013: Why should citizens in the 21st Century fear the law so much?
30th April 2013: What the GOS says today, the rest of the world realises tomorrow ...
30th April 2013: You couldn't make it up, could you? Luckily you don't need to ...
29th April 2013: a vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE, because THE ABOVE are crap ...
28th April 2013: what goes around, comes around?
19th April 2013: everyone's a victim these days ...
10th April 2013: Thatcher is dead; long live Thatcher!
8th April 2013: Poor people are such a nuisance. Just give them loads of money and they'll go away ...
26th March 2013: Censorship is alive and well and coming for you ...
25th March 2013: Just do your job properly, is that too much to ask?
25th March 2013: So, what do you think caused your heterosexuality?
20th March 2013: Feminists - puritans, hypocrites or just plain stupid?
18th March 2013: How Nazi Germany paved the way for modern governance?
13th March 2013: Time we all grew up and lived in the real world ...
12th March 2013: Hindenburg crash mystery solved? - don't you believe it!
6th March 2013: Is this the real GOS?
5th March 2013: All that's wrong with taxes
25th February 2013: The self-seeking MP who is trying to bring Britain down ...
24th February 2013: Why can't newspapers just tell the truth?
22nd February 2013: Trial by jury - a radical proposal
13th February 2013: A little verse for two very old people ...
6th February 2013: It's not us after all, it's worms
6th February 2013: Now here's a powerful argument FOR gay marriage ...
4th February 2013: There's no such thing as equality because we're not all the same ...
28th January 2013: Global Warming isn't over - IT'S HIDING!
25th January 2013: Global Warmers: mad, bad and dangerous to know ...
25th January 2013: Bullying ego-trippers, not animal lovers ...
19th January 2013: We STILL haven't got our heads straight about gays ...
16th January 2013: Bullying ego-trippers, not animal lovers ...
11th January 2013: What it's like being English ...
7th January 2013: Bleat, bleat, if it saves the life of just one child ...
7th January 2013: How best to put it? 'Up yours, Argentina'?
7th January 2013: Chucking even more of other people's money around ...
6th January 2013: Chucking other people's money around ...
30th December 2012: The BBC is just crap, basically ...
30th December 2012: We mourn the passing of a genuine Grumpy Old Sod ...
30th December 2012: How an official body sets out to ruin Christmas ...
16th December 2012: Why should we pardon Alan Turing when he did nothing wrong?
15th December 2012: When will social workers face up to their REAL responsibility?
15th December 2012: Unfair trading by a firm in Bognor Regis ...
14th December 2012: Now the company that sells your data is pretending to act as watchdog ...
7th December 2012: There's a war between cars and bikes, apparently, and  most of us never noticed!
26th November 2012: The bottom line - social workers are just plain stupid ...
20th November 2012: So, David Eyke was right all along, then?
15th November 2012: MPs don't mind dishing it out, but when it's them in the firing line ...
14th November 2012: The BBC has a policy, it seems, about which truths it wants to tell ...
12th November 2012: Big Brother, coming to a school near you ...
9th November 2012: Yet another celebrity who thinks, like Jimmy Saville, that he can behave just as he likes because he's famous ...
5th November 2012: Whose roads are they, anyway? After all, we paid for them ...
7th May 2012: How politicians could end droughts at a stroke if they chose ...
6th May 2012: The BBC, still determined to keep us in a fog of ignorance ...
2nd May 2012: A sense of proportion lacking?
24th April 2012: Told you so, told you so, told you so ...
15th April 2012: Aah, sweet ickle polar bears in danger, aah ...
15th April 2012: An open letter to Anglian Water ...
30th March 2012: Now they want to cure us if we don't believe their lies ...
28th February 2012: Just how useful is a degree? Not very.
27th February 2012: ... so many ways to die ...
15th February 2012: DO go to Jamaica because you definitely WON'T get murdered with a machete. Ms Fox says so ...
31st January 2012: We don't make anything any more
27th January 2012: There's always a word for it, they say, and if there isn't we'll invent one
26th January 2012: Literary criticism on GOS? How posh!
12th December 2011: Plain speaking by a scientist about the global warming fraud
9th December 2011: Who trusts scientists? Apart from the BBC, of course?
7th December 2011: All in all, not a good week for British justice ...
9th November 2011: Well what d'you know, the law really IS a bit of an ass ...

 

 
Captain Grumpy's bedtime reading. You can buy them too, if you think you're grumpy enough!
Readers wives. Yes, really!
More Grumpy Old Sods on the net

 

 
Older stuff
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
The recent Channel 4 documentary “What destroyed the Hindenburg” was a truly awful and dishonest bit of pseudo-science that insulted the viewer's intelligence and reduced our Science Correspondent to incandescent fury. It was hailed on television websites and the press as “Hindenburg mystery solved 76 years after historic catastrophe: static electricity caused the airship to explode” (Daily Mail headline) but in fact if did nothing to explain the 1937 disaster when the German flagship dirigible burst into flames and crashed at Lakehurst, New Jersey with tragic loss of life.
 

 
Of course it might be said that there is little mystery about enormous bags of hydrogen gas exploding. Hydrogen is dangerous stuff, and there was a long history of airships exploding before the Hindenburg disaster signalled the end of this particular form of air travel. In 1912 three went down, another four in 1915, and two a year in 1916, 1917 and 1918 – and that doesn't include any that were shot down by enemy action.
 
It was also well-known that lightning was a significant cause of such explosions. The 1915 crash of the airship L-10 near Cuxhaven was almost certainly caused by lightning, as was the 1917 crash of the SL-9 over the Baltic and the French airship Dixmude which exploded so violently on the Sicilian coast in 1923 that the flames were visible many miles away. And in 1937 there were thunderstorms looming over Lakehurst as the biggest of them all, Hindenburg, attempted to land.
 
Not such a mystery, then, although the programme said that several other theories had been advanced – among them a bomb, exploding paint, and St.Elmo's Fire.
 
The team from the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, fronted by broadcaster Jem Stansfield, made a televisual spectacle by building several 1/10th scale models of the Hindenburg and blowing them up in entertaining ways, though it has to be said that all the explosions looked remarkably similar to me. From this they drew conclusions – but they were conclusions that didn't hold water. Or hydrogen, come to that.
 
Firstly there is a problem over the use of models. A 1/10th scale model has linear dimensions that are 1/10th of the original, but physics dictates that its area dimensions will be 1/100 of the original, and that it will have only 1/1000 of the volume. This means the model only gives useful results if the variables are of the same dimension. For instance, models in wind tunnels work because the factors involved are distance and velocity so everything is linear. Burning buildings (or airships) don't work because the fuel is volume while the burned surface is area – for a given length there is a hundred times too much fuel compared to the real thing! The fire brigade have found that to see how fire behaves in buildings they have to build full-size buildings in one of the Cardington airship hangars, and burn them: models don't work.
 
The mass to surface area ratio is very important. Penguins who live near the equator are small, and the birds get bigger the further south you go. Biggest of all are the Emperor penguins who live closest to the South Pole. More mass for less surface area means less heat lost. How the “scientists” on this programme expected their models to prove anything is beyond comprehension.
 
The first experiment was to see what the pattern of destruction would be if someone had planted a bomb. To the untutored eye when the bomb was detonated the model crashed and burned in very much the same way as the Hindenburg did in 1937, but the “scientists” knew what they wanted to find so they dismissed it.
 
They considered lightning, which has to be favourite given the circumstances and the history. Lightning is a pretty common phenomenon and a lot is known about it – but not, apparently, to these programme makers. They did not seem to know that the first strike of lightning goes up, not down. It forms an ionised conducting path through the atmosphere and subsequent strikes go up and down this path. After flying for three days the Hindenburg would have picked up a strong static charge, most concentrated where the curvature is sharpest, probably at the tip of the tail. When mooring ropes are trailed under a thunderstorm this charge will build up rapidly even if the ropes don't actually touch the ground until it reaches a potential of about 1,000 volts per centimetre. Then there probably will be a strike upwards from the tail to the cloud base that could ignite any hydrogen that has leaked. But Jem Stansfield was convinced that this could only happen if the ship was earthed – if the ropes were touching the ground, in other words.
 
The third possibility considered was that the paint used to proof the fabric cover might have been inflammable. It has long been suggested that the paint contained thermite, a highly inflammable substance described by Stansfield as an ingredient of rocket fuel. However, thermite is not and never has been a rocket fuel. There is something else called nanothermite that has been used in rocket fuel, but it has nothing to do with thermite. Thermite has been used to weld locomotive chassis and railway lines, thermite grenades have been used in war – dropped down the barrel of a large gun it will burn so fiercely that barrel and breech are welded together, while incendiary bombs can be either phosphorus or thermite.
 
Thermite needs exceptionally high temperatures to start the reaction – over 2,000 degrees C which is more than white hot. It's usually ignited using magnesium ribbon. It also needs a critical mass to keep it going. Do we know if any magnesium alloys were used in the structure of the Hindenburg, for instance? It does seem unlikely as the airship was built on a tight budget, and all the information we've been able to find is that it was made principally of aluminium.
 
Stansfield and his colleagues burned two pieces of canvas, one painted and one not. They both burned at pretty much the same speed and in the same manner, so they drew the conclusion that the paint with thermite could have played no part in the disaster. But the amount of material they burned was way below the critical mass required by thermite, and they started the fire with bunsen burners (800 – 900 degrees C). Both pieces of canvas burned with a yellow flame which indicates a temperature of 500 degrees C. This is like trying to make tea with melting ice and complaining that it doesn't work. They never gave the thermite a chance to ignite – so it didn't.
 
It's highly unlikely that thermite was a factor in the disaster, in any case – there's a detailed and authoritative discussion here - so why so much time was devoted to it is not clear, unless it was to give them the opportunity to burn some bits of canvas and pass it off as scientific experiment.
 
The final theory was that leaking hydrogen had been ignited by St.Elmo's Fire. Usually seen on ships at sea during thundery weather, St.Elmo's Fire is a concentration of static electrical charge at sharp corners of a structure. The electrons in the atoms jump to higher energy levels and back again, which makes them emit photons of light. Big jumps are seen at the blue end of the spectrum, smaller ones at the red.
 
It is true that there were reports from onlookers of blue flames on the tail of the airship as it manoeuvred to land. But – and here's the rub – photons aren't hot! Sailors can stand on the rigging of a ship and get St.Elmo's Fire playing from their outstretched fingers without harm. There are even reports of butterflies flying through a charge with St.Elmo's Fire flickering from their wings. St.Elmo's Fire couldn't light a fart in a bucket, let alone an 800 foot airship.
 
The programme made great play with the ventilation shafts which supposedly ran from the bottom to the top of the hull between the gas bags, though it has to be said that none of the pictures they used showed any shafts so whether they existed or not was a moot point. They claimed that the purpose of these shafts was to carry away escaped hydrogen, though as hydrogen is lighter than air (that's the point, isn't it?) it would only have to get out at the top of the envelope, not at the bottom. If these shafts existed it's more likely that they were to allow air to pass in and out of the envelope to equalise the air pressures inside and out as the ship went up and down.
 
However, the alleged scientists were delighted by an experiment that showed if they lit a fire at the top of a glass tube with hydrogen in it, after a while there would be a “pop!” and the fire would drop down and start burning at the foot of the tube. What this proved was not clear. Hydrogen rises, so if there were a leaky gas bag the gas would escape upwards and collect at the top of the envelope – the bottom of the shaft would probably have no hydrogen in it.
 
Indeed the famous film of the Hindenburg bursting into flame and subsiding stern-first to the ground does show just such a fire – a burn along the top of the envelope as each bag in turn ruptures from the heat and the ball of hydrogen it contains ignites at its surface.
 
A couple of facts that were not included in the programme were that the captain approached too fast in an attempt to make an impressive landing. When the wind dropped at the last minute he was forced to make a tight turn, which may have put a great strain on the 800 foot long framework. The aluminium framework was all tensioned by no less than 85 miles of steel wire, and there had been reports that much of this was rusty. It seems highly likely that under the strain one of these wires broke, and that the sharp end, whipping about, punctured a gas bag. A crewman claimed to have hear a bang before the crash, which Stansfield said was gas igniting – but it's more likely that this was the wire snapping.
 
As to what ignited the gas ... well, lightning had done it before. Or maybe there is something in the claims that there was a strong smell of diesel in the air – leaky diesel fuel tank ... drops of fuel landing on a hot diesel engine driving the propellors ... diesel is not a particularly inflammable liquid but it becomes much more volatile if it falls on something hot ...
 
What is absolutely certain is that the programme's main conclusion is entirely potty. St.Elmo's fire could not be to blame, and if you find me some I'll poke my grumpy finger in it to prove the point.
 
There may have been one or two actual scientists involved in this documentary, specifically staff from the American test facility. Surely they must have known that to draw conclusions solely on the basis of the “look” of a fire in a 1/10 scale model is very poor science indeed? And that not knowing the physical laws of length, area and volume and not understanding the nature of static electricity is just plain stupid? Assuming that they did, this programme was not just foolish and flawed, it was downright dishonest.
 

 
Grumpy Old Sod.com - homepage
 

 
Use this Yahoo Search box to find more grumpy places,
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Copyright © 2013 The GOS
 
Grumpy Old Sod.com - homepage

 

Captain Grumpy's
Favourites
- some older posts

 
Campaign
 
Proposal
 
Burglars
 
Defence
 
ID cards
 
Old folk
 
Hairy man
 
Democracy
 
Mud
 
The NHS
 
Violence
 
Effluent
 
Respect
 
Litter
 
Weapons
 
The church
 
Blame
 
Parenting
 
Paedophiles
 
The Pope
 
Punishing
 
Racism
 
Scientists
 
Smoking
 
Stupidity
 
Swimming
 
Envirocrap
 
Spying