Talk:LZ 129 Hindenburg/Archive 1

message: I feel that the last paragraph on the cause of the explosion a bit too 'fuzzy'.  It seems to be made up of several explanations rolled together into one theory.  On top of that, there is a reference made to helium without many qualifiers.  Helium is very inert, but prohibitively expensive to use in a zepplin program, such as the one Germany was running.
The last paragraph perhaps should outline some of the major theories and who supports them.
SME
:Please, it's N an explosion, it's a fire. Only media outlets (who don't know any better) call it an explosion. Also, I del "revisionist" as POV. It may N be commonly accepted, but revisionist has gained a perjorative connotation. A third point: I saw a TV doc that suggested the skin was doped with something resembling SRB fuel (see links below), & the Germans had known it was the proximate cause of the fire since their own investigation in 1937...  Trekphiler 01:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What caused the explosion? 

message: Does anyone know what the copyright status of the newsreel footage and associated stills is?  I can provide three higher resolution scans of the disaster but I am not sure whether it is allowed. Geoff/Gsl 06:26, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsreel copyright 

message: Are we supposed to use British or American spelling? Gbleem 23:08, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: Does anyone have a good reference for cause of death for the victims?  The original article text didn't even have the correct total, and my research shows numbers between 27 and 33 for the number for people who fell by jumping.  I've also found reference to death by smoke inhalation but no numbers.  --Pascal666 04:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this on the Rocky Mountain Institute website titled "The Hindenburg Myth" when speaking of the safety of hydrogen as a fuel source, I cannot personally vouch for the accuracy but thought it might be good to post here --Jaycorrales 22:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of death 

message: Can we get a link to the video somewhere? - Alterego
Yeah, the Hindenburg was destroyed on 1937, 68 years ago, i think it doesn't have copyright. --Neo139 07:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily so. Due to the wonderful revisions of patent law by the US congress, only works published prior to 1923 are certain to be in the public domain today. Blimpguy 19:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video? 

message: — Matt 16:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A comment on Slashdot

message: Someone has posted this as a recent edit:
:The airship's skin was not constructed in a way that allowed its charge to be evenly distributed, and the skin was separated from the aluminium frame by nonconductive ramie cords.A potential difference between the wet zeppelin and the ground was thus created.
I don't buy the cause-effect link this person is trying to establish at all. Simply creating a capacitor does not cause it to be charged; something must act to create the potential difference across the capacitor. In this case, it seems to have been friction with the water droplets in the front mentioned in the next paragraph.
Also, the little outline box around the paragraph talking about the weather is guilty of page-widening. Not sure what the problem is, so I didn't try to fix it (yet). --Chris Lawson 08:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest edit: potential difference between ship and ground

message: Extrapolating the burn time of a 300 meter long airship from the rate of burning of a 10cm square piece of fabric has no validity and almost certainly yields an incorrect calculation. Consider that wood burns even slower than this varnished fabric does. But if you lit a house on fire, would it take three weeks to burn down? Of course not.
Given this enormous basic flaw, I don't know how much value these articles really have.
:A house typically burns faster because the reflected radiant heat "cooks" the materials at a distance to the point of ignition.  In general, solids don't have a fast rate of flame propogation, only gases.  That's why the "it's the fabric" idea is deeply broken. But, for NPOV, it is given fair play in the article. Blimpguy 13:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard the comparable complaint that the article is in favor of the flammable fabric theory.  I take the balance of such complaints as a sign that we have reasonable NPOV. Blimpguy 10:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forty hour burn time seems totally bogus 

message: The 'Successful first year' section refers to Goodyear engineers having made flights 'while the Hindenburg and Graf Zeppelin II were in operation'.  They weren't in operation at the same time.  The Graf Zeppelin II didn't fly until 14 September 1938, almost a year and a half after the Hindenburg was destroyed at Lakehurst.  Surely this sentence should refer to the original Graf Zeppelin, which first flew on 8 July 1928 and which remained in commercial service until it was grounded in the immediate aftermath of the Hindenburg's destruction?
: Good point. In fact not only is the paragraph in error it's not particularly relevant to this article.  I just remove it. Blimpguy 10:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graf Zeppelin / Graf Zeppelin II 

message: About 2 years ago there was a UK tv programme on the 'disaster'. It seemed to conclusivly prove that it was the exterior paint ignited by static that caused this whole thing. Anyone see that prog or heard of this line of enquiry? -max rspct 13:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but the flammable paint theory has been pretty well rejected by serious researchers.  Although it was in vogue for a few years. See the papers cited in the article.   Blimpguy 16:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ITS THE PAINT!!

message: Were incorrectly tagged as pd-usgov. Since they're not works of the us government, and the site used as a "source" credits them to someone else, I've tagged them as no-license. Matt 20:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images on this page 

message: The bit about a Zionist conspiracy is in the wrong place, and is unsourced. I've asked the editor who wrote it to provide a source. Assuming that s/he does, I would think to move that to the 'sabotage' section. matt kane's brain 19:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zionists 

message: :The Hindenburg was originally intended to be filled with helium, but a United States military embargo on helium forced the Germans to modify the design of the ship to use highly flammable hydrogen as the lift gas.
This needs a little more explanation; it is confusing.  Was there a ban on moving large amounts of helium out of the US, which technically would occur each time the Hindenburg left US airspace?   As currently written, it sounds like the US was the main producer of helium, and nobody could get their hands on any helium in Germany, which can't be right.  Tempshill 17:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, that's exactly what happened. The US was (continues to be, I think) the world's leading producer of helium, and they wouldn't sell the necessary quantity to the Germans because they thought it would be used for military purposes.--chris.lawson 21:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same understanding. US had a corner on the world's helium supply, and still does. If you notice from the wiki-article on helium, it originated from an oil well. Germany has no natural oil resources to speak of within its boundary, they are definitely not near helium. That's why they used hydrogen. During the war they developed a synthetic lubricant from which STP is derived.--Magi Media 06:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embargo 

message: There was a heading for the Static Spark Theory, but no headings on the other theories listed, which looked a bit inconsistent.  So I added a couple of headings for the other paragraphs.  Alternatively all these subheadings could be removed without much great loss. --duncan 08:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me like the words "proponents" and "opponents" in the IPT entry, paragraph 4, have been reversed.  Can anyone confirm this?  If so, I'd like to change the words around. --Sleet01 02:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes of ignition: sub-categories 

message: Shouldn't the title be "The Hindenburg" instead of "Hindenburg disaster"? I mean, it talks about the Hindenburg and the disaster, and the disaster was part of the more general subject of the Hindenburg itself.--67.8.152.103 18:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Actually the title "Hindenburg (airship)" to differentiate it from the German President would be a good choice. I'd also leave a redirect from the current article to a new article with the new name. Blimpguy 19:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title 

message: "British hard rock group Led Zeppelin's eponymous first album has a picture of the Hindenburg disaster on the front cover. The band's name is a reference to Keith Moon's (of The Who) quotation that the band would "sink like a lead balloon" "
This statement in the Cultural References - Audio section contradicts the Led Zeppelin article on two points:
1) It wasn't Keith Moon's quotation, it was John Entwistle's.
2) He wasn't referring to a forming band; he was referring to a gig gone bad.
Which article is correct?
Enduser 18:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Led Zeppelin 

message: This article seems to focus mostly on the disaster, not on the luxurious aspects of the Hindenburg.  Their is much more to it than the accident.  Look at the titanic article it talks of how it was one of the most luxurious ships.  Well this is one of the most luxurious things to fly.  I believe we should expand this aspect.  TrevorLSciAct 20:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. The article was entitled "Hindenburg disaster" until just a few months ago.  So expanding the non-accident portions is quite reasonable. Blimpguy 13:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Their is more than the disaster 

message: Considering that the article includes a bunch of mentions of Simpsons episodes, Duck Tales, Family Guy, the Waltons, Stephen Colbert, etc., I don't see the addition of a Seinfeld episode doing much harm. Removing all such stuff might be reasonable. Also, note that the episode in question includes more of a reference than the quote - there is also a large sudden fire that destroys a passenger vehicle. However, this is just my unsolicited opinion as someone who has not contributed to this page other than a little vandalism reversion.  If longstanding contributors have a different opinion, then by all means please ignore my random intervention. —Wookipedian 15:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed all that junk.  Half of those 'references' weren't even about the Hindenburg, but completely different zeppelins!  I left a couple where I didn't know enough to determine if they were significant or not. Kundor 02:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Seinfeld'' revert war

message: I think this article needs a thorough re-write. There are many passages that seem to have been translated from another language, and not very well; others are just not well-written. I am very far from an expert on this subject, so I have nothing to say about that aspect of the content, just the use of the English language. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of this article 

message: Should the title of this article be changed to "Hindenburg (airship)"?  I just wonder whether anyone would look it up under the serial number of the airship. Thesmothete 20:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was the title. Somebody changed it, without discussion I believe.  I didn't want to start a revert war. Blimpguy 19:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I think many sections of this article are very poorly written, especially with style. Plus I have to mention that there may be  serious problems with the factual accuracy --FrancescBlandino 15:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why the article needs a raft of citations.--Magi Media 14:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mayor Cleanup 

message: The show says that there is a color film from a 1936 private collection filmed by Harold G. Dick. However, I looked carefully and at least some of the film is of the LZ 130 Graf Zeppelin II!!!!!!!!! Aww man...... that sucked because that means thet there is no color footage of the Hindenburg before it crashed (unless parts of the footage are of the hindenburg) !!!!
Because of this does it mean the citations(done by me) to film are misleading???? Frankyboy5 06:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindenburg Disaster: Probable Cause color footage??

message: Something tells me that whatever it was that caused the Hindenburg disaster, it wasn't a Klingon Bird of Prey as postulated in the theories section...
:I have reverted that edit; even though the theory reeks of common sense, displays all the rigor of the scientific method one could possibly wish for, and was undoubtedly posted by someone who had nothing but the expansion and dissemination of human knowledge at heart, not to mention a laudable desire to see open-mindedness triumph against all odds, I just couldn't...well, never mind. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it back. It was too. I've got a burning dirigible painted on the side of my D-7.  Koloth 03:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Klingon Bird of Prey 

message: Did anybody see the Nova thing? It supported the paint, which they identified as akin to rocket fuel. Some guy even did a test on an old piece of the doped cloth that arguably proved it. Nova is pretty widely accepted as an accurate show, and since they're actually qualified to make serious theories (because they're the show that actually uses scientists), I suggest we listen to them. Thoughts?--The4sword 05:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, it was a fire. Not an explosion. Second, there are records of hastily-covered tests in Germany that the third reich performed that backed up the paint. Third, an actual scientist tested an old bit of fabric from the Hindenburg, which acted just as it would have if the paint was the cause. Fourth, colorized footage of the incident shows RED flame, as described from witnesses from the starboard. I challenge you to explain this away. Well?--The4sword 02:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOVA has never done a show on the Hindenburg. The show that your thinking of is Secrets of the Dead which executive producer is also a NOVA producer but the shows aren't related. The Secrets of the Dead program was originally broadcast back in late 2000. Boringguy 05:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ehhh, maybe not. Mythbusters just ran an episode which pretty well "busted" the paint. See the additions to the article. Hersfold 03:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps it WAS the paint. 

message: Were there really fuel lines in the axial catwalk?? Frankyboy5 06:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fuel Lines

message: I don't understand the point of this sentence, taken from LZ_129_Hindenburg#Historic_newsreel_coverage:
"This is particularly strange for the US since balloons and other such craft were used in the world's first Air Force during the American Civil War."
How does this little comment in any way add to the article?
Jmprouty 21:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subjectivity

message: I think the current image, :Image:Zeppelin_Picture.jpg, looks more like propaganda than the main image of an encyclopedia article. It is a very nice painting, I thought it was a photo at first, but it doesn't seem right. Also there is no clear copyright info on it. I suggest replacing it with the other image in the article, :Image:Hindenburg_at_lakehurst.jpg
--Indolences 03:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main image 

message: I found that he did see the fire to the starboard side , but he actually said it was spreading more there, not beginning there. Also, the same site has very rare photos of the Hindenburg on fire (the first photo of the flames is different from the one on the article and the one of he ship on the ground is also very rare because it has the mooring mast like that). Amazing find. Frankyboy5 02:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rare images and Helmut Lau

message: Substituted at 15:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment