Re:A recent paper proposes to bring zeppelins back
by yoz-y on Thursday August 22, 2019 @07:12AM
(#20766754)
I see at least two advantages: compared to hydrogen they are not flammable and compared to helium they don't require a limited resource.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:A recent paper proposes to bring zeppelins back
by WalterBright on Thursday August 22, 2019 @07:19AM
(#20766811)
You'd need a very heavy chamber to keep the vacuum balloon from collapsing.
Hook up a vacuum pump to a flask. It isn't going to rise as the air is pumped out. Edison's light bulbs did not float.
Re:A recent paper proposes to bring zeppelins back
by yoz-y on Thursday August 22, 2019 @08:57AM
(#20767499)
> You'd need a very heavy chamber to keep the vacuum balloon from collapsing.
That was my original question: is it technically feasible to make such a chamber from light enough materials (my first guess would be some carbon tubes supporting a carbon fiber tarp or something like that.
> Edison's light bulbs did not float.
One could argue that it was too small (of course I imagine making a massive lightbulb would not make for a good solid structure, also glass is heavy). A hot air balloon does not float either if you lest it too much.
Re:A recent paper proposes to bring zeppelins back
by reeeeee on Friday August 23, 2019 @04:37AM
(#20775577)
This topic has been discussed for ages, but no feasible solution has been found as of yet.[1]
Re:A recent paper proposes to bring zeppelins back
by alexisread on Friday August 23, 2019 @07:44AM
(#20776476)
It is worth noting that at a helium balloon's upper altitute, vacuum balloons would be more feasable as the air pressure allows thinner materials. Some sort of hybrid for say weather monitoring might be feasable.
Re:A recent paper proposes to bring zeppelins back
by dredmorbius on Friday August 23, 2019 @08:50AM
(#20776947)
Partial vacuum on a steel railroad tank car, for comparison.