this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2022
28 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

34913 readers
149 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

They have been planned for a long time, these zeppelins need much less energy, since the propulsion can even be through electric motors and solar energy in the enormous surface of these devices. They do not require long take-off or landing strips. They can carry many passengers or large loads, apart from being very safe. The disadvantage is that their speed is not greater than a maximum of 200 km/h and they are more sensitive to strong winds that can divert them from their course. https://youtu.be/_phicOPoQT8

[–] zksmk@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago

I know, in these devices, if they put electric motors it is only a logical consequence of taking advantage of this large surface that these monsters have. They can perfectly have the size of an oil tanker or even more, the Nazi Zeppelin already had 245 m

[–] Faresh@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What gas do they use for the lift?

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Helio. I know, it's expensive, but only one time+ among of the substitutes. Paparte even because of this, it's only a fraction of the cost of a normal plane andthe fuel it use in every flight.

[–] Faresh@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Couldn't we somehow engineer a more modern airship that uses the much more available hydrogen instead, but with proper measures against the outbreak of fires?

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Too dangerous, I wouldn't want to travel in a hydrogen-filled contraption through a lighning storm. Hydrogen is an excellent fuel and for this reason it is used as such, precisely because of its explosive flammability, which must be stored in thick-walled tanks due to its high volatility, which escapes through normal thin-walled tanks. With helium there are no problems of this type, although it is not as light as Hydrogen, it offers enough buoyancy for projects of this type, which is why it is used in current weather balloons and in these famous GoodYear airships and others. Helium is completely inert and non-flammable.

[–] Faresh@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

which is why it is used in current weather balloons

Actually I think people use both hydrogen balloons and helium balloons for that.

The problem with helium is that it's already very scarce, despite having very important uses across many fields and once it's gone it's gone (unless maybe if somewhere in the future we begin using nuclear fusion, I guess)

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Helium is by no means a scarce element, it's after Hidrogen the second most abundant in the universe, 24% of the total element mass. It is not as abundant on Earth and has to be obtained from natural gas, where it appears in different combinations. It can not be obtained with other methods, such as Hydrogen, it's not renevable, so its price is higher.

[–] Faresh@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Helium is by no means a scarce element, it’s after Hidrogen the second most abundant in the universe, 24% of the total element mass. It is not as abundant on Earth and has to be obtained from natural gas

Scarce for us terrestrians that don't live in a futuristic sci-fi world where we go around harvesting resources from planets.

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Rare does not mean that it is difficult to obtain, or that there is little on Earth. It is not a fuel that is spent when you use it, like oil or coal. It is an inert, clean element, it is not toxic or polluting, it can be stored well and it is only used to give buoyancy to balloons and airships. For this use there is more than enough, without having to enter the Sci Fi. Is it more expensive and difficult to obtain than Hydrogen? Yes, but this with the savings in energy and fuel using it for airships instead of Keosene for so many airplanes and private jets, this is irrelevant. The energy expenditure of a blimp does not even reach 10% of that of a small plane, despite the high price of Helium. Compared to the big ships, which can also be replaced by airships for transport, the difference is even greater, in these cases the airships are even faster