• nitroemdash@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    At 99°C (210°F) the lift power of hot air balloon is 0.25 kg per m³. Pillars supporting a four kilometre long suspension bridge section are under 200 MN vertical load, or 20 million kg. The air balloon would have to be 80 million m³ large, or 534 m (⅓mi) in diameter.

  • HappyCatLuvs_U@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 day ago

    So to keep the balloon filled and maintained, I’m thinking we get a low paid part-time worker. They’ll have to be on call for emergency needs of course so open availability.

    And to make sure they do the job right, perchance an underfunded, understaffed regulation and inspection system?

    • mossy_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 day ago

      we might as well fire the regulatory committee, we haven’t had issues with collapsing bridges in 50 years!

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        Actually, yes. I think we should be looking more at using hydrogen as a lifting gas, helium is too precious to squander on balloons. Its flammability can be mitigated in a variety of ways, Hindenburg was badly designed as a hydrogen airship (it was originally meant to use helium).

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            18 hours ago

            Good ventilation is the main one I’m aware of. Hydrogen is only flammable when there’s a particular range of mixture with oxygen. If it’s too dilute then it won’t burn, and the same in the other direction with not enough oxygen mixed inside the hydrogen. So a leak that goes straight into the outside air is not really super dangerous, the hydrogen shoots up and away and quickly dilutes to non-flammability.

            In Hindenburg’s case there were multiple internal gas bladders contained by the aerodynamic outer envelope, held in place with frames and with walkways and other gaps between, so there were a lot of spaces for a mixture of air and hydrogen to accumulate and reach the right mix to burn. They had no way to reliably detect that this was happening, back then they didn’t have sensors and relied on crewmen literally walking around listening for hissing sounds or “shimmering” air where gas of different densities were mixing. Since Hindenburg was originally intended to use helium lifting gas it wouldn’t have been a problem, but switching to hydrogen should have caused a complete redesign to eliminate these internal spaces and ventilate better. And in a modern airship sprinkle the thing with sensors so you can immediately know if there’s a leak.

            The actual ignition of the Hindenburg is thought to have been due to a static discharge spark. Hindenburg’s outer skin was somewhat insulated from its inner framework and the air and ship were charged due to a thunderstorm that had recently passed by. When the crew dropped ropes to the ground this grounded the inner framework and caused sparks between the outer envelope and the framework as it tried to dump its charge into the ground as well. Again not a problem for a helium airship, but something that should have been subject to a redesign for a hydrogen one. Make sure the whole ship is properly grounded and then there won’t be charge differences to cause sparks inside it.

            Note that there’s a theory that was proposed a while back that Hindenburg’s outer envelope was super flammable in its own right and was the actual source of most of the fire. It was made of cotton painted with cellulose acetate butyrate along with iron oxide and fine aluminum powder - similar in composition to thermite or solid rocket fuel. But tests were done with recreations of the material and although it was indeed flammable it didn’t burn anywhere near fast enough to account for the speed with which the Hindenburg was destroyed. Probably still something to avoid with modern materials, though. Don’t make your hydrogen airship out of stuff that could catch fire.

            • skibidi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 hours ago

              Hydrogen has one of the widest explosive ranges of all fuels. It will burn in air anywhere between 4% and 75% hydrogen by volume.

              • FaceDeer@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 hours ago

                Yes, but nevertheless there are limits. As I said. It’s not going to explode the moment a molecule gets on the wrong side of the envelope. Proper ventilation can keep the concentration outside that range. Note how even though the Hindenburg was abysmally designed from a safety standpoint it still lasted a long time before anything set it off.

    • yucandu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Why not get a worker from a country so poor that they’ll do anything to avoid being sent back, even let you exploit them illegally?