Why no vacuum or hydrogen based airships?

I know. That’s why I called it a balloon/blimp hybrid.

Picture a rigid airship. It is strong enough that it can handle some pressure differential, not an internal vacuum, not even close. Inside it are expandable vessels containing a light gas with high heat expansion properties.

You pump out whatever air your rigid stucture can safely pump out in order to decrease atmospheric density. Again, not a vacuum, but whatever you can do will help with lift, but also to reduce heat transfer. Next you heat your expandable bags filled with gas. As they grow larger, taking up more space within the rigid envelope the pressure inside that envelope will increase. You then pump out what you can safely pump out to keep the pressure as low as you can. Eventually you achieve lift.

The lighter your pressure envelope, the lighter the gas you use, and the more it expands with heat make it more efficient.

It seems to me like the best of both worlds between a blimp and a hot air balloon, as it capitalizes on both methods of lift. Using both methods, heat and lighter than air gas means much more lifting power. I’m guessing that the effects of the partial vacuum I’ve proposed as a third method may be negligible, but you never know.

The question isn’t can we make a metal sphere float by creating a vacuum within it. The question is can we make it usefully lighter by creating even a weak partial vacuum? Every pound of air you can pump out is an added pound of cargo capacity.

All gases have exactly the same heat expansion properties: That’s part of the definition of a gas. In short, at any given temperature and pressure, the same number of molecules of gas fill up the same amount of space, no matter what the molecules are. Differences of density between gases are due entirely to the differences in the masses of their molecules.

And only partially evacuating a “vacuum balloon” doesn’t really help. Yes, modern materials can tolerate some nonzero amount of pressure difference, but for materials light enough to be lifted by the buoyancy of the balloon, the amount of pressure difference they can tolerate is very small, which will in turn mean a very small difference in density, which means very little lift. It’s conceivable that you could make a balloon slightly more efficient in this way, but the gains would be small enough that there are a lot of other places you should look to make improvements first. The only real benefit you gain from not needing a perfect vacuum is that you can tolerate a small amount of leakage and don’t need as fancy a pump, but the pumps and the amount of leakage weren’t the limiting factors to begin with.

No. A real material strong enough to resist buckling under even a small positive external pressure differential is going to weigh much more that the amount of air that is displaced by the volume it encloses. The resulting net density will be greater than air. This is why the hulls of submersibles are several inches thick, and they have the advantage of floating in a medium with very high density. This just isn’t a viable concept.

Stranger

Well, that is true for ideal gases, and the assumption of an ideal gas is sufficient for most quasi-equilibrium or isentropic processes involving simple (monatomic or diatomic gases), but under transient and “lossy” conditions (non-adiabatic processes where entropy increases, e.g. all real world thermodynamic processes) the departure functions have to be calculated for residual effects that deviate from the ideal gas assumption. For something like a hot air balloon, the major constituants of air (diatomic oxygen and diatomic nitrogen) are close enough in mass and state properties that it can be essentially treated as an ideal gas, but in say a gas turbine the transient deviations of the combustion products from ideal behavior will be significant.

Stranger

This is not exactly my bailiwick, but I don’t think that this is true. I know that there are issues with Co2 in emergency diving vests when diving in cold waters, but I probably just don’t understand the situation.

If it’s true than I say we use hydrogen. What could go wrong?

The other advantage is insulation. The lower the pressure the lower your heat transfer and the easier it is to maintain the heat in your expansion bags.

You haven’t shown me and I don’t have the knowledge to see why not. My thermos doesn’t implode, and it’s got a partial vaccum. You have the gains in insulation, and any little bit of pressure you can evacuate is a pure net gain lift. The bigger the envelope we are talking about, the more an even small pressure difference will mean.

I think my plan for a hybrid blimp/hot air balloon/pressure differential vehicle is viable.

When I build it and become the Warlord of the Air, the first thing I will do is drop bombs on all who doubted me.
…so watch it.

:smiling_imp:

If we use something like propane for our thermal expansion gas we might be able to take advantage of the fact that it can be a relatively dense liquid under pressure, and expand dramatically as it heats, plus… It’s it’s own heating fuel.

I don’t see anything that could possibly go wrong with this setup

For fuck’s sake, I linked to a thread above where I wrote [POST=9580622]an extensive post[/POST] about why making an evacuated structure with a sufficiently thin wall to support a vacuum (or in this example a significant enough pressure differential to provide some net buoyancy) is not viable. You haven’t provided jack shit to justify this concept.

All thin wall structures will fail from external loading primarily by buckling mechanisms.
Air at STP has a density of about 0.0013 g/cc. Aluminum has a density of about 2.7 g/cc, titanium 4.4 g/cc, and steel about 8 g/cc, which gives ratios of 2204, 3616, and 6530 of volume of materal to volume of air; in other words, for a unit increase in wall thickness to resist buckling results in a corresponding reduction in buoyancy by those factors. And the larger you make a structure, the thicker the wall thickness needs to be to resist buckling. I’ve used the example of a spherical pressure vessel because that is geometrically the best shape for a pressure vessel with ovoids and cylinders requiring greater thickness to resist buckling.

It is not a viable concept with any real world material, period.

Stranger

Has a mix of hydrogen and helium ever been tried? Presumably hydrogen mixed with an inert gas (helium) is not dangerous as long as the percentages are kept within proper limits.

You could conceivably achieve a reduction in cost (hydrogen being much cheaper) and a modest increase in lift (hydrogen being slightly less dense).

This is where I stop reading and wish you well.

But larger balloons really don’t give you more net lift. If you double the volume of a balloon, the potential gross lift provided by a small vacuum is doubled, but the weight of the structure required to resist the pressure also doubles. Potential buoyancy and structure weight scale together.

You really should read the rest, and the linked thread. They answer your question quite thoroughly.

Honestly, your idea is not even close to being feasible. Think of a lightweight container, like a plastic soda bottle. If you drink it on an airplane and put the cap on, it will collapse as the plane descends. It doesn’t feel any lighter just before it starts to collapse - let alone float up into the air.

Maybe the OP should look into making his envelope out of Graphene … as I understand that’s pretty strong stuff.

I still think the major downside to using Hydrogen is tracer fire from anti-aircraft batteries, just one hit and the blimp is coming down like a rock … with Helium, we’d need many hits and still the blimp would gently glide down, at least as well as the buttocks blimp did yesterday.

As I understand Stranger’s post about non-ideal gases, I’m not sure that really applies to the specific gases, the specific pressures or the specific temperatures we’re dealing with here. Helium and air are remarkably close to ideal, close enough to where the relationship of pressure times volume is proportional to mass times temperature is valid enough. Carbon dioxide and water vapor are a little denser than what their molecular weights would indicate, due to these molecules being more polar than Helium or air. It’s not much, plus carbon dioxide and water vapor aren’t really abundant in air relative to oxygen and nitrogen. Maybe it’s a consideration burning propane into a hot air balloon, but hot air balloons do fly so obviously it’s not a very important consideration.

Is your thermos floating off the countertop? No? Then it’s not really relevant to the discussion except as an example of why the idea of a vacuum balloon isn’t feasible with any known materials.

It occurs to me just now that one of the important issues with lighter-than-air travel is that the vessel is lighter than air. As I recall, most of the failures of the US rigid airship fleet were due to weather, and yes, we do have better, quicker weather information available now than a century ago, when they were flying. But, being lighter than the medium that they travel through, airships must make a greater effort to plow through the air in the direction they want to go. Aeroplanes are significantly denser than the air, so controlling them is far easier, and when you consider what is important in a passenger vehicle, better control of the vehicle beats out a lot of other factors. Some people like to take risky rides, but for most of them, only once in a while: if you cannot sell tickets because your airship is unreliable, it will not pay for itself and you will become a footnote.

I did read it. It doesn’t answer my question. The bottle is lighter before it collapses, though probably not noticeably so.

I’m explaining my concept poorly. I will try again.

That’s the problem right there. We have no way of making a rigid bottle such that the air it contains is a noticeable fraction of the weight of the bottle. Without that, you can’t make a vacuum balloon.

Picture a giant plastic egg. I say plastic to give you the image and not as an actual proposed material. This egg should be as thin and light and strong as we can make it. We are going to be pumping some air out of it, not enough to make it collapse, but some, so there will be less pressure on the inside than the outside. The more the better, but we’re not talking about trying to lift the egg by evacuating it of air. We know that we can’t do that. On the other hand, because of the dirigible sized scale of this vessel any quantity that we can evacuate will be helpful. The primary goal though is not to lift the ship through negative pressure. The negative pressure will serve two other primary purposes which we will get into shortly.

We have a vent with a pump at the top of the egg. We can let air into or out of it, or pump it in to create over pressure, or pump it out to create low pressure. Again, the bigger the pressure difference the better, but we are not getting much if any lift by doing this.

Hanging in the middle of the egg are a series of large elastic balloons filled with a quantity of relatively inert light gas. For the sake of argument, let’s say helium, but maybe there is something better for this application.

Inside of each of these elastic balloons is a heating element.

Hanging underneath the egg is a gondola with controls, etc.

The ship sits on the ground and is heavier than air. Everything is pressured at sea level.

To raise the ship we simultaneously do several things. First we start pumping air out of the rigid egg. The negative pressure generated causes the elastic balloons filled with helium to expand just the same way a bag of Doritos will expand on a plane as it gains altitude. We also turn the heating elements in the elastic balloons on, heating the helium, further causing it to expand. The expansion of the balloons increases the pressure in the egg, which we continue to pump out. This process continues until we achieve lift.

We control the amount of lift through several processes. The more we heat the helium balloons the more they expand, the more lift is generated. Evacuating air from the egg also pulles expansion on the balloons generating lift. The more vacuum we pull between the balloons and the eggs means less loss of heat through conduction and helps us keep the balloons heated efficiently.

It is also possible that we have created a large enough pressure differential between the egg and the outside that we are contributing to lift. At any rate, as we rise the pressure decreases, so we can keep pumping air out.

We descend by letting cold air in through the vent, raising pressure, shrinking the elastic balloons and cooling them. We trim the ship by making adjustments within each of the elastic balloons as needed.

The benefits of this design are that we get the lift that we would get in a hot air balloon. Added to that we also get the lift that we would get in a helium filled blimp. We get a lot more lift by using both methods simultaneously.

In something this size, whatever low pressure we are able to make by partially evacuating the egg will also contribute to lift. Percentage wise it might be negligible, but being a large dirigible that small percentage wI’ll still mean some added lifting capacity.

Another benefit is that because all expansion and contraction is occurring within the egg, and that it is being controlled by both pressure and heat, we will have the ability to raise and lower the ship through the atmosphere quickly. It will trim much better than a standard airship or balloon.

Does that make sense?

The gains from pumping air out are not insignificant. Air weighs .08 pounds per cubic foot at sea level. A scuba tank that holds 80 cubic air weighs 6.4 pounds less when empty.

The Goodyear blimp contains 297,527 cubic feet of helium. Let’s assume my ship is the same size. If the pressure inside my proposed egg is 20% less than outside than I have eliminated 59505.4 cubic feet of air and reduced the weight of the ship by 4,760.43 pounds. This is not insignificant. What is achievable may be more, or less. I don’t know.

Creating the low pressure is primarily to expand the helium and insulate against heat loss. The fact that I get some added lift is pretty cool.

That .08 is at seventy degrees at seal level iirc.

Remember, we are not pumping helium out of the egg just atmospheric air, so we get that full .08.

All right I’m going to go start building it.