Why no vacuum or hydrogen based airships?

Sounds like you’ve described a hot helium blimp with eggshell coating.

Why have a shell? Just use a flexible bag full of helium.

Heating it is a good idea -but… One problem is the heating mechanism… Hot air balloons capture the gas that results from combustion. However, you aren’t burning the helium (hint -you can’t) so how do you efficiently heat it? Efficient heat transfer mechanisms are heavy. If you run burner exhaust through a tube running through the helium bag, the heat transfer will not be that efficient. heat transfer generally relies on surface area, prefers metal which has a high rate of heat transfer. Any electrical or heat pump mechanism adds weight. And so on…

There’s a reason why these ideas have not been tried.

Also - yes, airships stayed low due to lack of pressurization, but also for another good reason - the thinner the atmosphere the less lift per unit volume. Those giant high-altitude balloons compensate for this by having lots of expansion capability, something more difficult in an aerodynamic shell shape. Even at 30,000 feet or more, aircraft don’t always overfly the worst weather. Plus, if your mode of transport is slow and quiet, being low and sightseeing is probably the bonus feature of this mode of transport.

Air pressure at sea level is about 14.7 psi. If you reduce the internal pressure by 20%, there will be a pressure of 3 pounds pressing on every square inch of your shell. That’s over 4300 pounds per square meter. Imagine a square meter piece of your thin plastic supported at the edges, with 24 180-pound men standing on it. If you can come up with a light material capable of withstanding that pressure, go for it.

–Mark

You can heat a gas. The air in my house stays warm because we have heating, so I think that problem has been solved. Anyway, you answered your own question. The heat transfer is not super fast or efficient. The is why we are pulling air out of the egg as well, to inflate the helium balloon. They expand to replace the air we remove.

Thirdly, we might also use something like propane instead of helium. Propane goes easily from liquid to gas under not much pressure. Heating in liquid form until it goes to gas might be give us more bang for the buck. I don’t know what the right gas or liquid is for the expansion balloons.

Yes. Maybe nobody else thought of it before. Maybe they did and thought “somebody else must have thought of this and tried it and it didn’t work, so I won’t bother”

Saying nobody has tried it before is not a good argument.

[/quote]
Also - yes, airships stayed low due to lack of pressurization, but also for another good reason - the thinner the atmosphere the less lift per unit volume. Those giant high-altitude balloons compensate for this by having lots of expansion capability, something more difficult in an aerodynamic shell shape. Even at 30,000 feet or more, aircraft don’t always overfly the worst weather. Plus, if your mode of transport is slow and quiet, being low and sightseeing is probably the bonus feature of this mode of transport.
[/QUOTE]

My hybrid method gives us more lift, so we can go higher, carry more, be more maneuverable. All that good stuff. That’s why it’s such a good idea.

That’s a square meter of material that can hold 4,320 pounds

That’s not so terrible. Canvas would do what you ask. I’m assuming something like Kevlar which has 370 ksi tenacity. I don’t know what that means, but it sounds really really strong.

The Rozière balloon is a hybrid design. Part hot air balloon part gas balloon. Rozière’s first balloon was a air/hydrogen pair. It crashed and killed him, but didn’t actually explode. But Rozière balloons are made an flown. But the lighter than air gas isn’t directly heated, only by conduction from the hot air section. The advantage is controllability but without the huge fuel needs of a pure hot air balloon.

No, you need a material that can withstand that force in compression, not in tension. Obviously a big canvas bag, or any kind of fabric, would just collapse given any tiny increase in external pressure. If you lay a square meter of fabric on a square frame, it will collapse under its own weight.

–Mark

I’ll be damned. I just reinvented the Roziere balloon

I see I didn’t get back soon enough to wave you off. You’ve been explaining your concept exceptionally well. It just won’t work with the materials we have at hand. As Chronos pointed out, with some hypothetical material that’s super-duper strong yet super-duper light, this would work … alas, in reality, there is no such material … buy yourself a Cessna and drop your bombs from that instead.

I’m still underwhelmed. All we are talking about making is a light frame and stretching a square meter of material across the top such that can support 2 tons without collapsing. Not a big deal.

ksi is thousands of pounds per square inch, so your 370 kwi would equal 370,000 psi. However, that measures a material’s ability to withstand tension, i.e., forces pulling on it along its length. That is very different from the material’s ability to withstand pressure, i.e., forces pushing on its surface, where it withstands much, much less.

Thank you. I truly don’t understand what the problem is though with my latest concept.

No, that’s not at all what you’re talking about. You’re talking about a rigid shell that can withstand a pressure differential that’s higher on the outside. In your design, there’s nothing “pulling” on the material to keep it stretched in tension. (In a normal hot air balloon, the pressure is higher on the inside, so the material IS stretched in tension.)

Take a normal toy rubber balloon. Blow it up. It keeps its shape because the pressure is higher on the inside. Now deflate it. Now after it’s completely deflated, SUCK on it, reducing the pressure even below atmospheric pressure. You don’t think it’s still going to be spherical at that point, right?

–Mark

This is really kind of besides the point. Any additional lift we can get by creating a low pressure environment is purely bonus lift. If the number turns out to be 10% or 5% or .25% or 0, it doesn’t really matter.

All that is required is to lower the pressure enough inside the egg so that combined with heating the elastic chambers we inflate them.

Again, all we have to do is lower the pressure enough to inflate a balloon. I know that’s not hard. I’ve watched Doritos expand on a plane.

Your latest concept still relies on a hard shell that can withstand external (inward) pressure. You keep saying you’re not trying to pump all the air out, but you’re still pumping out enough air so that the internal gas bags inflate appreciably. Which means you are pumping out an appreciable fraction of air, and applying an appreciable fraction of atmospheric pressure on the shell. Such a shell would be too heavy.

I’m still underwhelmed. This is simply bridge building 101. We are just building agg shaped bridge. Or try this:

Blow up a balloon. Take two circular brass bracelets and pit them inside the inflated balloon. Put one inside the other, turn them perpendicular to each other. Now deflate the balloon. The balloon deflates. It pushes and compresses the bracelets, holding them in place.

I thought it kind of went without saying that the giant egg is just a thought picture (though I did in fact say that explicitly). In reality you would have a rigid frame with something stretched over it. Like an arch it will gain strength from the compression of its continuous curve

Airliner cabins are usually pressurized to equiv. altitude of 5000 ft or so. That’s 12.2 psi. To get the same amount of inflation, you need to lower the pressure inside the “egg” to this pressure. That results in 2.5 psi of external pressure. If the “egg” is just 30 ft in diameter, that’s still over 100 TONS of force on this egg. Your concept relies on having a strong enough frame to withstand this force, but still much lighter than the weight of the air inside it. It can’t be done.

No, it is not. It is a response to a point that you made: That it sounds like kevlar is “really really strong”, which you deduced from the 370 ksi figure. I responded by saying that the 370 ksi does not at all measure the type of strength that your concept requires.

Your saying so, doesn’t make it true. Why is the idea of any negative pressure anathema? How much do you need to inflate a balloon? Not much. Also, we are being helped by the fact that he are also heating the balloons we want to inflate, so we have two processes at work helping the inflation.

Even if you believe that any negative pressure so fatal, the balloon still inflates because if the pressure remains constant you are simply evacuating the sir displaced by the inflating balloon.

My idea may fail for a lot of reasons. But this isn’t one of them.

The dorito on the plane expands because the outside air pressure (inside the plane cabin, but outside the dorito, and that’s what matters) decreases. This means there is a pressure differential with higher pressure inside the dorito than outside of it. How are you going to decrease the pressure outside your airship?

What? You originally proposed a structure with lower pressure inside. “Inflate” implies higher pressure inside. You’re either moving the target or you’re not making yourself clear at all.

Whether the external pressure is caused by reducing the volume of enclosed gas or by heating the gas is irrelevant to the structural problem. The pressure is the insurmountable problem. PV = nRT.

With the best of intentions, I can’t make any sense out of this statement. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of why balloons inflate, but I can’t tell what that misunderstanding consists of.

–Mark