Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cargo airships could be big

elidourado.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–385 of 385 posts

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#381

Post by AtlasBarfed »

dathinab wrote: post #243
mastax wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do airships fare in bad weather?

They are more wind sensitive then car, train, plain, etc. AFIK in combination with modern drone tech they are less wind sensitive then in the past making them much more viable for many but not all areas. They could be snow sensitive in the sense that a unlucky combination of wind/weather change and stronger snow could make snow stack on them somewhat, especially on larger ones. But we are speaking about blizzard like…

Being wind sensitive isn't that bad if you can ride the jet stream for better economics. I see google has a patent for adding sails to airships.

To that end, being able to go to a higher altitude makes things more uniform, doesn't it? I guess I'm not a pilot so I don't know what altitudes make things easier, I know they can't do airliner service ceilings, but can they do 5000 ft? Probably depends on the buoyancy.

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#382

Post by jodrellblank »

worik wrote: post #320
jasamer wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Afaik what makes fusion hard is maintaining the conditions that allow fusion to occur. Because of this, it’s quite safe - if anything goes wrong, it’ll just stop working.

Safe? Really? I expect that the containment vessels will get very radioactive. But all a bit hypothetical, since none exist

Yes they do exist, link elsewhere in this thread, Helion have a 7th generation nuclear fusion reactor fusing once every ten seconds or so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bDXXWQxK38

(It's not surplus of power, but it is repeatable fusion actually happening).

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#383

Post by dathinab »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #381
dathinab wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are more wind sensitive then car, train, plain, etc. AFIK in combination with modern drone tech they are less wind sensitive then in the past making them much more viable for many but not all areas. They could be snow sensitive in the sense that a unlucky combination of wind/weather change and stronger snow could make snow stack on them somewhat, especially on larger ones. But we are speaking about blizzard like…

Being wind sensitive isn't that bad if you can ride the jet stream for better economics. I see google has a patent for adding sails to airships. To that end, being able to go to a higher altitude makes things more uniform, doesn't it? I guess I'm not a pilot so I don't know what altitudes make things easier, I know they can't do airliner service ceilings, but can they do 5000 ft? Probably depends on the buoyancy.

While air unmanned ballons are operating higher any airship I'm aware of had much _lower_ altitude limits then many aircrafts as far as I remember. But I don't know weather it where piratical or technical limitations.

And it it's sensitive to wind you probably don't want to get it anywhere near to either of the jetstreams (which in some areas are rather turbulent as far as I remember).

The google patent probably is from when they operatted unmanned balloon and drone mounted radio stations for special purpose usage. I think they stopped it even through it worked okayish because it wasn't profitable enough but I don't remember for sure.

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#384

Post by worik »

jodrellblank wrote: post #382
worik wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safe? Really? I expect that the containment vessels will get very radioactive. But all a bit hypothetical, since none exist

Yes they do exist, link elsewhere in this thread, Helion have a 7th generation nuclear fusion reactor fusing once every ten seconds or so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bDXXWQxK38 (It's not surplus of power, but it is repeatable fusion actually happening).

That is not a fusion reactor

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#385

Post by impossiblefork »

dredmorbius wrote: post #299
impossiblefork wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but this octane-fire mixing is a bunch of confusion to begin with. Gasoline is less ready to ignite than diesel~=jet fuel, but has fumes. Diesel~=jet fuel has little fumes, but is easier to ignite by heat, i.e. in an engine, but it will almost never be ignited outside of an engine. Meanwhile, gasoline is hard to ignite with heat and pressure in an engine, but easier to ignite in air than diesel. Octane also has…

The situation's more complicated than that. Gasoline is easier to ignite than diesel fuel. Both fuels burn as vapours rather than as liquids . The vapour pressure of gasoline at any given temperature is higher than diesel, that is, gasoline evaporates far more readily , making liquid gasoline far more hazardous to store, as the vapours can ignite and explode. Diesel fuel resists autoignition under compression to a gr…

Ah, I was actually trying to express precisely what you're saying here, and don't immediately see the difference between the views we're laying out.
Post reply on HN