Hi /sci/
Is there any possibility in the near future that we will be able to create artificial helium or non-flammable hydrogen?
Thanks,
Blump
No and no.
But hydrogen is not as dangerous as you think it is.
No. Even if we did, airships are not coming back: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/helium-hokum-why-airships-will-never-be-part-of-our-transportation-infrastructure/
first of all wtf is artificial helium?
and no H is just very reactive and theres nothing to change that
>artificial helium
Sure. Alpha particles are a byproduct of many nuclear reactions. Are these quantities economically significant? No. But it is helium, and it is artificial.
>non-flammable hydrogen?
Sure, just mix in ~5% halon. However, judging from your photo I suspect your intended usage is as a lifting gas, which heavy halon additives might interfere with.
>>7676843
OH REALLY. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28wwfGRQc20
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/HybridAirship.html
Just perfect fusion and we'll have all the helium we need
>>7676925
I can't work out if its me or the graph that is fucking retarded
an airship that needs a runway
what is the fucking point?
>how can we make airship more dangerous
>add a hovercraft on the bottom so they skite around on the ground?
fuck off.
>>7676958
Pobably you, graphs never lie
>>7676958
There is no label on the x-axis, so you are not retarded
>>7676925
That thing was flying pretty close to the buildings. I wonder if helium can melt steel beams.
>>7676925
Making an airship like a giant wing is actually a pretty good idea. Theirs doesn't really look like it would work that great
>>7676795
why does that word sound so nice
blump
blump blump
>>7676925
Did you even read the article? They explain why hybrid airships are a bad idea.
>>7676843
I still think there's a future for unmanned lighter-than-air craft, but they sure as fuck won't be carrying cargo.
>>7676768
vacuum
>>7676980
That still makes no sense. There is two pictures of each method of transportation.
>>7677875
the sound of air bubbles inside water
>>7676925
That's actually on the official Lockheed Martin website - wtf
>>7678612
That sound is bloop not blump
>>7677950
I've been thinking about how you could possibly get a small unmanned craft around the globe autonomously, blimp + solar panels might be pretty feasible.
>>7676944
Popsci fag here. I've seen in many places that we can do sustained fusion, using He3. Is that correct? I know that our closest real reservoir of He3 is the moon, so that makes it very expensive to mine/harvest, but once we have it, shouldn't that drop the cost of getting more of it and returning it to earth?
>>7676925
This graphic is just so messed up. This is what happens when you let marketing put together your material without letting anyone on the project have final veto over it.
>>7676768
You can turn hydrogen into helium with some types of fusion reactions.
>>7678152
Not practical until we make massive advances in material science. I mean we COULD make a vacuum airship today, possibly one that can produce net lift, but it wouldn't be as good as helium or hydrogen. Remember, buoyant lift is equal to (weight of displaced fluid) - (object's own weight). Helium and hydrogen are already extremely light compared to air, so vacuum (even if we could have a vacuum hull that weighs no more than a normal helium/hydrogen envelope) would provide at most a very small advantage. We're more likely to see improvements in lift capacity in developing lighter structures for conventional airships. And vacuum airships would have a massive pressure differential, meaning any hole would fill with air very quickly causing a loss of lift. Whereas airships are unpressurized and lose lift only gradually.
>>7680512
The problem is that even on the moon the concentration is incredibly low, and it would still be incredibly economical. The good news is that He-3 fusion isn't the only fusion reaction that produces normal helium (Helium-4) as a byproduct. It's also produced by deuterium-tritium fusion (the type of fusion we're closest to achieving), and by proton-proton chain fusion (the most efficient type of fusion, and only requiring hydrogen as fuel, but we're very far from achieving it).
>>7682365
*uneconomical
>>7682365
Hold on a sec, does that mean that not only fusion would resolve the energy problem, it would even solve the Helium problem?
>>7682405
Theoretically, I mean I'm not sure if the helium production would be enough to meet what's needed for industries and airships, and how easily it would be to seperate it from other substances. But yes, theoretically it would, ordinary helium is one of the main byproducts of fusion.
