Jump to content
The Corroboree
planthelper

zeppelin as monster mover

Recommended Posts

hi!

i had this idea to use a big zeppelin to move heavy objects from a to b.

this helium ballon ought to be able to lift an average removable house and for example heavy mining machinery. this post ought to aswell serve as a time stamp, to make this idea my intelectual property.

if other people thought the same before me, fair enough.

i think the zeppelin has to be re instated,because it can move objects for a low cost, and much faster, than a truck which needs a lot of road preparation. initial building cost might be extreemly high, but large cargo plains are very expensive too.

the idea came to me, watching those moster movers shows, and moving houses on a street, looks to me to be the worst methode (powerlines, hills, uneven terrain, high labour cost because of large stuff nummbers, fuel cost are high because gravity sucks, and so on) to do it.

i believe the zeppelin idea only died because, the yanks, would not sell any helium to the germans (and the hydrogen they used instead went boom), but i'm sure they would sell it to me.

so what to you think? feasable or not?

how big would that zeppelin have to be, how much weight could a zeppelin carry?

Edited by planthelper
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great idea PH - Here's a good news article link on the subject: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/30/blimps-aircraft-freight

This is a good site for lifting capacity of helium: http://www.stevespangler.com/in-the-news/balloon-boy-helium-physics-science/

Now where did I leave my deck chair... :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The buoyant force is

F=(Ph-Pa)Vg

where Ph is the density of helium, Pa is the density of air, and V and g are the volume of the chamber and the acceleration due to gravity respectively.

By my calculation, if we model the chamber as a sphere, then the chamber can lift a mass (in kilograms) of

m=4.27 x R^3

where R is the radius of the chamber in metres. This is the gross weight (other than the helium), so you would have to subtract the mass of the structure of the chamber and any other parts of the airship.

EDIT: The force I quoted at the top is the buoyant force plus the weight force of the helium, hence why the helium doesn't need to be subtracted from the gross carrying capacity to obtain the net carrying capacity.

Edited by ballzac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nice links id, cheers!

that 1st link is basicly good news, because sombody already does it, so if those already excisting heavy lifter zeppelins, could do what i want them to do, all we have to do is buy one. no research and construction needed.

i think, i'm like branson virgin guy (he's dyslexic aswell), only better looking and i have more charisma, ok enough, of those low grade self inflations....

i could see myselfe putting my money where my mouth is, all that would be needed is around 10 investors.

or how does one float a new companies shares.

i think one of them in oz, would make us mega bucks, specialy in the mining sector.

come one, who of you will defloat my ego?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thx zac, your post wasn't ther yet when i posted.

i though of the own weight of the structure, but forgot to mention it.

sure this is a manic idea, but i could be ok.

new lightweigh material like carbon fibre could maybe be used.

solar panels for power.

Edited by planthelper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, I think it's one thing to be able to lift a a payload, but then you have to get it where you want it to go.

It would be fine on a calm day but throw in a bit of wind (which normally intensifies with altitude) and you have a large area to catch the wind and get blown around. The goodyear blimp that you see at sporting events has been blown to buggery more than once and it needs to be tethered to keep it in position a lot of the time.

I imagine it would cost a lot just to get an airship on site and if the weather isn't suitable it wouldn't be feasible to use it , so it could be a gamble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think our current technology would require an extremely large investment to... get such an idea off the ground (you like puns?). The aerodynamics of a good blimp as I understand it are okay, in that it can generally get where it's meant to, with auxiliary power (normal engines of some kind).

The great thing about blimps is that their lifting capacity theoretically assuming enough tensile strength, goes up with R3 while the surface area only goes up with R2, this allows one to build bigger airships as long as the tensile strength remains good enough. This means that if you doubled the effective radius of the blimp part, it could lift 8x more, while you would only use 4x more material.

There's a minor problem in that helium prices are going to skyrocket, as the stockpiles of it have been ordered to be spent. It's already probably skyrocketed in price since the mid 90s.

Secondly, due to the auxiliary engines, you'll be maintaining traditional fuel costs too. I guess you could use electric motors instead, but that's a very speculative alternative.

Lastly, assuming you manage to build a strong, high-safety factor (you will never be allowed to fly a blimp without a high SF), huge capacity, low maintenance, low required infrastructure upgrades, cheap to run (from solar-augmented, battery-powered electric motors or something), aerodynamic as possible blimp - then you will have probably have a hard time getting early uptake (= people who buy early). Early uptake problems, coupled with big loans are probably the number one reason most startup companies fail (there is published data on the real reasons why).

Post-lastly, there might also be some expensive patents for you to buy (or you might not even able to) for you to use certain crucial technologies. I would imagine that the investigations of the US military via DARPA have investigated (I think I recall reading about it) the possibility of using extremely large hybrid-blimps for cargo transports.

Edit: Here's one of their blimp concepts: http://www.fastcompa...ld-surveillance

I find it hilarious that they've labelled the material it's made of as 'material'.

Here's another (the cargo one): http://www.geekosystem.com/darpa-airship-pelican/

Edited by CβL
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The airship is designed for aerodynamics but the house or building you have dangling underneath it isn't. An airship with the payload inside would be a safer bet

To design something with that sort of mass (combined load & airship) with enough thrust to keep it on course would require a massive energy input to get it to the landing site on all but the calmest of days.

Every time you deviate off course you'd have to correct and use massive amounts of energy to overcome the inertia of the load traveling the wrong way. In swirling winds it would be nightmare. Then you'd have factor in wind resistance.

I'm not saying it can't be done but how could you accurately quote fuel costs.

A 10% error which wouldn't be inconceivable could turn a profit into a loss and if the weather turns sour fuel costs could blow out and send you into a massive deficit.

There's also all the extra cost of lifting something from above, you'd have to build a frame of some sort for each individual job that could support the load from above. Steel welders, riggers and those costs would blow out too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the problem is that you would have to build zeppelin industry from the ground up, from the people who manufacture them through to the airport infrastructure, which may need different premises to the usual airport traffic.

I like the idea and have wondered why it hasn't been developed properly by someone like Branson, I imagine it would be very easy for existing industries to put quiet pressure on government not to help out new ideas that might take away their profit, but Green Banks or green funds from government may help if you can prove there are environmental benefits from the new tech. Iain Banks suggests "trains" of blimps traversing the landscape in his sci-fi novels, these might be easier to direct and control than single blimps and carry much greater loads, rather like road trains and rail trains.

Then again, if your idea is good enough and really takes off someone like Branson may just buy you out for millions ;)

Rail is still potentially the most effective, one might be better off designing a train that runs on solar power and / or designing a new form of track that is cheaper to lay and maintain while still having the strength and ability to not warp (someone give me that word). Investment thing is also the key; at the moment the only people investing in rail are the mining companies, like coal in the Hunter, backed by government but the benefits to the taxpayer are minimal as these are all commercial lines.

A solar train running through the heart of Australia would be an amazing thing, perhaps we need to find an alternative to traditional tracks like anti-grav or monorail. We should ask the Chinese they seem better at developing technology than we do ;) - if they can lay track over the frozen Himalayas I'm sure we would find it easier over the desert of central Australia!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think our current technology would require an extremely large investment to... get such an idea off the ground (you like puns?). The aerodynamics of a good blimp as I understand it are okay, in that it can generally get where it's meant to, with auxiliary power (normal engines of some kind).

The great thing about blimps is that their lifting capacity theoretically assuming enough tensile strength, goes up with R3 while the surface area only goes up with R2, this allows one to build bigger airships as long as the tensile strength remains good enough. This means that if you doubled the effective radius of the blimp part, it could lift 8x more, while you would only use 4x more material.

There's a minor problem in that helium prices are going to skyrocket, as the stockpiles of it have been ordered to be spent. It's already probably skyrocketed in price since the mid 90s.

Secondly, due to the auxiliary engines, you'll be maintaining traditional fuel costs too. I guess you could use electric motors instead, but that's a very speculative alternative.

Lastly, assuming you manage to build a strong, high-safety factor (you will never be allowed to fly a blimp without a high SF), huge capacity, low maintenance, low required infrastructure upgrades, cheap to run (from solar-augmented, battery-powered electric motors or something), aerodynamic as possible blimp - then you will have probably have a hard time getting early uptake (= people who buy early). Early uptake problems, coupled with big loans are probably the number one reason most startup companies fail (there is published data on the real reasons why).

Post-lastly, there might also be some expensive patents for you to buy (or you might not even able to) for you to use certain crucial technologies. I would imagine that the investigations of the US military via DARPA have investigated (I think I recall reading about it) the possibility of using extremely large hybrid-blimps for cargo transports.

Edit: Here's one of their blimp concepts: http://www.fastcompa...ld-surveillance

I find it hilarious that they've labelled the material it's made of as 'material'.

Here's another (the cargo one): http://www.geekosyst...irship-pelican/

 

yes the investment would be huge, and as sally stated, one need to have some hangars and infrastructure aswell.

anyway, there is no doubt in my mind that helium will be the future, thats why helium prices have sky rocketed, hehehe.

The airship is designed for aerodynamics but the house or building you have dangling underneath it isn't. An airship with the payload inside would be a safer bet

To design something with that sort of mass (combined load & airship) with enough thrust to keep it on course would require a massive energy input to get it to the landing site on all but the calmest of days.

Every time you deviate off course you'd have to correct and use massive amounts of energy to overcome the inertia of the load traveling the wrong way. In swirling winds it would be nightmare. Then you'd have factor in wind resistance.

I'm not saying it can't be done but how could you accurately quote fuel costs.

A 10% error which wouldn't be inconceivable could turn a profit into a loss and if the weather turns sour fuel costs could blow out and send you into a massive deficit.

There's also all the extra cost of lifting something from above, you'd have to build a frame of some sort for each individual job that could support the load from above. Steel welders, riggers and those costs would blow out too.

 

i'm sorry for my, "milk maid version" of sientific things, but i'm pretty certain that, blimps/zeppelins are incredible energy efficant, and for accomodation, some old (plimp) hangars excist, which have currently no use at all. some of them we saw on mythbusters, using excisting structures will save money. naturaly it looks now, like north america would be the place to start a venture like this.

Part of the problem is that you would have to build zeppelin industry from the ground up, from the people who manufacture them through to the airport infrastructure, which may need different premises to the usual airport traffic.

I like the idea and have wondered why it hasn't been developed properly by someone like Branson, I imagine it would be very easy for existing industries to put quiet pressure on government not to help out new ideas that might take away their profit, but Green Banks or green funds from government may help if you can prove there are environmental benefits from the new tech. Iain Banks suggests "trains" of blimps traversing the landscape in his sci-fi novels, these might be easier to direct and control than single blimps and carry much greater loads, rather like road trains and rail trains.

Then again, if your idea is good enough and really takes off someone like Branson may just buy you out for millions ;)

Rail is still potentially the most effective, one might be better off designing a train that runs on solar power and / or designing a new form of track that is cheaper to lay and maintain while still having the strength and ability to not warp (someone give me that word). Investment thing is also the key; at the moment the only people investing in rail are the mining companies, like coal in the Hunter, backed by government but the benefits to the taxpayer are minimal as these are all commercial lines.

A solar train running through the heart of Australia would be an amazing thing, perhaps we need to find an alternative to traditional tracks like anti-grav or monorail. We should ask the Chinese they seem better at developing technology than we do ;) - if they can lay track over the frozen Himalayas I'm sure we would find it easier over the desert of central Australia!

 

trains are amazing when it comes to friction and slip streaming, for sure.

i would suggest now to, start off with smaller zeppelins (buy the one mentioned in the link) and gain experience.

than lobby people like branson and lauda, and the mining magnats.

zeppelins, need hardly any structures to enable them doing there things, no expensive runway's, no expensive fuel.

the hugh surface area will produce the electrisety!

a zeppelin is much cheaper to run than a cargo plane for sure.

and using electro engines fueled by solar panels/batteries one avoids, the spent fuel bouyency problems!

...the hindenburg, had a grand piano on board, show me a plane which features a grand piano....

Edited by planthelper
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solar powered zeppelins? Awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Helium is actually a really rare substance on Earth, and it is mined... - Which is weird because it's the second most abundant element in the observable universe, hot air would be better if you can solar heat it... Maybe we could use radioactive waste to produce it artificially and also the heat and electricity all in one - go nuclear? A nuclear powered hot air ballon - imagine the fallout...

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium

On Earth it is thus relatively rare—0.00052% by volume in the atmosphere. Most terrestrial helium present today is created by the natural radioactive decay of heavy radioactive elements (thorium and uranium), as the alpha particles emitted by such decays consist of helium-4 nuclei. This radiogenic helium is trapped with natural gas in concentrations up to 7% by volume, from which it is extracted commercially by a low-temperature separation process called fractional distillation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thx for the laugh, id.

i needed it, as i had a day full of anxiety. the powerpole in front of my house seemed to have exploded, this morning and woke me and the neighbours up. heavy rain and faulty lines caused a bright orange fire ball and a hizzing sound which awoke me.

walked all in the rain to the phone box to report it, the shorties fixed it already, i could go on and on....

back to the blimp, solar panels which are thinn and can be shaped to form, are on the market already.

maybe, a tourist attraction blimp (wher tourist can take a ride in), would be an appropiate start, to this venture, as it rules out, many unknown factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha - know the feelin PH, yesterday was a write off for me - I should post in the 'Hell is other people' thread, but my fingers would wear down to little nubs by the time i'm finished...

Solar panels are spray or paint now too - so you could just paint the blimp all psychedelic - and they have a large surface area too!

http://www.scienceda...11221211324.htm - search for solar paint - it's still fairly new, but it'd probly be the lightest option for solarising a blimp.

SolardelicZepplin - has a nice ring to it... :)

Edited by IndianDreaming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

everybody seems to be thinking big. balloons could be a very handy way, for instance, to transplant a tree walking distance, where there is no access for a loader or similar. even if you were able to move the tree with a loader, a balloon would be able to lift it out of the hole and place it in the bucket with ridiculous ease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In primary school we all attached a small tissue with seeds in it to a helium ballon and let them go...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What sort of seeds? Hope they weren't a weedy species...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MJ ;) Who knows, I would assume aussie natives, even teachers back in the day weren't so retarded as to send off weeds... well, thats debatable I guess...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As SallyD says... it's the directing and the landing that's the issue

And the insurance policies of all the people who live and work and drive under the thing that's being lifted

There is nothing about the idea of a large object hovering next to your roofline while bits of heavy things are attached to it whereupon said heavy thing flies low over your house, over the school playground, over the shopping centre and hopefully in the direction that it's supposed to so that it can hover precariously over someone else's roofline and have all the heavy bits detached...nothing which doesn't give me the horrors.

There are rules that you can't fly lower than a certain number of feet over a populated area for a *reason*. And most rec aircraft are way lighter than a zeppelin carrying a house

At least with visual flight regs you'd have plenty of time to say " wtf" before hitting one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the wind sure is a big issue, but i can't understand the sceptisism regarding the ballon.

planes can't fly if some weather conditions are not right either.

planes and helicopters (helipcopter = design flawed) fall onto people and houses all of the time.

all that happend, was that we now tolerate those accidents.

a zeppelin which looses the payload, can't be good for sure, but why do some of you think this has to happen?

now i will even upper my antics, towards jack in the bean stalk proportions.....

helium ballons traveling in high altitude slip streams (what was the attempted circum navigators name? we know it didn't go well).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×