this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2025
141 points (95.5% liked)

Technology

75597 readers
1940 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"High-altitude winds between 1,640 and 3,281 feet (500 and 10,000 meters) above the ground are stronger and steadier than surface winds. These winds are abundant, widely available, and carbon-free.

"The physics of wind power makes this resource extremely valuable. “When wind speed doubles, the energy it carries increases eightfold, triple the speed, and you have 27 times the energy,” explained Gong Zeqi "

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Hydrogen wouldn't burn inside the balloon, because there's no oxygen. If a fire started on the surface of the balloon, then it doesn't really matter if it's helium or hydrogen. Hindenburg would have happened no matter what it was filled with. IIRC, there's an argument out there that hydrogen actually saved people in that case, though I don't remember the physics of it all.

There's some safety issues involving working with it on the ground, but you can mitigate that with procedures. Helium has an asphyxiation risk, especially when you're working with enough to fill a blimp, so it's not like it's totally safe there, either.

Historically, the really bad thing with blimps/dirigibles is how the ground crew can get thrown into the air when they're holding it down with rope and a gust of wind suddenly picks up. Hard to find numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's more deaths involving ground crew operations of dirigibles than the 35 people who died on the Hindenburg.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Late reply, but you... may not be wrong.

However, I think this is a 'nuclear power' like situation.

Even if the failure modes are generally technically safe, they're so spectacular that it's going to freak people (and authorities) out to the point of being problematic. Hence, dirigible development basically died from that one incident, heh.

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 4 days ago

I'm pretty sure Hindenburg would have been able to land somewhere instead of crashing out of the air if it used Helium. The surface catching fire wouldn't spread nearly as quickly as the cells exploding with hydrogen gas. I'm not sure what material the cells were made out of, but I doubt it burns like flash paper.