• dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.worldEnglish
      52·
      6 days ago

      Absolutely, but the scale of the balloons is a bit off. Nobody would be walking shoulder to shoulder like this. For a normal-ish 170lb/77kg individual your personal balloon would have to be a little under 6.5 meters across assuming it were filled with helium.

      Yes, I did the math.

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        15·
        6 days ago

        You did the basic math, with your spherical balloon. What about giant cylinders? Then you could really pack it in.

        • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.worldEnglish
          17·
          6 days ago

          Sure. You could do a cylinder of three quarters of a meter across which seems like a reasonable footprint for someone to stand in. That’d only have to be, uh, 325.5 meters tall to have the same volume.

            • ReanuKeeves@lemm.eeEnglish
              5·
              6 days ago

              Your asshole “buddy” constantly throwing sharp objects at your balloon causing you to be wet all the time and laughing as you ask your mom if she can mend your massive cylinder for the 13th time this month

      • tyler@programming.dev
        5·
        6 days ago

        You could use hydrogen, which is less dense than helium. Then if it catches on fire like the Hindenburg you’d already be in the water.

        • perestroika@lemm.ee
          1·
          4 days ago

          It wouldn’t help. The thing that gives you lift is the mass of displaced air. Difference from the (lack of) mass of the lifting gas is minimal.

          • tyler@programming.dev
            2·
            4 days ago

            It would, but less than the density difference, since you’ve removed weight from the balloon thus gravity has less of a pull on the balloon. My wife (a PE in thermodynamics) was the one that verified that comment before I posted it, hence why I didn’t say it would increase lift by the difference in density.

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      5·
      5 days ago

      They’re on a carriage that’s like pontooned at the bottom, being pulled by the horse and driver who each have their own balloons.

      edit oh wait d’you mean the ones in the back right my bad dk about them

      • MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world
        7·
        5 days ago

        Back right?

        I see two in the back left and two more in the back middle without balloons. The two in the back right are the carriage passengers.

  • rational_lib@lemmy.world
    1·
    5 days ago

    Now I’m wondering why we don’t attach giant balloons to ships to reduce water resistance by cutting down how much of the ship needs to be underwater. Perhaps it’s because you would need more size for the balloon, and maybe the air resistance and water resistance needs to even out due to physical laws that I’m too lazy to think about?

    • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
      8·
      5 days ago

      The boat already floats. What is the point of making it lighter? Boats are handy for transporting extreme weights because water weighs more than air.

      If it should fly then get a Zepplin

    • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      5 days ago

      Any amount of water contact introduces a fair amount of drag. There may be an ideal point somewhere in the middle, but I think if you take this to it’s natural conclusion you get a zeppelin.

      I did a little bit of math and I think that to lift the payload capacity (including fuel and crew) of a modern day Panama canal ship you would need about a tenth of the peak U.S. helium reserve (a cube about half a kilometer long on each edge, about 1.3x longer than the long dimension of the ship)

      I don’t think you’d get the best fuel efficiency going upwind lol

      Anything smaller would come with proportionally less downsides and at least proportionally less benefits. I doubt it could ever be a net positive in any useful metric.