this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2026
188 points (98.5% liked)

World News

56013 readers
1905 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 20 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

because hydrogen is famously inert and helium is abundant?

[–] Vikthor@piefed.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Jet fuel isn't exactly inert either and we now have another 90 years of advances in technology since the Hindenburg.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Hydrogen is a 100 times harder to contain than jet fuel.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

How to you get to that number?

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Obviously the number is meant to be taken 99.99..% literally, which is the same as 100% by the way. And is not just another way of writing much much harder. That would be lame!

But to be fair, I rounded the 100 up from 99.7, which I found by adding 99 and 0.7.
So as you can see the math is solid.

But the problem with Hydrogen is not just that it is a gas, which is already inherently more difficult than liquids.
The real problem is that it is a gas basically consisting of only a proton with an electron. So the smallest possible atom, so small it can permeate any material that exist. The only difference is in how fast. When you then also at the same time want to make the container light weight, because if it's to heavy it completely defeats the purpose, then you have a recipe for problems.

There's a reason that despite the advantages, there has never been found a practical use for airships. It's not that we can't make them, they are just not any good for practical purposes.

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Let's just... uhhh... go back to helium.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Helium is actually worse in many ways, it is expensive, and it is twice as heavy, so it requires more volume to carry the same weight.
Meaning it is more expensive, slower and more vulnerable to the winds.

Atmospheric air is 1.29 g/L. Helium is 0.18 g/L and Hydrogen 0.09 g/L.
So hydrogen can lift 0.09 g more per liter or 7% more than helium.

Not as bad as I thought, but still Helium is less efficient.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No need to go crazy, I just wanted to know where the number comes from.

But while we are here, Helium is the smallest atom at 31 pm, H is 53 pm and H2 is far off with 120 pm.

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

Funny how helium is smaller than hydrogen when it has 2 protons and 2 neutrons? Against hydrogen that is merely a single proton with an electron. Physics is weird sometimes. Although the explanation is simple that the 2 protons draw the 2 electrons closer, making the electron "shell" smaller.

But maybe this "size" isn't universal, maybe Hydrogen can squeeze more under pressure?

Google gives me this answer to the question "is hydrogen easier to contain than helium":

No, hydrogen is not easier to contain than helium. Hydrogen is harder to contain because its smaller, lighter molecules escape through materials faster than helium

So apparently hydrogen remains the more permeable gas, and hydrogen is also chemically very active, corroding nearly everything it comes in contact with.

Edit:
I figured it out, hydrogen is more permeable because it can interact chemically, making the electron shell near irrelevant.

[–] chaosCruiser@futurology.today 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

That’s why you put a vacuum in there. It’s made of nothing, so it doesn’t react, and there’s plenty of it in the universe. Besides, it’s also lighter than anything else you could throw in there.

[–] arandomthought@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Perfect. Now you only have to find a way to contain that vacuum that doesn't involve thick, heavy walls and we're good to go!

[–] RedGreenBlue@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Fantastium fibers should do it.

[–] chaosCruiser@futurology.today 8 points 2 weeks ago

You can also use unobtanium plates with adamantium rivets if you want to make it look cooler.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If there is every a tiny hole you go from a small hydrogen leak (dangerous but repairable) to a collapse of the entire airship and instantly falling to the ground

[–] chaosCruiser@futurology.today 7 points 2 weeks ago

No risk, no reward. You wanna fly the coolest airship or not.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 3 points 2 weeks ago

Or environmentally friendly if leaked. And leaks will happen.

I am somewhat confident that we could get a reliable H air ship, to be fair.