Science desk
< January 20	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 21

Hot water in pan

To thaw a hole in ice on my pond I put a pan of hot water on the ice, and noted that the water in pan the rotated in a anticlockwise motion Why is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmyers00 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most likely reason is that you filled it from a hot tap that generated the rotation as it filled the pan. The Coriolis effect explanation has been shown to be invalid, I think. Dbfirs 10:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Coriolis effect works on the scale of hurricanes and other major weather systems. Didn't stop this cafe at the equator in Uganda I was once at from putting bowls 10 m either side of the equator, expecting the water to drain opposite ways... Sigh! I guess the movement of the pan while being carried from the tap to the pond would also affect rotation here. Fgf10 (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am more curious about what made it rotate at all. If the bottom was heated I would guess convection currents but a pan of hot water on ice should stratify, So why did it rotate? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the water was completely still without any "curl" when placed on the ice, I can see no reason why it would gain an overall rotation through convection. It can be difficult to see small rotations in clear water, so perhaps the stratification just made a pre-existing rotation visible. Dbfirs 22:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nothing to do with answering the question but if the ice was thin enough to melt with a pan of water then would it not be almost too thin to walk on? The Canadian Red Cross says 15 cm (5.9 in) and Environment Canada, no link but I just checked the manual, says 20 cm (7.9 in). Even at 15 cm it would take several pans of hot water to melt through. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could've been from the shore. Mingmingla (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further south, our recommendations are 4 inch thick ice for foot traffic, 8 for autos, 15 for pickups.[1] Rmhermen (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP didn't say anything about walking on it. And certainly a "pond" does not conjure a picture for me of anything big enough to even consider walking on. --ColinFine (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect it's a fish pond and the OP was melting a hole in it to allow gaseous exchange to take place to keep the fish healthy. Richerman (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battery paradox

So I'm looking for a new wireless mouse and I come across this. Looks good, but the rechargeable battery only lasts a few days according to most of the consumer reviews. Then I come across this, and it purportedly lasts 2 years on just AA batteries alone (it doesn't work on glass though so that's a deal breaker, but I digress). I was under the impression that lithium ion batteries have much better energy density than ordinary alkaline AA batteries do. So what's the deal? Why does the mouse which runs on AA's lasts so much longer than the lithium ion one? ScienceApe (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two AA cells are quite heavy for a mouse. I suspect the the Lion battery is much smaller and lighter. Perhaps the manufacturers assume that recharging is not much trouble so they don't put a large and expensive battery in the first mouse. It's also possible that the AA mouse has a processor that draws less power (and perhaps does less processing?) Perhaps someone can check the specifications? Dbfirs 10:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Energy density Extended Reference Table lists the energy density of both:

Alkaline battery: 1.15 to 1.43 MJ/L

Lithium ion battery: 0.83 to 3.60 MJ/L

So no more than a 2:1 difference one way or the other.

Mice don't typically specify current draw, and the specified battery life is often an advertising fiction. A 20:1 ratio in current draw between different designs is fairly common. So when you factor in battery size, energy density, current draw, assumptions about use patterns, and stir in a few fibs from the marketing department, that could explain the difference. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While not denying battery life figures from manufacturers aren't particularly reliable, if consumer reviews say the battery life of the earlier mouse is only a few days then I would suggest the mouse has a rather short battery life. I've used several AA mice in the past and with rechargeable NiMH battery life is in the weeks to months range presuming decent full charged batteries. I'm of course presuming a more ordinary consumer pattern, not say 24/7 FPS gaming. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the difference has little (if anything) to do with the batteries. The amount of power a mouse needs depends drastically on how (or "if") it shuts down when you're not moving it. The problem is often that to shut itself down sufficiently to save power when you stop moving it, makes it take a lot longer to wake up when you start it moving again. So if I had to bet, I'd say that the mouse with the significantly lower current draw would have that annoying lag that you get with some cordless mice when you start using it again after a break. Some mice shut down much sooner than others too - that would make a big difference to power consumption. SteveBaker (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. They are made by the same company and have the same power saver features. We're talking about a difference between 2 years and a couple of days too. ScienceApe (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Performance Mouse MX M950:

Requires 1 AA NiMH rechargeable battery.

Expected battery life is up to 30 days.

http://logitech-en-amr.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/12710

Wireless Mouse M510:

Requires 2 AA alkaline batteries.

Expected battery life is up to 24 months (2 years).

http://logitech-en-amr.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/17990/

The M510 has a standard laser.

The M950 has a dual Darkfield Laser.

http://www.logitech.com/images/pdf/briefs/Logitech_Darkfield_Innovation_Brief_2009.pdf

From the above, it looks like the M950 uses about twelve times the power that the M510 uses. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might think the darkfield laser requires more energy, but I own this mouse. It's logitech's other darkfield laser mouse (allows it to work on glass and reflective surfaces) and it has worked for months with just two AA batteries. According to consumer reviews, it has worked for at least 6 months. I would just buy another one, but this one is designed for laptops so it's smaller, I want a bigger one for my desktop. ScienceApe (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Guy Macon that you cannot at all relay on manufactuer's claims on mouse battery life. I have an ordinary Microsoft Wireless Laser Mouse 5000 (Model 1058). It runs on two AA cells, and the claimed battery life is 1 year. There is never any noticeable lag after the mouse has been idle, but lag occurs if the battery is flat. Working at home, I mostly use email, Microsoft Word, Excel, and spend a lot of time writing software. All these things are keyboard intensive and from experience I'd say the claimed mouse battery life is comfortably exceeded. But sometimes I accept commissions involving CAD/CAE work, which is very mouse intensive. When doing CAD/CAE all day long, the mouse batteries go flat within weeks. Incidentally, the mouse has a facility to give you an on-screen warning that the batteries are low. This function is totally unreliable. It gives false warnings sometimes, and sometimes the mouse fails without any warning. Ratbone 124.178.141.66 (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Railgun on the moon

Would it make sense to launch probes to the outer solar system with a railgun from the moon? This is meant in a few years (decades or centuries) after a moon station is built and we have a few people there. I know that it does not make sense to transport all the stuff to the moon built a railgun there and than think it is more effective and cheaper than to launch from earth. Is the speed you can reach higher than what chemical propulsion or ion thrusters can provide?--Stone (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been suggested at least since I was a child (the 60's). I remember illustrations showing how material from the moon could be sent to Earth orbit using this method. Zzubnik (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's possible - but not economically sensible for that purpose. Between the lack of atmosphere and lower gravity, railguns would certainly be much more effective from the Moon than from Earth. But you've still got the problem of transporting the probe from earth to moon and loading it into the railgun - that might cost more fuel and equipment than would be saved by doing a launch direct from earth orbit. But you could also considering placing a railgun like that in earth orbit or at one of the lagrange points too - and that would be even more effective than building it on the moon.

The only reason (that I could imagine) for putting this machine on the moon would be the possibility of making the machine from materials commonly found there to avoid having to ship them up to Earth orbit. But that would be a much bigger task. Moon rocks contain iron, aluminium, silicon, magnesium and titanium - but not much copper or silver for making electrical conductors suitable for all of those magnets. Aluminum wires are also possible - but their conductivity would be poor. There ought to be materials for making photocells with which to make solar panels. You'd probably want to use superconducting magnets - and the specialized materials needed for that would be even harder to make there. But before any of those things can be done, you'd need massive mining, refining and manufacturing facilities on the moon - and the cost of those things would dwarf the costs of sending probes to the outer solar system from Earth. We routinely send those kinds of probes out there - and the cost is easily accommodated within NASA's budget - but the cost of even one human mission to the moon would be huge.

So I think the first problem is to find money and motivation to build extensive lunar colonies with the infrastructure to process moon rock in large quantities. Helium-3 mining (as fuel for fusion reactors) is a possible reason to do that - and using a railgun to launch helium canisters back to Earth would be a strong motivation to build a lunar railgun. But if it's aimed to get canisters into low Earth orbit, I don't know whether you'd be able to aim it correctly to get a probe into the outer solar system.

So, possible? Yes. Likely? No.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Multiple ECs) You (the OP) might wish to check out Robert Heinlein's novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, in which a railgun – used to transport (metal-jacketed) bulk materials from the Moon to Earth – features prominently. While this is fiction, Heinlein was a trained engineer (he worked on early versions of what eventually evolved into NASA's standard spacesuit, amongst other things) and would have been careful to get the underlying concept and numbers right. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that book was written almost 50 years ago (1966) - before most of our understanding of practical superconductors and before we had rare-earth magnets. Three years before we had even a single moon-rock to analyze. A modern railgun would be a very different beast to the thing that Heinlein imagined. SteveBaker (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really the only hurdles would be financial and technological hurdles. Seems to me that it will be done once we begin colonizing space. ScienceApe (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A railgun will be built only if it's better than all alternatives, and I'm pretty sure it's not. A space elevator is not yet feasible on Earth, because no known material is strong enough for the cable, but it is possible on the Moon with current technology. --140.180.255.25 (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree. A space elevator would be an excellent solution for the moon...but then you might want to advance another step and build a Skyhook (structure)...or an Orbital ring...or a Space fountain...or a Lofstrom loop. There are many, many other ideas that become possible without an atmosphere and with sufficiently strong materials. SteveBaker (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A problem here would be that there are no long term stable orbits around the Moon. All probes orbiting the Moon need to have very frequent course corrections to prevent them from crashing into the Moon due to very strong tidal perturbations from the Earth and the Sun. Count Iblis (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a lunar space elevator, you need to put the counterweight at the L1 point, which is sufficiently stable not to need much station keeping. --Tango (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See mass driver. --Tango (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have my doubts that a space elevator would be able to compete with a railgun on the moon for the purpose of launching. Aside from being considerably simpler, cheaper, smaller, quicker on launch and with substantially larger launch velocities, a rail gun should be roughly as energy-efficient. In terms of landing, if super-accurate guidance becomes possible, it could even be used for objects landing on the moon from suitable trajectories. — Quondum 09:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with a railgun is that it's much less versatile. The G-forces involved in a railgun launch would make it unsuitable for humans - so it would be a cargo-only thing...a space elevator is a much gentler ride. Also, a railgun needs to release all of it's energy in one monumental "oomph" - making it ill-suited to solar power (which is the only reasonable to make power on the moon) without gigantic numbers of batteries. A space elevator would be easier to power with solar energy.

You wouldn't use a railgun to launch payloads into space, you would use a mass driver which is basically a coilgun, and the acceleration can be controlled. ScienceApe (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microphone physically attached on a string

suppose a microphone is physically attached ot a string. it's tiny, assume it weighs close to 0 grams and vibrates freely with the string - maybe it has its tiny battery and just transmits whatever it "hears", via FM or whatever.

Now. What *DOES* it hear? Tee same thing as it would hear if it were NOT freely vibrating on the string, but attached to a fixed point right next to it?

91.120.48.242 (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It'll certainly hear things - the modes of vibration of the string (being a long, thin thing) will be very different than the modes of the microphone pickup - the string will be highly susceptible to vibrations near to it's natural frequency and to lateral vibrations rather than vertical ones. So for that reason, it doesn't isolate the microphone from all sounds...the string+microphone also has a lot of inertia - so when a high frequency sound hits it, it takes time to get moving. But the super-lightweight microphone transducer is designed to have minimal inertia. So the string might dampen out very low frequency vibrations - but not the high frequencies that we think of as "sound". I doubt you'd hear anything very much different compared to a stationary mic. SteveBaker (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this was the answer. Followup question: does this added weight affect the string much? (I suppose I could check this experimentally, but I'm lazy). 178.48.114.143 (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it certainly affects it...but "very much" is a value judgement. If you take one a 100' length of one of those 3" diameter ropes they use to tie ships to docks - and attach one of those pin-head microphones that spies use...then "not very much" would be a reasonable answer! On the other hand, if you're talking about a 6" length of thin string and one of those gigantic 1920's radio microphones - then you'd be lucky if it didn't snap the string...so "very much" would be a good description! SteveBaker (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disposing of Cooking Oil

There are a lot of specific instructions concerning the disposal of used cooking oil. They seem largely unnecessary to me. Couldn't I just pour the oil outside and let the soil microbes decompose it for me? The oil in question is a blend of soy, olive, and canola oils.70.171.28.155 (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you can pour cooking oil outside. Ideally you compost it, in a bin or pile with other kitchen and yard waste (coffee grounds, dead leaves, etc.). If you just pour a bunch of oil on the ground, it can start to smell rancid and attract unwanted pests (opossums, racoons, etc.) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't add too much oil to a compost pile; too much fat retards decomposition. Some people claim it can be used to kill weeds in gravel or sidewalk cracks, but I don't know how effective that would be. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should find out if somebody in your community converts cooking oil to biodiesel; they'd be happy to take it off your hands. -Or- buy a diesel powered vehicle and make your own fuel:[2]:[3] There are pre-fab units (~$1500) that convert 40 gal. at a time. (Or you can DIY):[4] ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC) ~ (P.s.: I have used straight (filtered) cooking oil, but this is not recommended for cold climates or when the fuel sits awhile.)~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just use as much as you need (which amounts to deposing it in your toilet a day or so later) ? Count Iblis (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you deep-fry correctly, little of the oil soaks into the food, leaving you a fryer-ful of used oil for disposal. DMacks (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see! When I visit my parents and eat some snacks they prepared, I see one or two such fryers with used oil. I never bother deep-frying stuff myself, I prefer to know exactly how much oil/fats I'm actually eating. Count Iblis (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are recycling centers, like this one, in many local areas that may be able to help you. Richard Avery (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By now there are people who actually steal used cooking oil (e.g. [5]) - that's how far biodiesel has come in just a few years! This is particularly gratifying to see because it's an alternative energy source that has appeared in the hands of the common people, not some guy who owns the hilltops or can afford to build a massive energy project. Wnt (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum mechanical question. in a physical sense of actual reality (what is true) does the mathematical identity function (==) not hold for objects?

Update: this is a quantum mechanical question. Identity means mathematical identity.

In a physical sense - referring to actual reality/truth - does the mathematical identity function (==) not hold: meaning, ~~you are not mathematically identical to yourself~~ a physical object does not pass the mathematical identity function (is instead =/= to itself). My reasoning is as follows:

- ~~People~~Physical objects, unobserved, do not have exact locations, but instead are probability waves. (per quantum mechanics).

Therefore, when "comparing" ~~to yourself~~ any physical object with itself, ~~you would necessarily find that you are not identical to yourself~~ one would find that the object fails the mathematical test. By whatever means this comparison were to physically occur (per qm):

That is to say, it is not an experimental limit, but a facet of [the physical universe].

Can we, therefore, conclude that the mathematical identity function does not hold for ~~real-life objects~~ in the physical universe? That ~~an atom, or whatever, is not identical to itself?~~ physical objects cannot be considered to pass the equality test with themselves? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's meaningful or helpful to apply concepts like the identity function to thingstri-as-they-are, rather than things-as-we-approach-them. If you consider any object, and realise that it is a collection of atoms, with quite fuzzy edges as the microscopic level - and then realise that the atoms are mostly space, and the sub-atomic particles that make them up defined only by probability functions, and so on - it becomes clear that the identity of an object, or a person, or anything at all is a matter of perceptual and conceptual convenience, rather than an absolute truth. In order to get through life and not go crazy, we behave as though our architectonic approach to the material world is true. I don't stop and worry if my lunch is 'real' or not; I just eat it.

As to whether the self is real - I strongly recommend Douglas Hofstader's book I am a Strange Loop, which is all about the perception of one's own self, identity and thought processes. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the question slightly to reflect that I am asking about "physics" (qm in particular) and not philosophy, etc. I'd like a more rigourous answer, though I did not use formalism (equations, etc) in my question, since I don't know it. Thank you. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many people are half bicycle so they don't retain their identity ;-) from Flann O'Brien, The Third Policeman: "The gross and net result of it is that people who spent most of their natural lives riding iron bicycles over the rocky roadsteads of this parish get their personalities mixed up with the personalities of their bicycle as a result of the interchanging of the atoms of each of them and you would be surprised at the number of people in these parts who are nearly half people and half bicycles" Dmcq (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been useful if you had marked the changes more clearly. I stand by my original answer, though. The term 'identity function' has, to me, only the technical mathematical meaning of a function which maps every term to itself. It has nothing much to with identity in the sense of individuality. But the human self is not a quantum mechanical thing; it exists, if it exists at all, at a much higher level both of size and abstraction. It is in no way helpful to think of macroscopic entities like people as probability functions. In any case, no person exists unobserved: they observe themselves, even when asleep, by means of their motor functions. You're trying to apply the tools of the sub-microscopic world, and of the abstract mathematical world, to large, chunky things which they do not usefully describe. I am not a probability function; in quantum terms I am a highly deterministic averaging-out of billions of billions of very localised probabilities, indistinguishable from a Newtonian entity. Unless someone subjects me to a Schrodinger's Cat test, the quantum world does not affect me perceptibly - even though it may play some part in the brain functions by which I decide what is and is not perceptible. But I'll say it again: I am not a quantum function; I am a strange loop. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I've now I added the word "mathematical" before every occurrence of "identity" and made substantial and well marked clarificaitons. I only mean the equals function, and the physical universe. I don't care about any other aspect. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this still isn't really a physics question. It's pure semantics. The word 'self', and all its compounds, conveys an idea of equality such that 'the set of all things not equal to themselves' is guaranteed to be empty. (I expect someone will be along shortly to prove that rigorously with first order symbolic logic.) So however you have defined any given physical entity, that thing (according to that definition) will be identical to itself. But if you stop thinking of that entity in macroscopic, architectonic terms, and start considering the wave functions of all its component particles, not only are you treating it in a way that is not reasonable for any ordinary person - even a professional physicist - you are also ignoring the implicitly inclusive and fuzzy-matching way we identify macroscopic objects.

If, on the other hand, the physical entity you first chose is, in fact, a subatomic particle, then (thanks to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) your initial identification of what and where it is was only ever a well-informed guess to start with. In that case, you may not be able to say later that another, similarly defined particle is definitely the one you had earlier; but at any given point of time, even an electron is itself.

Bottom line: mathematics is not the real world, and trying to make the real world obey mathematical rules leads to headaches. But equally, the real world at the large scale is not usefully described by quantum theory. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I entirely understand the question - but we have an article "Identical particles" which certainly says that at the level of electrons, atoms and such, there is "absolute equality" between all particles of that type. It says: "Identical particles ... are particles that cannot be distinguished from one another, even in principle. Species of identical particles include elementary particles such as electrons, and with some clauses, composite particles such as atoms and molecules."

Furthermore, John Archibald Wheeler (in a concept prominently reported by Richard Feynman in his Nobel Prize speech) suggested that electrons are not just identical - but that there is actually only one of them in the entire universe(!) - bouncing back and forth through time and appearing as an electron when going forward in time and as a positron as it travels in reverse.

I'm not sure this helps!

SteveBaker (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article on that. It's short, but it exists. The One-electron universe. --Jayron32 04:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that particles don't have an exact location in space is definitely a facet of the universe but that doesn't meant that the particle is not identical to itself. All it means is that exact location in space is not a property of particles. Dauto (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing the domains of the subjects you're talking about. It might make sense to say that 1+1=2 is modeled by putting two apples into a sack and asking how many you have, but this isn't the same as saying that addition operates on the apples. On a more deep level, computers don't operate by the rules of mathematical logic; it just happens that logic corresponds really well with what the physics produces. At any rate, such issues aside, you're question either reduces to nonsense or is asking if things can have identity. The latter is not really a physics question, more philosophy. If you'd like to go into this, I'm sure that we can; if I'm reading you wrong, please clarify. (PS, unless this is something you study, it's a confounding area of thought, so I don't mean what I've written as offensive, I think it would give any outsider pause on how to word their thoughts into a question.)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

common ways to relieve heart palpitations

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

--Jayron32 22:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a request for medical advice. I'm not asking to treat anything, and the problem isn't a medical one. 128.143.1.176 (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can see Palpitation and Atrial fibrillation; however, there are sites other than Wikipedia. ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do airships exploit lift so little?

Hindenburgs travel at least 90 mph, why not make that airspeed do something useful for once? I might've seen an article about balloon-wings to orbit (with rockets and momentum providing the final boost). What's the article for that? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read the FAA's Balloon Flying Handbook. This free text-book will introduce you to everything you need to know about basic aeronautical engineering, aerodynamics, and engineering realities of modern lighter-than-air aircraft. Nimur (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I now realize that the word lift was unclear. I meant airfoil lift. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lift doesn't come 'for free'. If you add a wing - and it produces lift, then it will inevitably add drag - and that slows the airship down or requires larger engines and more fuel...which in turn makes it heavier...so yet bigger engines and yet more fuel.

Furthermore, if you need that lift in order to maintain altitude with your regular payload weight, then you have all manner of new problems that true airships manage to avoid. For example, an airship can hover - it needs very little fuel to travel long distances. If it had to use engine power to create motion through the air just in order to avoid losing height - then it wouldn't be able to hover without falling out of the sky. If you need that wing lift to get it to gain altitude - then you'd need a runway for it to take off an land on. True airships can land and take off vertically - which is vital given how big they are!

If you don't need the extra lift - then why complicate the design and add a ton of drag for no particularly good reason?

That said, airships do gain lift - they just don't have wings to generate it. When the airship needs to gain altitude in a hurry, it can use the elevators on the tail and/or ballast shifting to point the nose up in the air - and in that attitude, that huge body does actually generate lift. I don't recall seeing any of the giant world-war-I era craft doing that - but I've definitely seen the Goodyear Blimp do it.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take then you're talking about a Hybrid airship Quote: “However, critics of the hybrid approach have labeled it as being the "worst of both worlds" declaring that such craft require a runway for take-off and landing, are difficult to control and protect on the ground, and have relatively poor aerodynamic performance.”--Aspro (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

►"...article about balloon-wings to orbit" → Orbital airship. ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Ben Bova, author of "The Great Supersonic Zeppelin Race" (fiction), a Supersonic Zeppelin can be designed so as to not create a sonic boom. The sonic boom limiting the Concorde to over-water flights is considered by many to be a major reason why it failed. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what Steve said. The engineering trade-offs involved make something like that much less efficient than one would imagine just looking at raw numbers. Lift is drag, with its powers harnessed for good rather than evil. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, there is an advantage to putting all your hydrogen or helium into a giant wing, that increases the surface area on the top, which allows for greater collection of solar energy by solar cells placed on the top. There was a flying wing design for a robotic plane that flew for something like 2 weeks that way. StuRat (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some interesting tradeoffs here. If you want to minimize the weight and maximize the lift, you would choose a sphere. Clearly dirigible designers decided long ago that the reduced drag of a cigar shape is worth the extra weight, but they made various length to girth decisions. You do get lift from a cigar shape, but not from a (non-rotating) sphere. Once you add solar cells to the top (or paint it black to get more lift from warming the gas) some sort of a wing shape seems like it would be better, but what shape, and how thick? I am guessing that a flattened long-and-narrow shape like a thick surfboard would be better than the flattened short-and-wide shape I imagine when I hear "flying wing". Or perhaps a flying saucer shape? If everything else was equal, would a flying surfboard get more lift going sideways like a wing? Would it have more drag? Would they cancel or would the lift-to-drag ratio change? There must be a silver surfer or back-to-the-future hoverboard joke in here somewhere... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 January 21

Contents