Does a hydrogen baloon ascend faster than a helium baloon

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyjeffs
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Helium Hydrogen
AI Thread Summary
A hydrogen balloon ascends faster than a helium balloon due to hydrogen's lower density, which results in a greater buoyant force. However, the acceleration is not simply double; it is influenced by the mass of the balloon and gas as well as the drag force, which increases with velocity. The upward force is calculated by subtracting the weight of the balloon and gas from the weight of the air displaced. The final acceleration formula shows that while hydrogen provides a greater lift, the actual ascent speed is approximately 1.41 times faster, not double. Weather balloons often utilize hydrogen for this reason.
tonyjeffs
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Does a hydrogen baloon ascend faster than a helium baloon?
Ignoring the weight of the baloon fabric, and ignoring friction, but not ignoring the mass of the air, would a hydrogen baloon ascend twice as fast?

Would the same logic apply to lead and aluminium weights falling through water?

Thanks

Tony



ps. I'm very impressed with this forum. Some very high level discussions going on!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Tony,
As you probably know, helium is roughly twice as dense as hydrogen under standard conditions (STP). Assuming both balloons are equal in size and total weight (weight without gas), the "upward force" (F) is equal to the weight of the air displaced minus the weight of the balloon plus gas. That total upward force accelerates the balloon upward according to a=F/m where:
a = acceleration upward
F = force upward
m = mass of the balloon plus mass of helium or hydrogen

So the two balloons, one with helium, one with hydrogen, have different accelerations upwards, but the acceleration upward is not a ratio of the mass of the gas. It is a ratio of the mass given in the equation above, which is dependant on the balloon mass PLUS the mass of the gas.

Note also that wind resistance must be considered in the above equation, but we'll neglect that for the purposes of this argument.
 
hi, Tony:
Q_Goest is right. But the sentence, " It is a ratio of the mass given in the equation above, which is dependant on the balloon mass PLUS the mass of the gas." , has some problem. Because the ratio of the speed of the balloon is as the same as the "a", the acceleration upward. So not only the mass of the balloon is involved, but also the upward force.
 
No. There is nothing wrong with what Q posted. If you break down the balloon into a FBD and work the variables, you will see that the acceleration each balloon experiences is a function of the gas density, air density and the mass of the balloon and the gas. The upward force is a function of these as well.

This is going to take me a month of Sundays...

F_{net} = W_{air} - \left(W_{balloon} + W_{gas} \right)

F_{net} = \left(V_{balloon}\rho_{air} g \right) - W_{balloon} - \left(V_{balloon}\rho_{gas} g \right)

F_{net} = V_{balloon} g \left(\rho_{air} - \rho_{gas} \right) - W_{balloon}

Therefore:

A_{balloon} = \frac{V_{balloon} g \left(\rho_{air} - \rho_{gas} \right) - W_{balloon}}{m_{balloon}+m_{gas}}

A_{balloon} = \frac{V_{balloon} g \left[\frac{m_{air}}{V_{balloon}} - \frac{m_{gas}}{V_{balloon}}\right] - m_{balloon}g}{m_{balloon} + m_{gas}}

Finally...

A_{balloon} = \frac{g \left( m_{air}-m_{gas}-m_{balloon}\right)}{m_{balloon}+m_{gas}}
 
Last edited:
It's faster, but not twice as fast, because drag force is relative to v^2. If everything else is the same, and lift force (bouyancy) is twice as much, then velocity will be SQRT(2) = 1.41 times as fast.

Weather balloons typically use hydrogen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_balloon
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top