Floating Ships: Engineering a Vacuum-Filled Chamber in the Atmosphere

  • Thread starter Thread starter SF
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atmospheric Ship
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility of engineering a vacuum-filled chamber that could float in the atmosphere, akin to ships floating on water. Participants explore the theoretical and practical challenges involved in creating such a structure using existing materials.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the plausibility of the concept, suggesting that the material must be both strong and low in density to achieve buoyancy.
  • Another participant provides a calculation indicating that for a cubic meter of air weighing 1.2 kg, the enclosing material must weigh less than this to float, while also withstanding external atmospheric pressure.
  • There is a clarification regarding the importance of mass over density in the context of buoyancy and structural integrity.
  • A participant highlights the challenge of maintaining a vacuum within a structure, noting that the necessary materials would likely be too heavy to support the concept effectively.
  • One participant proposes the use of hydrogen or helium as alternatives, suggesting that hydrogen could provide buoyancy while also creating internal pressure, but raises concerns about its safety and potential for ignition.
  • Another participant discusses potential advancements in making hydrogen safer through mechanical or chemical means.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of a vacuum-filled chamber for floating in the atmosphere, with no consensus reached on the practicality of the concept or the materials required.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations related to material strength, density, and the challenges of maintaining a vacuum, but do not resolve these issues.

SF
How big would a vacuum-filled chamber need to be (built with currently existing materials) in order for it to displace enough of the atmosphere so it starts floating?

Think about it, such contraptions would work like ships, except they don't float on water this time, but up high in the atmosphere :D

Harrrrr
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/213/piratebaythevideobaypubud2.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
Don't think it's plausible. The material would have to be really strong yet extremely low in density.

In general the net force on the object would be:

F_{net} = mg -\rho Vg

Which implies that the buoyant force would have to be greater than the weight of the object (chamber) in order for it to float.

In the above equation, the net force would be negative if the object floated.

CS
 
Well, air has a density of 1.2mg/cm^3, so 1 cubic metre would weigh 1.2kg. If you could enclose that volume with a material that weighs less than 1.2kg and yet can withstand an external pressure of 14.7lbs/in^2 then you've got yourself a floating object. You could scale that up or down (down is better) as you wish, but it's still the external pressure that'll be the showstopper.
 
Last edited:
stewartcs said:
The material would have to be really strong yet extremely low in density.
Not density, mass.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Not density, mass.

Sorry, I wrote density but meant mass (as implied by the equation given).

CS
 
actually the idea is wonderful, the problem is in maintaining a control volume around a vacuum. considering standard sea-level pressure of about 14.7 PSI, the structure needed to maintain the 'bubble' of vacuum would be irreconcilably heavy. hence the ideas of a dirigible using hydrogen or helium: they allow for the density affect you speak of, but they have equal pressures (more or less) inside and out. The only way I could see this being done would be a rigid frame with a film stretched over it. Maybe an air-tight carbon-fiber matrix could do it, but you'd still be talking about huge internal stresses, and a really inherently unstable system.
 
This is why hydrogen is so great. It has the best of both worlds:
1] it is so light that it is effectively vacuum (the difference in bouyancy between hydrogen and vacuum is not very much) and
2] it creates it own internal pressure.

Seems to me, if there's any advances going to be made, it will be in rendering hydrogen less dangerous. That could take several forms:
1] mechanical - some sort of matrix that prevents spreading of fire
2] chemical - doping the gas in some way that discourages ignition
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 112 ·
4
Replies
112
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
10K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K