Since you all enjoy dumb arguments on the internet...

"davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com" (davesaddiction) 10/08/2019 at 09:05 • Filed to: None

1

67

Enjoy this little back & forth:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Michael > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 09:13

6

Lol and we can finally start mooring airships atop the Empire State Building, as designed. Nevermind the winds at even moderate altitude

facw > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 09:15

6

I’m too tired to wade into this fight properly, so I’ll just say that the decision to force the helium reserve to dump its supplies on the market was pretty terrible mismanagement on the part of C ongress, screwing up the market badly.

Cash Rewards > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 09:16

1

Lots of smarts for someone so dumb. 

vondon302 > Michael 10/08/2019 at 09:18

1

But aren’t we running out of helium?

/s

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Michael 10/08/2019 at 09:19

1

Yes!

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > facw 10/08/2019 at 09:21

4

Government makes poor decisions? What?

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 09:22

1

His final salvo:

InFierority Complex > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 09:28

1

I mean, everyone knows that the reason the world moved away from dirigibles is because the world’s natural Texas cave helium supply was used up.

Old-Busted-Hotness > Michael 10/08/2019 at 09:32

2

And once moored, then what? Did they envision a folding stairway to get passengers on and off, 1400' up in the air? Who’s brave enough to walk on that?

Michael > Old-Busted-Hotness 10/08/2019 at 09:35

5

The original docking level is one floor above the 102nd-floor observatory, up some steep stairs behind an unmarked door. The stairs lead to a circular room perhaps 25 feet across. A door leads out to the circular terrace where passengers fresh from Europe or South America — and their steamer trunks — were to have set foot on American ground.

The terrace is perhaps two and a half feet wide, and the parapet could not be any higher than that; it’s like standing on the raised lip of a Campbell’s soup can, a quarter-mile up. And because the terrace is circular, each side disappearing left and right, there is an uncomfortable sensation of being pushed outward. Were I arriving from Germany , I would have opted for blinders before leaving the nose. But it is an intoxicating view.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/realestate/26scapes.html

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Old-Busted-Hotness 10/08/2019 at 09:38

0

Rope bridge ?

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Michael 10/08/2019 at 09:39

1

So cool/crazy.

facw > Old-Busted-Hotness 10/08/2019 at 09:39

0

I mean it was never really intended to work but here’s a description of how it was imagined:

But the notion that passengers would be able to descend an airport-style ramp from a moving airship to the tip of the tallest building in the world, even in excellent conditions, beggars belief.

The original docking level is one floor above the 102nd-floor observatory, up some steep stairs behind an unmarked door. The stairs lead to a circular room perhaps 25 feet across. A door leads out to the circular terrace where passengers fresh from Europe or South America — and their steamer trunks — were to have set foot on American ground.

The terrace is perhaps two and a half feet wide, and the parapet could not be any higher than that; it’s like standing on the raised lip of a Campbell’s soup can, a quarter-mile up. And because the terrace is circular, each side disappearing left and right, there is an uncomfortable sensation of being pushed outward. Were I arriving from Germany , I would have opted for blinders before leaving the nose. But it is an intoxicating view.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/realestate/26scapes.html

Note that these were rigid airships, which means passengers probably could exit via the nose rather than directly from the passenger compartment, which could have made things less treacherous.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > InFierority Complex 10/08/2019 at 09:40

0

Clearly! They’re right next to the underground swimming pools full of oil!

Michael > facw 10/08/2019 at 09:40

1

Lol yep we quoted the same article :)

Michael > facw 10/08/2019 at 09:40

1

And we each cited sources, too.  What are the odds?

facw > Michael 10/08/2019 at 09:42

1

Apparently I’m too slow this morning...

Nibby > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 09:42

6

that thread is full of hot air

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Nibby 10/08/2019 at 09:44

1

[slow clap]

Highlander-Datsuns are Forever > Michael 10/08/2019 at 09:49

1

That’s a nope for me!

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 09:51

1

This guys avatar is missin g the tin foil hat. Just go to his trade discussions

WRXforScience > InFierority Complex 10/08/2019 at 09:55

4

The real problem is that airships are slow and don’t do well in inclement weather. Congress decided to sell off the strategic helium reserve about 30 years ago and we’re just now about done selling it off. Helium prices have always been pretty low since the helium is a byproduct of natural gas drilling (often the helium just wasn’t even worth capturing since it was worth so little).

Helium is too light to be held by Earth’s gravity and is lost to space when released into the air. Helium is produced through the radioactive decay of elements in the Earth’s crust and mantle and is trapped in the same type of rock formations that trap natural gas.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > gmporschenut also a fan of hondas 10/08/2019 at 09:56

1

Yeah, I saw those and...

JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 09:58

0

He’s not wrong. (about the energy per ton lift bit) 

nermal > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 09:58

1

I read this as two separate arguments, kinda like EVs vs gas cars. The “environmental impact” disparity between the two varies depending on how much of the manufacturing process you take into account.

Irregardlessly, I’m offended. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 09:59

0

And his final point proves to be the most salient!

(assuming we use that helium for 1000 years with no losses...)

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t 10/08/2019 at 10:03

0

He actually did make some good points. But there’s a whole lot behind the “free ” energy of helium.

facw > WRXforScience 10/08/2019 at 10:05

0

Helium prices have always been pretty low since the helium is a byproduct of natural gas drilling (often the helium just wasn’t even worth capturing since it was worth so little). 

And of course if you wanted to make that problem worse and encourage the waste of a gas we can’t make more of (unless we figure out fusion power) or easily replace with an alternative, the way to do it would be to dump a huge supply on to the market, which is of course exactly what we did.

Add to that that helium production is highly variable, but aside from the national reserve, there aren’t really a lot of options for storing it, which will mean occasional shortages even when the market adapts to the post-reserve era.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > WRXforScience 10/08/2019 at 10:05

0

Helium’s getting more expensive, but you’re right, it does take a natural gas well rich in helium to make sense to take it to market.

Nothing > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 10:06

0

WAIT! Natural gas is near worthless? Be back in a few, I’ve got a few nearby frac sites to visit so can stop the 84 residential wells from going in. Maybe I’ll get there faster if I take my airship. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > nermal 10/08/2019 at 10:07

0

LOL

Yes - I was trying to make the point that the “free” energy of helium isn’t exactly free/easy ...

jimz > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 10:13

1

so in his world a boat must defy gravity...

I’d like to see him try to get a dirigible into orbit with just “free” helium energy.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Nothing 10/08/2019 at 10:14

0

*some places

Ultimately, the industry finds it more profitable to burn the gas. Recently, in a closely watched case, the Texas RRC approved a flaring permit request from Exco, a small driller in the Eagle Ford. The reason the case saw extra scrutiny was because Exco was not requesting a flaring permit due to a lack of access to pipelines. Exco had access, but didn’t want to pay for it, and instead preferred to simply flare the gas. The Texas RRC sided with the driller, saying that the cost of pipeline access might force Exco to shut down the well. Better to let Exco flare, regulators argued.

Even a commodity that’s super cheap can be profitable if you sell enough of it...

SiennaMan > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 10:15

2

His biggest problem is his assumption that there’s no financial or environmental cost to extracting helium and that loss when used in dirigibles would be negligible.

I will freely admit that I don’t know much, but I’m confident that he’s flat wrong on the first point and I’m certainly not convinced on his second point.

The sad part is, as foolish as he was to belabor the point, if much of the world is committed to reducing emissions helium filled dirigibles do need another hard look because I suspect the total emissions (including extraction and processing of helium ) to fly them would be lower than for jet fuel..

functionoverfashion > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 10:16

2

I mean, even if we pretend that there is no energy required to obtain pure helium in some manner, then transport it to the airship(s) and fill them, and no energy required to create the airship in the first place either (lol) and it can lift a bunch of cargo just by virtue of, you know, being filled with helium... it still has to GO somewhere. So if you wanted to go, let’s say, upwind? That umm would require some serious energy output which I’m pretty sure doesn’t come from helium.

WAT

SiennaMan > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 10:17

1

I think I'd rather spend a week at sea than take that walk.  Oye!

JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 10:18

2

The argument about the “source” of helium is silly (unless we had reliably functioning fusion reactors generating electricity, in which case he’d get a full pass) but even factoring in the energy cost of extraction, helium is pretty low cost (i use cost both to describe energy consumption and monetary expenditure) per volume. Add in the reusable lifting force and the cost-per-ton of airborn cargo is indeed very, very, low. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > SiennaMan 10/08/2019 at 10:20

1

If we’re willing to reconsider airships, then we should take another look at these, too. Maybe once the robots and AI takes all our jobs and we all have UBI, we’ll have the time to travel like this.

JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 10:23

0

https://theweek.com/articles/825647/why-cargo-ships-might-literally-sail-high-seas-again

WRXforScience > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 10:24

1

Helium is also very difficult to economically transport. It’ll leak through metal and with its boiling point of 4 Kelvin (-452F) it is very energy intensive to liquefy (there’s a cascade evaporative cooling process that has to be done to liquefy it which is way more difficult than say liquefying natural gas).

We’ve tapped much of the readily available and easily accessible helium reservoirs, so helium will continue to increase in price for the foreseeable future.

Fusion reactors do make helium; however, the amounts are tiny (think enough to fill the party balloons for the on si te birthdays of the operators). Even if we start using lots of Fusion power (that’s been 30 yea rs away for the last 70 years), the amounts of gas produced are relatively small and would in all likelihood be less than the amount of liquid helium used to operate the various cr y ogenic cooling process needed to run the plants.

Thomas Donohue > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 10:26

3

I am 100% in agreement with him, as evidenced by my post a few weeks ago about all the free hydrogen in NJ landfills that can power all the hydrogen cars we need. Free fuel, free cars, all we have to do is dump lots of garbage everywhere!!!

/s

(also, I love how he called the Hindenbu rg disaster “The famous incident in NJ”)

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t 10/08/2019 at 10:27

0

Cool!

How about this? LOL

Nothing > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 10:28

1

Damn asterisk! I’ll ground my airship, for now.

Thomas Donohue > Nothing 10/08/2019 at 10:31

4

Reminder: the Fart Meeting is at 2:00 PM Today

Natural gas (free) will be on the agenda.

https://oppositelock.kinja.com/had-a-bunch-of-9-year-olds-sleep-over-for-a-birthday-pa-1838824082

(picture Kinja’d)

JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 10:35

0

Is it the MOST efficient way to use wind power on a water-born vessel? Maybe not, but it does allow movement free from constraint of wind direction and provide electrical power (which may be used for shipboard services, and/ or stored in a ba ttery for use when there is no wind). It works. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > WRXforScience 10/08/2019 at 10:35

0

Hydrocarbons are terribly hard to beat for energy density, portability & storability... And t hat’s why we’re in the predicament we’re in. Everyone wants energy (and more of it), but very few are willing to sacrifice for it.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t 10/08/2019 at 10:36

0

I can’t tell if the above is a real thing, or just a ‘shop.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Thomas Donohue 10/08/2019 at 10:38

2

JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 10:43

1

I’m pretty sure its real. I know several companies have been experimenting with these sorts of systems both for con sumer and commercial use. Many of the early testbeds were modified sailing cats (more stability in cross-wind generation environments). Several major ship builders (including Hyundai) are installing turbines (mostly vertical slat style) on tanker ships (easier than container, as the decks don’t have to be open for load/unload) as both auxiliary power generation and augment to main propulsion with hybrid-electric systems.  

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 10:43

2

This guy is a tool. Everybody knows that helium is better than hydrogen because hydrogen has fluoride in it.

ZHP Sparky, the 5th > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 10:47

1

Ah yeah, that guy has always had interesting takes. LOL about “helium isn’t PRODUCED” comment. 

JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 10:48

1

https://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/details/ships/218108000/vessel:E_SHIP_1

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/norsepower-flettner-rotor-sail-modern-ship-finland

Future next gen S2000 owner > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 10:50

2

Actually the energy........

hahahahaha I almost finished my sentence.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Thomas Donohue 10/08/2019 at 10:51

0

Love it.

Nothing > Thomas Donohue 10/08/2019 at 11:12

1

I used to have a prof that abbreviated Association to ass. He’d post various ass meetings on the board all of the time. I may be old enough that it was even a chalkboard, but it was probably a whiteboard. Yikes.

BigBlock440 > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 11:15

2

Yeah, about that.... (those round things are sails)

BigBlock440 > functionoverfashion 10/08/2019 at 11:17

0

That energy would be fighting the wind, not fighting gravity.  

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > BigBlock440 10/08/2019 at 11:29

0

Pretty cool! Are they actually efficient, or do they just offset fuel use some small amount?

VajazzleMcDildertits - read carefully, respond politely > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 12:12

0

I mean, isn’t there a Helium shortage based on the demand from MRI machines that need nice cold magnets to run?

I’m legit concerned about it, and I don’t think this guy knows how to argue. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > VajazzleMcDildertits - read carefully, respond politely 10/08/2019 at 12:20

1

Yeah, it was in the news recently.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/science/helium-shortage-party-city.html

LimitedTimeOnly @ opposite-lock.com > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 12:22

1

Sailing appears to be the more environmentally friendly way to travel.

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/28/754818342/teen-climate-activist-greta-thunberg-arrives-in-new-york-after-sailing-the-atlan

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 12:24

1

For a cargo ship offsetting a tiny percent could still be tens of thousands in fuel savings

SiennaMan > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 12:36

1

If people are serious about emissions, sailing will need to be seriously considered too, yes. In fact, sailing would be preferable since we’ll still need engines on the dirigibles, and I don’t know if the battery powered electric propeller type motors  are up to a transatlantic flight yet..

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > LimitedTimeOnly @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 12:42

1

That, or rowing...

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > gmporschenut also a fan of hondas 10/08/2019 at 12:42

0

Very good point.

MrSnrub > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2019 at 14:50

1

Helium, the proper gas for an airship does not require energy to create (and if created through nuclear fusion would produce energy) and any extraction and transportation energy gets divided over the useful life of the craft.

He contradicted himself in the same sentence, impressive . “Helium does not require energy to create, and the energy used to create it can be spread out over many years.”

BigBlock440 > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/18/2019 at 07:52

1

Apparently they still use engines, but apparently they’ve saved “up to” 15% of fuel on ships that use them, per wikipedia.