Comments by "OpenGL4ever" (@OpenGL4ever) on "Bloomberg Originals" channel.

  1. +Owleyed Perspective Helium is expensive. Why not using a heavier gas like Nitrogen? You won't need that much of it if you make your hydrogen bags big enough and the price of N will be very cheap. It is also not much heavier than air itself. Infact pure Nitrogen should be a little lighter than normal air, because air consist of around 78 % Nitrogen and 21 % oxygen. Oxygen is heavier than Nitrogen.
    4
  2. 3333927 Your example isn't choosen wisley. Fukushima was never designed to take hydrogen generation into calculation for the design of the reactor.
    2
  3. Proteus TG Not quite correct either. The hydrogen explosions destroyed the roof top of the reactor. This could had been able to prevent by designing the nuclear plant in a way that the hydrogen get's burned before reaching a dangerous level of enough explosive hydrogen-air gas mix. But i agree that hydrogen can handled safely with today's technology if the technical thing using it, is designed properly.
    1
  4. +Mazda rx7 The bigger they are, the easier they are able to handle wind. The physical law is called "Moment of inertia".
    1
  5. Mazda rx7 Physic is not the reason, financial costs is.
    1
  6. Mazda rx7 You disbelieved me by questioning the law of physics. And i corrected you by telling you why your assumption is wrong. So it is your failure, i have already proven my point. Physic is not the problem. Airships do fly. They flight in the past and they would fly today if you would build one. So you see, physic is not the problem.
    1
  7. Mazda rx7 Your lack of knowledge about physics is your main problem. Of course they were hard to maneuver, what do you think Moment of intertia is? Think about an oil tanker maybe then you will understand this physical rule. Your initial claim was that a little wind could blow it away and i proved you wrong. And btw most of most successful airships were scrapped because of the upcoming war and this was ordered by Herman Goering.
    1
  8. Mazda rx7 Your claim was: " Their just too big to handle wind. " And that is wrong. A small ballon for children is uncontrollable if a little wind blows. This is because its mass is too low and the effect of moment of intertia is small. The small ballon will rapidly change its position and being uncontrollable. If you take a very big airship, like the Graf Zeppelin, then this will sit in the wind for moments because of its own large mass. This gives the pilot enough time to react accordingly. With time, the big mass of Zeppelin will move, yes, but not rapidly in an uncontrollable manner and the latter was your claim, you claimed that it is impossible to control it and i proved you wrong here. And now learn live with your failure and accept it. BTW: You also should take a good old history book about airships. They flew hundreds of times successfully on their world wide routes So even history proves you wrong.  
    1
  9. +NapoleonAK Heavier than air vehicles can crash because of an EMP made with a nuclear bomb.
    1
  10. I would say, if they see some movement in a vacuum chamber, then these devices are driven by radiation. They also need to make sure, that the material they use is made of stable nuclides.
    1
  11.  @paulmaxwell8851  The 80s were the best years for programmers to become rich. Computers started to become cheap so that anyone could buy them. But the software was still missing and in the 80s these were still small software projects that could be done by one person in a short time frame.
    1