this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2025
572 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

75489 readers
2660 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"High-altitude winds between 1,640 and 3,281 feet (500 and 10,000 meters) above the ground are stronger and steadier than surface winds. These winds are abundant, widely available, and carbon-free.

"The physics of wind power makes this resource extremely valuable. “When wind speed doubles, the energy it carries increases eightfold, triple the speed, and you have 27 times the energy,” explained Gong Zeqi "

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AceBonobo@lemmy.world 16 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (5 children)

Edit: I was trying to get more information from other articles and got the S1000 (100kW) mixed up with the S1500 (1000kW)

~~They're trying to get it to100kW. That's like a pretty big generator but not a huge one. So this isn't a replacement for wind farms just yet. The picture is from a year ago~~. No mention of costs.

Would it be possible to use heat to get it to float, instead of helium? Heat it up with electricity.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)
[–] AceBonobo@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Did they actually generate power during the test flight?

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 hours ago

"demonstrated 1mw production" from other sources.

[–] applebusch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Using hot air instead of helium would not work. The density of hot air is much higher than helium, so you would need a significantly larger airship to lift the same mass of payload (the useful bits). That and keeping the air hot would require constant energy input reducing the efficiency of the system dramatically. I'm pretty sure that system would be literally impossible to construct.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 hours ago

Hydrogen is simply the right lifting gas. Helium not abundant enough for sustainable scale. AFAIK, this model did use H2. Previous protototypes used helium.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 7 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Would it be possible to use heat to get it to float, instead of helium? Heat it up with electricity.

Sure, that would be possible. The generators themselves will produce some amount of heat. It's also going to have a fair amount of passive lift, as it's essentially a kite. So simply being able to maintain a rigid shape and effective airfoil could do a lot to produce the desired lift. If it were redesigned with that in mind, shaped more like a glider/kite/parasail, something to maximize lift, it's possible that it could be done without a light gas, though it would also be more reliant on favorable winds.

I have to wonder though, how much the power transmission lines weigh, that seems like a serious limiting factor on maximum attainable altitude.

The transmission line question is interesting though, there's a complex optimization problem there. Traditionally with wind, larger turbines are more efficient. As you increase the turbine blade size, the area that the blades cover (and thus power generation potential) increases more than the mass of the blades do. So the result is (generally speaking) a larger wind turbine is more efficient than a smaller one. But now factor in the transmission line... The larger the turbine the more power it generates AND the thicker (and heavier) the transmission line has to be for its entire length. To complicate things more, higher altitudes mean stronger and more reliable wind. So now how do you optimize for turbine size/cable gauge, and cable length/altitude?

It seems tricky, but like perhaps there's just a right answer, an optimal size.

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 9 hours ago

Can they preference the generation to favor voltage over current? Current is what tends to need really thick cables.

[–] Kushan@lemmy.world 31 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

The article says:

The S1500 features a main airfoil and an annular wing that together form a giant duct. Inside this duct are 12 turbine-generator sets, each rated at 100 kW.

That suggests to me (admittedly a layman) that each blimp is more like 1.2MW?

[–] AceBonobo@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Sorry about that, I got all excited at just a tenth of what they are trying to achieve. Oops

[–] Kushan@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

It's all good mate, we've all got over excited at times.

[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 12 points 16 hours ago

The title itself already says it's 1MW.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca -5 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

[face Palm].

JFC people, take a grade 10 physics class.

[–] Hominine@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

How about you take a ninth-grade speech class first?