Balloon science lesson

Posted: Friday, October 16, 2009 3:27 PM by Alan Boyle

KUSA

A balloon soars through Colorado skies during Thursday's drama.

Anyone familiar with the physics of lighter-than-air lift would probably have suspected that 6-year-old Falcon Heene was not inside the balloon-lofted contraption that riveted the TV-watching population for several hours on Thursday. It's better to be safe than sorry, though - even if the false alarm is followed by a nationwide round of second-guessing.

Lift is related to the weight of a gas in a given volume: If the weight of a balloon and its contents is less than the weight of the volume of air displaced by the balloon, then the balloon will rise until it reaches an equilibrium level. And if the difference is great enough, you can hang some extra weight from the balloon and still let it fly.

A series of amateur "armchair balloonists" have taken advantage of that fact to go airborne. Here are three of the most notable fliers:

Larry Walters attached 45 helium-filled weather balloons to a lawn chair and rose three miles above Los Angeles in 1982. He shot down enough of the balloons to land safely, but his stunt resulted in a $1,500 fine from the Federal Aviation Administration.
Kent Couch used 105 heavy-duty (but colorful!) helium balloons to raise his GPS-equipped lawn chair into the skies of Oregon for a 193-mile aerial trek in 2007. He was able to pop enough of the balloons to come down when the terrain started becoming rugged, but the landing wasn't pretty.
Adelir Antonio, a Catholic priest from Brazil, received a posthumous Darwin Award last year for trying to duplicate the armchair stunt with hundreds of helium-filled party balloons. He was successful during his first outing. His second flight, however, went awry when he tried for an endurance record and ended up drowning in the Atlantic.

With all these precedents, it wouldn't be impossible for a 6-year-old to slip into a helium-buoyed amateur craft, or for the adventure to end in tragedy. But the type of balloon that was used in Thursday's flight - apparently a plastic-film "flying saucer" - would not be the craft of choice. Experts were doubtful whether the balloon could have held enough helium to do the trick.

"Judging from the size of the balloon, it would have been very borderline if it was large enough to carry the weight of an individual or even a child," Paul Petrehn of the Balloon Federation of America told Discovery News.

Back in 2004, the Discovery Channel's "MythBusters" team determined that it would take about 3,500 party-size helium balloons to loft a typical 4-year-old girl into the air. Of course, the lift capability of a given setup depends on the weight of the apparatus being lofted (including the weight of the balloons' rubber or plastic), so one strong balloon would be more efficient than a multitude of balloons.

I think few people would suggest that the authorities shouldn't have pursued the case as vigorously as they did, or that anyone should have made light (heh, heh) of the drama as it unfolded. But if you didn't at least consider the possibility that the contraption had no one in it, perhaps you've been watching too many cartoons.

For the raw data on how much helium it takes to lift how many pounds, check out the tables on this Web page. And if you're looking for a helium-balloon experiment more fitting for 6-year-olds ... kids, try this at home.

Postcard from Austin: I missed out on most of Thursday's balloon saga because I was en route to the Science Writers 2009 meeting in Austin, Texas. To keep posted on the meeting in real time, do a Twitter search for #sciwri09. And stay tuned for updates from Austin here in the log next week.

Join the Cosmic Log team by signing up as my Facebook friend or following b0yle on Twitter. And reserve your copy of my book, "The Case for Pluto," which is coming out this month.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

it was obvious the kid wasn't in there for those reason........but goes to show the media loves to milk any situation!!! not have the enitre nation thinking a child has died

chris, houston, tx (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 3:46 PM)

This whole story gives me gas !!! (Someone had to say it !!!)

JimD, Boston, MA (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 3:58 PM)

One thing I noticed when watching the video of the flight was that the balloon seemed to not have the weight. It seemed to tilt too much to one side or the other, indicating a slight bottom heavy configuration. You would think that the weight of the boy would be a large bottom heavy configuration.
I agree though when children are involved it is best to err on the side of caution.

G. Kay Jessen, Woodruff, Utah (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 3:59 PM)

That being the case, the real question that begs to be asked: Don't you think the designer of this balloon, aka the father Richard Heene, would know that? Smells like a hoax to me.

William Cody, Fort Collins, CO (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 4:04 PM)

Blather all you want about weight displacement. With all the stupid coverage of this fiasco yesterday it was amazing how scarce any information was about the size and design of this thing. How "believable" it was that anyone was inside really depended on the size of the thing. Given that all the shots of the balloon were at some distance with practically nothing around it for a comparative estimate of its size we had to take the media's word on the fact there was a boy inside it.

tumulus (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 4:07 PM)

Aside from the lack of sufficient lift, just look at the photo! It is obvious from the shape of the balloon that it is not carrying much weight; else it would be pulled into a classic teardrop shape.

Finally, what idiot would ever devise a passenger compartment with no way to see out? Only someone who wanted to make sure nobody could SEE IT (i.e. someone wanting to promulgate a hoax of a runaway flight endangering a passenger).

This smells like week old sushi.

Don, Concord CA (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 4:08 PM)

A note about Darwin Awards: the word "posthumous" is mostly redundant here. You have to kill yourself doing something stupid to get this award. The only exception (which is rare) is to do something stupid which results in making yourself sterile; this sometimes happens when stupid men do stupid things involving their genitals.

Also, while the Catholic priest received a Darwin Award for his flight, "Lawnchair Larry" who started this in 1982 received an "honorable mention" from the Darwin Awards since he nearly died in his flight, from exposure.

Grishnakh, Phoenix, AZ (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 4:08 PM)

The is a helium balloon at Conner Praire in Fishers Indiana that is rated to lift 4.5 tons. it is the size of a large Hot Air Balloon. www.connerprairie.org

Phil, Noblesville, Indiana (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 4:08 PM)

How many people tried lifting a mice on a helium filled party balloon or a kite?

The cops still have to take a worse case scenario because something high up in the air and far away would be hard to gage.

jethro, ho chi minh city (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 4:08 PM)

Finally, someone noticed it was physically impossible. The father certainly knew. Busted!

Ted, Corona, CA (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 4:08 PM)

Two things were clear right away from the media frenzy coverage. There was no gondola or basket or box in which the kid could have ridden. And the behavior of the balloon, very wobbly and obviously without any kind of downforce weight acting on it, indicated nobody was along for the ride. Which facts the father must have known from the outset as the video came in. This was an obvious pre planned hoax on the part of a media seeking jerk. He should be forced to pay any and all expences associated with the chase/faux rescue.

Chris Stoney, Rogue River, OR (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 4:09 PM)

I'd like to point out that no one watching it live had any idea how big the thing was at the time. This "how stupid are you people" movement is growing, I've noticed. I'm assuming these are the people who didn't watch it live.

Jere Smith, Providence, RI (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 4:13 PM)

Where was the science yesterday? Where were the smart guys? Hindsight's 20/20. If only CNN had someone like you on staff, we would've known there wasn't enough lift. But why do you hedge yourself. Don't you trust in physics? Either you do or you don't. if you don't then your no better off than all the suckers.

Antonio Quinonez (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 4:15 PM)

I don't think it was obvious that the volume of the balloon wasn't large enough to lift a child. The videos and photos provided by the news media didn't give a good sense of the scale of the object.

George Taniwaki, Bellevue, WA (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 4:17 PM)

If wonder if there was even an entry way into the balloon? From the pictures I saw no panels etc. so if there are none, it obviously was a hoax and the father knew he was not onboard.

Bob Rogers Locust Grove Ga. (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 4:18 PM)

I bet it would not have flown with the boy. Yet, there we very little evidence of the true scale of the device for most media observers-- you would have had to seen footage of the baloon grounded to determine its size and even begin to make that assessment. If anyone failed, it was the press, once again.

I submit this was a hoax to begin with. Son pretty much admitted it, and no way a six year old boy would hide in a box for 5 hours just because his dad allegedly scolded him. Not to even mention that this is a reality TV type of father-- extreme narcissism and consquent lack of honesty is a given.

Jeff, NYC (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 4:20 PM)

Nice article. But it's much easier to determine that it was impossible for the saucer to lift the kid. The news footage showed it nearly tumbling all the time. Had it been a kid inside, it would be apparent as the bottom would face perfectly downward. Also there were no signs of struggle or movement. Beyond that the videos show that it had almost zero lift. It could barely climb and at times came downward. It didn't have enough helium to lift anything. Had it had enough to lift a kid, it would have gone straight up to 10,000 feet. There's more, but you get the idea.

zing (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 4:20 PM)

You did make some good points, but from the view I and many others were watching from TV no one had any idea how large the balloon was. There was no frame of reference because of the height of the craft and the camera angles. For all we knew it was as big as the Good-Year blimp (ok not quite). Once it landed it was quite obvious that the craft wouldn't have been able to carry a passenger.

Brian G, UT (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 4:33 PM)

OK, went to the linked page on how much helium it takes to lift a given amount. Since a six year old boy is about 45-50 lbs., the table indicates it would require a 11 to 12 foot diameter balloon. The Colorado balloon was described by the Sheriff as about 20 ft. in diameter and 5 ft. high. I would say that is well within the realm of having enough lift for a 50 lb. boy, even considering the weight of other unknowns such as the payload, gondola, etc. So yeah, we suspected it might not be even possible for the balloon to lift a boy, but we bothered to look it up and found it was indeed very possible.

[ALAN ADDS: When you account for the weight of the material itself, I figured it would take a 15-foot-diameter spherical balloon to get it into the realm of possibility. I don't think the Colorado contraption quite equaled that volume, considering that it was in the shape of a flattened, saucer-like disk rather than a sphere. But I don't deny that it could be a borderline thing, as the balloon spokesman cited by Discovery observed. And I don't fault the authorities for taking it seriously.]

Frank Morgan (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 4:34 PM)

That is great. So did anybody at MSNBC consider this possibility during the live coverage? If no, why?

Anna (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 4:35 PM)

Well just look at the balloon's shape: if there was a kid or any heavy weight in the bottom basket, the helium would rush to the center and top of the balloon, like an upside down teardrop. It would not stay out at the edges of the saucer.

jim, california (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 4:40 PM)

Hypothetically, if a child were in a big enough contraption, is there no other way to safely get such a craft down other than to just wait it out? That was the scientific problem that was intriguing me.

Jon, Canton, Ohio (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 4:44 PM)

I thought the whole news story was ridiculous and a sad ratings attempt by the news media and a publicity stunt by the boy's father. The notion that a kid was in the balloon seemed entirely ridiculous to me when I turned on the TV and saw the "saucer". It was a flimsy thing that barely took off the ground and didn't look like it had any weight in it.

The dad calls himself a scientist which is the most infuriating of all. This guy doesn't know a thing about science, he's just a media whore with an anger problem.

I don't blame the authorities for taking this seriously, but there had to be more legitimate news going on than some clearly BS balloon kid.

Daniel, Tacoma, WA (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 4:44 PM)

The key to the fraud, besides father's over-eager willingness to believe that his son's weight could be supported by this contraption, lies in the tethering/testing that he supposedly was performing. He should explain himself or face similar fines.

Key (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:03 PM)

You could tell by the way the balloon was pitching that it was essentially empty. It had no clear "anchor point."

Whether or not it was a planned hoax is the issue now. Did they not think they might be billed for search & rescue fees?

Jim (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:04 PM)

While watching the live broadcast I was thinking that the balloon would not be holding it's flying saucer shape. I would have expected it to become teardrop shape with the weight of a 6 year old. Is that a correct assumption?

Vincent Mariano (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:04 PM)

I never gave much thought to lift because of the prior lawn chair precedents. But, what immediately went through my mind when I saw the pictures eas that there was no way even a child could be in there because the center of gravity would have been severely displaced. I would have expected to see the hole off to the side and a lump in the fabric pointing down. Likewise it seemed unlikely he had fallen out (at dangerous altitude) because he quickly would have fallen into the bag or out of the hole due to the initial instability.
http:// bungouroca.com

Brad Kliewer, Minneapolis, MN (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:05 PM)

So given this information, which Falcon's father as an amateur 'scientist' must have known, the probability that this was in fact a hoax just multiplied by the power of ten.

Nancy Berg, Maryville, IL (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:06 PM)

In this pic it just doesn't look like there is any weight in the bottom. The weight of a child would distort the balloons shape as the gas pulled up and the child's weight pulled down.

Paul, Nashville TN (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:07 PM)

What about the fact that anyone within a helium-filled balloon would die within a few minutes from lack of oxygen (that is, without a [heavy] scuba-gear set)?

Dr. Woods (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:07 PM)

It would be helpful if, instead of just mentioning the grandstanding crazies who have done the "armchair ballooning" thing, you mentioned people conducting similar but LEGAL operations with the supervision and approval of the FAA. I'm thinking of guys like John Ninomiya and Jonathan Trappe, each of whom has conducted cluster flights (Ninomiya on many occasions, Trappe while ensconced in his workaday office chair). The sport of ballooning has taken some undeserved blows to its reputation lately, and focusing on unsafe maverick operations tends to overshadow the safety of this beautiful sport.

Dave in NM (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:07 PM)

My first thought is that without a cockpit designed for a human, the boy would have died in minutes due to lack of oxygen. He was supposedly inside the balloon with only helium to breath. Even if the balloon could lift him, he would have been dead even before the balloon got away. The dad must have known this or else he is a complete idiot. In my mind this is clearly a hoax.

Pete (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:09 PM)

ENOUGH ALREADY!!!Find something else!!!! Please!! There must be some real news somewhere!

Linda Taylor, columbus, Ga (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:10 PM)

You'd have to be an idiot to think there was ANYTHING inside that basket. I'm sure the elongated structure of the mylar balloon doesn't have internal ballasts. Even the slightest weight would cause a sag in the shape. The balloon may still rise but the shape would be greatly deformed.

Michael Dell Isola (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:10 PM)

There's a few problems with this article.
1. I'm the first to comment. This means that no one has read it yet and/or thought it was commentable.
2. If I'm not mistaken Physics is science. Science classes 30 years ago were well below the rung of any other class way past history.

And the fact that no matter how much which duly elected theives (politicans) from whatever party throw at a problem somehow it seems to remain Maybe this is another law of physics I didn't get until I started teaching myself physics. Law 3a? You can not create nor destroy solutions in Congress?

[ALAN ADDS: Because this is a moderated comment feature, I have to approve comments - and sometimes, unfortunately, there's a time lag because I have to devote myself to other things. So as you can see, you're not really the first to comment. It's just that the first comments were not instantly approved.]

Erik Springer, San Antonio, Texas (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:12 PM)

People watching the live broadcast (myself included) certainly wondered whether the child was in the balloon and whether it had enough helium to stay aloft. It was impossible during the live broadcast, however, to know how big the craft actually was since it was aloft with nothing to give us perspective except for the hasty and untrustworthy estimates from the broadcasters and heresy from neighbors.

John, CO (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:20 PM)

If you look at the charts, it does in fact seem that it might be possible for a large helium filled balloon to lift a small child. That is assuming the volume of the balloon approaches a certain figure, and the size/weight of the load/child is below a certain total.
The questions, then, are 1) what is the volume of the balloon in question and 2) what does the child weigh.

Wolf Hiburg Toms River, NJ (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:20 PM)

Maybe you should have alerted the authorities smarty pants.

haha, o town, wi (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:23 PM)

The FAA has authority over Commercial aircraft but not private air ballons. His fine was illegaly imposed by someone who thinks the government controls eveything below, on and above this great country of ours. We are a free peole and do not need the governments leave to experiment or enjoy what so many have fought and died to keep free!

Robert Therrien (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:23 PM)

If we make some rough estimates of volume of the craft based upon a 20 foot diameter and approximately 7 foot thickness, we get about 36,132 liters of helium. Using a rough estimate of one gram of lifting power to one liter of helium and converting it to pounds, we estimate the craft could have lifted about 79 pounds. Of course all of this was done on the fly taking measurements from a picture obtained online. My only point is that I haven't seen anyone else do the math before declaring it "would have been very borderline" that the balloon could have carried the boy aloft. The average weight for a six year old boy is 46.2 pounds according to this site: http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/height-weight-teens.shtml. That puts it well within the realm of possibility.

JMVogelsong (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:23 PM)

This family only wants attention thats all!

micah calderone winters california (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:25 PM)

IT DIDNT HAVE ENOUGH HELIUM TO LIFT THE KID!!!!!!!!!!!! [...]

Nick Tuley (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:25 PM)

Let's stop talking about who shoulda figured out what and when, and start talking about ways we can inflict financial pain on the father for his hare-brained hoax.

Pythius Jang (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:26 PM)

14,820 liters of helium is needed to (barely）　lift a 15kg weiｇｈｔ，　ａｃｃｏｒｄｉｎｇ　ｔｏ　ｔｈｅ　８．２－ｌｉｔｅｒｓ　ｐｅｒ　８．３　ｇｒａｍｓ　ｅｑｕａｔｉｏｎ，　ｗｈｉｃｈ　ｉｓ　ｅｑｕｉｖａｌｅｎｔ　ｔｏ　ａ　ｓｐｈｅｒｉｃａｌ　ｂａｌｌｏｎ　ｗｉｔｈ　ａ　ｄｉａｍｅｔｅｒ　ｏｆ　ｒｏｕｇｈｌｙ　１０－ｆｅｅｔ．
Ｎｏｔ　ｓｕｒｅ　ａｂｏｕｔ　ｔｈｅ　ｓａｕｃｅｒ－ｓｈａｐｅｄ　ｆｏｉｌ　ｆｌｙｉｎｇ　ａｐｐａｒａｔｕｓ；　ｉｔ　ｈａｓ　ａ　ｄｉａｍｅｔｅｒ　ｏｆ　２０　ｆｅｅｔ　ｂｕｔ　ｓｑｕａｓｈｅｄ　ｔｏ　ｌｅｓｓ　ｔｈａｎ　５　ｆｅｅｔ　ｉｎ　ｈｅｉｇｈｔ．

Ａｔａｓｈｉ，　Ｒｏｋｋｅｎ　Ｉｓｌａｎｄ (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:26 PM)

Your analysis is crap.
You cannot draw any conclusions at all from the previous flights without knowing the size of the balloons and how they compare to the 6 year old's balloon.

Wilbur Wright (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:29 PM)

To all the pompous and arrogant speculators that now claim they knew he wasn't in the balloon - the average weight for a 6-year old bot is only 48.5 lbs - certainly light enough for a child to hide and be suspended. Was there a 1% chance that a child could have been in the balloon dead or alive? You betcha...

Rob Man, Burlington, VT (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:35 PM)

Are not all Darwin Awards awarded posthumously?

milton from real virginia (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:39 PM)

I think that the people watching this... whatever it was ;-) can be forgiven for not suspecting the balloon was empty since a member of the sheriff's office stated that they were confident the child was in there and it was impossible to get a sense of scale while the balloon was in flight (I certainly was surprised at how small it was when it landed and there were people next to it for perspective).

Slartibartfast, Chapel Hill, NC (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:40 PM)

It could be a panicked cry by a man deluded by the success of his own... ... ... vehicle...

Daniel, Seattle, WA (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:42 PM)

oh come on!

---

pirtskhal@gmail.com

pirtskhal (Sent Friday, October 16, 2009 5:45 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=2101190

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG