Category Archives: Airplane

Ferries make more sense than fast new trains.

Leave a reply

Per pound mile of material, the transport cost by ship is 1/4 as much as by train, and about 1/8 as much as by truck. Ships are slower, it is true, but they can go where trucks and trains can not. They cross rivers and lakes at ease and can haul weighty freight with ease. I think America could use many more ferries, particularly drive-on, fast ferries. I don’t think we need new fast rail lines, because air travel will always be faster and cheaper. The Biden administration thinks otherwise, and spends accordingly.

Amtrak gets $30 Billion for train infrastructure this year, basically nothing for ferries.

The Biden administration’s infrastructure bill, $1.2 Trillion dollars total, provides $30 Billion this year for new train lines, but includes less than 1% as much for ferries, $220 million, plus $1B for air travel. I think it’s a scandal. The new, fast train lines are shown on the map, above. Among them is a speed upgrade to the “Empire Builder” train running between Chicago and Seattle by way of Milwaukee. I don’t think this will pay off — the few people who take this train, takes it for the scenery, I think, and for the experience, not to get somewhere fast.

There is money for a new line between Cleveland and Detroit, and for completion of the long-delayed, and cost-over-run prone line between LA and San Francisco. Assuming these are built, I expect even lower ridership since the scenery isn’t that great. Even assuming no delays (and there are always delays), 110 mph is vastly slower than flying, and typically more expensive and inconvenient. Driving is yet slower, but when you drive, you arrive with your car. With a train or plane, you need car rental, typically.

New Acela train, 150 mph max. 1/4 as fast as flying at the same price.

Drive-on ferries provide a unique advantage in that you get there with your car, often much faster than you would with by driving or by train. Consider Muskegon to Milwaukee (across the lake), or Muskegon to Chicago to Milwaukee, (along the lake). Cleveland to Canada, or Detroit to Cleveland. No land would have to be purchased and no new track would have to be laid and maintained. You’d arrive, rested and fed (they typically sell food on a ferry), with your car.

There’s a wonderful song, “City of New Orleans”, sung here by Arlo Guthrie describing a ride on the historic train of that name on a trip from Chicago to New Orleans, 934 miles in about one day. Including stops but not including delays, the average speed is 48 mph, and there are always delays. On board are, according to the song, “15 restless riders, 3 conductors, and 25 sacks of mail.” The ticket price currently is $200, one way, or about as much as a plane ticket. The line loses money. I’ve argued, here, for more mail use to hep make this profitable, but the trip isn’t that attractive as a way to get somewhere, it’s more of a land-cruise. The line is scheduled for an upgrade this year, but even if upgraded to 100 mph (14 hours to New Orleans including stops?) it’s still going to be far slower than air travel, and likely more expensive, and you still have to park your car before you get on, and then rent another when you get off. And will riders like it more? I doubt it, and doubt the speed upgrade will be to 100 mph.

Lake Express, 30 mph across Lake Michigan

Ferry travel tends to cost less than train or plane travel because water traffic is high volume per trip with few conductors per passenger. At present, there are only two ferryboats traveling across Lake Michigan, between Michigan and Wisconsin, Milwaulkee to Muskegon. They are privately owned, and presumably make money. The faster is the Lake Express, 30 mph. It crosses the lake in 2.5 hours. Passenger tickets cost $52 one way, or $118 for passenger and car. That’s less than the price of an Amtrak ticket or a flight. I think a third boat would make sense and that more lines would be welcome too. Perhaps Grand Haven to Racine or Chicago.

Route of the Lake Express. I’d like to see more like this; St. Joseph to Milwaukee say, and along Lake Erie.

Currently, there are no ferries across Lake Erie. Nor are there any along Lake Erie, or even across Lake St. Clair, or along the Detroit River, Detroit to Toledo or Toledo to Cleveland. These lines would need dock facilities, but they would have ridership, I think. New York’s Staten Island ferry has good ridership, 35,000 riders on a typical day, plus cars and trucks. In charge are roughly 120 engineers, captains and mates, one employee for every 300 passengers or so. By comparison, Amtrak runs 300 trains that carry a total of 87,000 passengers on an average day, mostly on the east coast. These 300 trains are run by 17,100 employees as of fiscal year 2021, one employee for every 4 passengers. Even at the slow speeds of our trains the cost is far higher per passenger and per passenger mile.

The Staten Island ferry is slow, 18.5 mph, but folks don’t seem to mind. The trip takes 20 minutes, about half as long as most people’s trips on Amtrak. There are also private ferry lines in NY, many of these on longer trips. People would take ferries for day-long trips along our rivers, I think. Fast ferries would be nice, 40 mph or more, but I think even slow ferries would have ridership and would make money. A sea cruise is better than a land cruise, especially if you can have a cabin. On the coal-steam powered, Badger, you can rent a state-room to spend the night in comfort. Truckers seem to like that they cover ground during their mandatory rest hours. The advantage is maximized, I think, for ferry trips that take 12 hours or so, 250 to 350 miles. That’s Pittsburgh to Cincinnatti or Chicago to Memphis.

New York’s Staten Island ferry leaves every 15 minutes during rush hour. Three different sizes of boat are used. The largest carry over 5000 passengers and 100 cars and trucks at a crossing.

A low risk way to promote ferry traffic between the US and Canada would be to negotiate bilateral exemption to The Jones Act and its Canadian equivalent. Currently, we allow only US ships with US crews for US travel within the US.* Cabotage it’s called, and it applies to planes as well, with exemptions. Canada has similar laws and exemptions. A sensible agreement would allow in-country and cross-country travel on both Canadian and US ships, with Canadian and/or US crew. In one stoke, ridership would double, and many lines would be profitable.

Politicians of a certain stripe support trains because they look futuristic and allow money to go to friends. Europeans brag of their fast trains, but they all lose money, and Europe had to ban many short hop flights to help their trains compete. Without this, Europeans would fly. There is room to help a friend with a new ferry, but not as much as when you buy land and lay track. We could try to lead in fancy ferries going 40 mph or faster, providing good docks, and some insurance. Investors would take little risk since a ferry route can be moved**. Don’t try that with a train.

In Detroit we have a close up of train mismanagement involving the “People Mover.” It has no ridership to speak of. Our politicians then added “The Q line” to connect to it. People avoid both lines. I think people would use a ferry along the Detroit river, though, St. Claire to Wyandotte, Detroit, Toledo — and to Cleveland or Buffalo. Our lakes and rivers are near-empty superhighways. Let’s use them.

Robert Buxbaum, January 2, 2024. *The US air cabotage act (49 U.S.C. 41703) prohibits the transportation of persons, property, or mail for compensation or hire between points of the U.S. in a foreign civil aircraft. We’ve managed exemptions, though, e.g. for US air traffic with Airbus and Embraer planes. We can do the same with ferries.

** I notice that it was New York’s ferries, and their captains, that rescued the people on Sullenberger’s plane when it went down in the Hudson River — added Jan. 6.

Rotating sail ships and why your curve ball doesn’t curve.

Leave a reply
The Flettner-sail ship, Barbara, 1926.

Sailing ships are wonderfully economic and non-polluting. They have unlimited range because they use virtually no fuel, but they tend to be slow, about 5-12 knots, about half as fast as Diesel-powered ships, and they can be stranded for weeks if the wind dies. Classic sailing ships also require a lot of manpower: many skilled sailors to adjust the sails. What’s wanted is an easily manned, economical, hybrid ship: one that’s powered by Diesel when the wind is light, and by a simple sail system when the wind blows. Anton Flettner invented an easily manned sail and built two ships with it. The Barbara above used a 530 hp Diesel and got additional thrust, about an additional 500 hp worth, from three, rotating, cylindrical sails. The rotating sales produced thrust via the same, Magnus force that makes a curve ball curve. Barbara went at 9 knots without the wind, or about 12.5 knots when the wind blew. Einstein thought it one of the most brilliant ideas he’d seen.

Force diagram of Flettner rotor (Lele & Rao, 2017)

The source of the force can be understood with help of the figure at left and the graph below. When a simple cylinder sits in the wind, with no spin, α=0, the wind force is essentially drag, and is 1/2 the wind speed squared, times the cross-sectional area of the cylinder, Dxh, and the density of air. Multiply this by a drag coefficient, CD, that is about 1 for a non-spinning cylinder, and about 2 for a fast spinning cylinder. FD= CDDhρv2/2.

A spinning cylinder has lift force too. FL= CLDhρv2/2.

Numerical lift coefficients versus time, seconds for different ratios of surface speed to wind speed, a. (Mittal & Kumar 2003), Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

As graphed in the figure at right, CL is effectively zero with sustained vibrations at zero spin, α=0. Vibrations are useless for propulsion, and can be damaging to the sail, though they are helpful in baseball pitching, producing the erratic flight of knuckle balls. If you spin a cylindrical mast at more than α=2.1 the vibrations disappear, and you get significant lift, CL= 6. At this rotation speed the fast surface moves with the wind at 2.1 times the wind speed. That is it moves significantly faster than the wind. The other side of the rotor moves opposite the wind, 1.1 times as fast as the wind. The coefficient of lift lift, CL= 6, is more than twice that found with a typical, triangular, non-rotating sail. Rotation increases the drag too, but not as much. The lift is about 4 times the drag, far better than in a typical sail. Another plus is that the ship can be propelled forward or backward -just reverse the spin direction. This is very good for close-in sailing.

The sail lift, and lift to drag ratio, increases with rotation speed reaching very values of 10 to 18 at α values of 3 to 4. Flettner considered α=3.5. optimal. At this α you get far more thrust than with a normal sail, and you can go faster than the wind, and far closer to the wind than with any normal sail. You don’t want α values above 4.2 because you start seeing vibrations again. Also more rotation power is needed (rotation power goes as ω2); unless the wind is strong, you might as well use a normal propeller.

The driving force is always at right angles to the perceived wind, called the “fair wind”, and the fair wind moves towards the front as the ship speed increases. Controlling the rotation speed is somewhat difficult but important. Flettner sails were no longer used by the 1930s because fuel became cheaper and control was difficult. Normal sails weren’t being used either for the same reasons.

In the early 1980s, there was a return to the romantic. Famous underwater explorer, Jacques Cousteau, revived a version of the Flettner sail for his exploratory ship, the Alcyone. He used aluminum sails, and an electric motor for rotation. He claimed that the ship drew more than half of its power from the wind, and claimed that, because of computer control, it could sail with no crew. This claim was likely bragging, but he bragged a lot. Even with today’s computer systems, people are needed to steer and manage things in case something goes wrong. The energy savings were impressive, though, enough so that some have begun to put Flettner sails on cargo ships, as a right. This is an ideal use since cargo ships go about as fast as a typical wind, 10- 20 knots. It’s reported that, Flettner- powered cargo ships get about 20% of their propulsion from wind power, not an insignificant amount.

And this gets us to the reason your curve ball does not curve: it’s likely you’re not spinning it fast enough. To get a good curve, you want the ball to spin at α =3, or about 1.5 times the rate you’d get by rolling the ball off your fingers. You have to snap your wrist hard to get it to spin this fast. As another approach, you can aim for α=0, a knuckle ball, achieved with zero rotation. At α=0, the ball will oscillate. It’s hard to do, but your pitch will be nearly impossible to hit or catch. Good luck.

Robert Buxbaum, March 22, 2023. There are also Flettner airplane designs where horizontal, cylindrical “wings” rotate to provide high lift with short wings and a relatively low power draw. So-far, these planes are less efficient and slower than a normal helicopter. The idea could bear more development work, IMHO. Einstein had an eye for good ideas.

Branson’s virgin spaceplane in context.

1 Reply
Virgin Galactic Unity 22, landing.

Branson’s Virgin Space Ship (VSS) Unity was cheered as a revolutionary milestone today (July 10) after taking Branson, three friends and two pilots on a three minute ride to the edge of space, an altitude of 53.5 miles or 283,000 feet. I’d like to put that achievement into contest, both with previous space planes, like the Concorde and X-15 (the 1960s space plane), and also in context with the offerings of Elon Musk’s Space-X and Bezos’s, Blue Horizon.

To start with, the VSS Unity launched from a sub-sonic mother ship, as the X-15 had before it. This saves a lot in fuel weight and safety equipment, but it makes scale up problematic. In this case, the mother-ship was named Eve. Unity launched from Eve at 46,000 feet, about 9 miles up, and at Mach 0.5; it took Eve nearly 90 minutes to get to altitude and position. It was only after separation, that Unity began a one minute, 3 G rocket burn that brought it to its top speed, Mach 3, at about 16 miles up. What followed was a 3 minute, unpowered glide to 53.5 miles and down. Everyone seems to have enjoyed the three minutes of weightlessness, and it should be remembered that there is a lot of difference between Mach 3 and orbital speed, Mach 31. Also there is a lot of difference between a sub-orbital and orbital.

Concorde SST landing in Farnborough.

By comparison, consider the Concorde SSTs that first flew in 1976. It reached about 2/3 the speed of Unity, Mach 2.1, but carried 120 commercial passengers. It took off from the ground and maintained this speed for 4500 miles, going from London to Houston in 4.5 hours. While the Concorde only reached an altitude of 60,000 feet, it is far more impressive going at Mach 2.1 for 4.5 hours than going at Mach 3 for three minutes. And there is a lot of difference between 120 passengers and 4. There is also the advantage of taking off from the ground. A three minute ride in a space plane should not require a 90 minute ascent on a mother ship.

X-15 landing, 1962.

Next consider the X-15 rocket plane of the 1960s. This was a test platform devoted to engine and maneuverability tests; it turns out that maneuverability is very difficult. The X-15 hit a maximum altitude of 354,200 ft, 67 miles, and a maximum speed of Mach 6.72, or 4520 mph. That’s significantly higher than Branson’s VSS, and double the maximum speed. As an aside, the X-15 project involved the development of a new nickel alloy that I use today, Inconel X-750. I use this as a support for my hydrogen membranes. If any new materials were developed for VSS, none were mentioned.

The Air Force’s X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle at Kennedy Space Center, May 7, 2017.

Continuing with the history of NASA’s X-program, we move to the X-41, a air-breathing scramjet of the 1980s and 90s. It reached 95,000 feet, and a maximum speed of Mach 9.64. That’s about three times as fast as Virgin’s VSS. The current X-plane is called X-37B, it is a rocket-plane like the X-15 and VSS, but faster and maneuverable at high speed and altitude. It’s the heart of Trump’s new, US Space force. In several tests over the past 5 years, it has hit orbital speed, 17,426 mph, Mach 31, and orbital altitudes, about 100 miles, after being launched by a Atlas V or a Falcon 9 booster. The details are classified. Apparently it has maneuverability. While the X-37B is unmanned, a larger, manned version, is being built, the X-37C. It is supposed to carry as many as six.

Reaching orbital speed or Mach 31 implies roughly 100 times as much kinetic energy per mass as reaching the Mach 3.1 of Virgin’s VSS. In this sense, the space shuttle, and the current X-plane are 100 times more impressive than Virgin’s VSS. There is also a lot to be said for maneuverability and for a longer flight duration– more than a few minutes. Not that I require Branson to beat NASA’s current offerings, but I anyone claiming cutting edge genius and visionary status should at least beat NASA’s offerings of the 1960s, and the Concorde planes of 1976.

Bezos’s Blue Origin, and the New Shepard launcher.

And that bring’s us to the current batch of non-governmental, space cadets. Elon Musk stands out to me as a head above the rest, at least. Eight years ago, his Grasshopper rocket premiered the first practical, example of vertical take off and landing booster. Today, his Falcon 9 boosters send packages into earth orbit, and beyond, launching Israel’s moon project, as one example. That implies speeds of Mach 31 and higher, at least at the payload. It’s impressive, even compared to X-37, very impressive.

Bezos’ offering, the Blue Origin Shepherd, seems to me like a poor imitation of the SpaceX Falcon. Like Falcon, it’s a reusable, vertical takeoff and landing platform, that launches directly from earth, and like Falcon it carries a usable payload, but it only reaches speeds of Mach 3 and altitudes about 65 miles. Besides, the capsule lands by way of parachutes, not using wings like the space shuttle, or the X-37B, and there is no reusable booster like Falcon. Blue Origin started carrying payloads only in 2019, five yers after SpaceX. There is nothing here that’s cutting edge, IMHO, and I don’t imagine it will be cheaper either.

Branson has something that the other rocket men do not have, quite: a compelling look: personal marketing, a personal story, and a political slant that the press loves and I find hypocritical and hokey. The press, and our politicians, managed to present this flight as more than an energy wasting, joy ride for rich folks. Instead, this is accepted as Branson’s personal fight against climate change. Presented this way, it should qualify as a tax-dodge. I don’t see it getting folks to stop polluting and commit to small cars, but the press is impressed, or claims to be. The powers have committed themselves to this type of Tartuffe, and the press goes along. You’d think that, before giving Branson public adoration for his technology or environmentalism, he should have cutting technology and have been required to save energy, or pollute less. At least beat the specs of the X-15. Just my opinion.

Robert Buxbaum, July 12, 2021

A logic joke, and an engineering joke.

1 Reply

The following is an oldish logic joke. I used it to explain a conclusion I’d come to, and I got just a blank stare and a confused giggle, so here goes:

Three logicians walk into a bar. The barman asks: “Do all of you want the daily special?” The first logician says, “I don’t know.” The second says, “I don’t know.” The third says, “yes.”

The point of the joke was that, in several situations, depending on who you ask, “I don’t know” can be a very meaningful answer. Similarly, “I’m not sure.”  While I’m at it, here’s an engineering education joke, it’s based on the same logic, here applied:

A team of student engineers builds an airplane and wheel it out before the faculty. “We’ve designed this plane”, they explain, “based on the principles and methods you taught us. “We’ve checked our calculations rigorously, and we’re sure we’ve missed nothing. “Now. it would be a great honor to us if you would join us on its maiden flight.”

At this point, some of the professors turn white, and all of them provide various excuses for why they can’t go just now. But there is one exception, the dean of engineering smiles broadly, compliments the students, and says he’ll be happy to fly. He gets onboard the plane seating himself in the front of the plane, right behind the pilot. After strapping himself in, a reporter from the student paper comes along and asks why he alone is willing to take this ride; “Why you and no one else?” The engineering dean explains, “You see, son, I have an advantage over the other professors: Not only did I teach many of you, fine students, but I taught many of them as well.” “I know this plane is safe: There is no way it will leave the ground.”heredity cartoon

Robert Buxbaum, November 2i, 2018.  And one last. I used to teach at Michigan State University. They are fine students.

The energy cost of airplanes, trains, and buses

2 Replies

I’ve come to conclude that airplane travel makes a lot more sense than high-speed trains. Consider the marginal energy cost of a 90kg (200 lb) person getting on a 737-800, the most commonly flown commercial jet in US service. For this plane, the ratio of lift/drag at cruise speed is 19, suggesting an average value of 15 or so for a 1 hr trip when you include take-off and landing. The energy cost of his trip is related to the cost of jet fuel, about $3.20/gallon, or about $1/kg. The heat energy content of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. Assuming an average engine efficiency of 21%, we calculate a motive-energy cost of 1.1 x 10-7 $/J. The amount of energy per mile is just force times distance. Force is the person’s weight in (in Newtons) divided by 15, the lift/drag ratio. The energy use per mile (1609 m) is 90*9.8*1609/15 = 94,600 J. Multiplying by the $-per-Joule we find the marginal cost is 1¢ per mile: virtually nothing compared to driving.

The Wright brothers testing their gliders in 1901 (left) and 1902 (right). The angle of the tether reflects the dramatic improvement in the lift-to-drag ratio.

The Wright brothers testing their gliders in 1901 (left) and 1902 (right). The angle of the tether reflects a dramatic improvement in lift-to-drag ratio; the marginal cost per mile is inversely proportional to the lift-to-drag ratio.

The marginal cost of 1¢/passenger mile explains why airplanes offer crazy-low, fares to fill seats. But this is just the marginal cost. The average energy cost is higher since it includes the weight of the plane. On a reasonably full 737 flight, the passengers and luggage  weigh about 1/4 as much as the plane and its fuel. Effectively, each passenger weighs 800 lbs, suggesting a 4¢/mile energy cost, or $20 of energy per passenger for the 500 mile flight from Detroit to NY. Though the fuel rate of burn is high, about 5000 lbs/hr, the mpg is high because of the high speed and the high number of passengers. The 737 gets somewhat more than 80 passenger miles per gallon, far less than the typical person driving — and the 747 does better yet.

The average passengers must pay more than $20 for a flight to cover wages, capital, interest, profit, taxes, and landing fees. Still, one can see how discount airlines could make money if they have a good deal with a hub airport, one that allows them low landing fees and allows them to buy fuel at near cost.

Compare this to any proposed super-fast or Mag-lev train. Over any significant distance, the plane will be cheaper, faster, and as energy-efficient. Current US passenger trains, when fairly full, boast a fuel economy of 200 passenger miles per gallon, but they are rarely full. Currently, they take some 15 hours to go Detroit to NY, in part because they go slow, and in part because they go via longer routes, visiting Toronto and Montreal in this case, with many stops along the way. With this long route, even if the train got 150 passenger mpg, the 750 mile trip would use 5 gallons per passenger, compared to 6.25 for the flight above. This is a savings of $5, at a cost of 20 hours of a passenger’s life. Even train speeds were doubled, the trip would still take 10 hours including stops, and the energy cost would be higher. As for price, beyond the costs of wages, capital, interest, profit, taxes, and depot fees, trains have to add the cost of new track and track upkeep. Wages too will be higher because the trip takes longer. While I’d be happy to see better train signaling to allow passenger trains to go 100 mph on current, freight-compatible lines, I can’t see the benefit of government-funded super-track for 150+ mph trains that will still take 10 hours and will still be half-full.

Something else removing my enthusiasm for super trains is the appearance of new short take-off and landing jets. Some years ago, I noted that Detroit’s Coleman Young airport no longer has commercial traffic because its runway was too short, 1550 m. I’m happy to report that Bombardier’s new CS100s should make small airports like this usable. A CS100 will hold 120 passengers, requires only 1509m of runway, and is quiet enough for city use. Similarly, the venerable Q-400 carries 72 passengers and requires 1425m. The economics of these planes is such that it’s hard to imagine mag-lev beating them for the proposed US high-speed train routes: Dallas to Houston; LA to San José to San Francisco; or Chicago-Detroit-Toledo-Cleveland-Pittsburgh. So far US has kept out these planes because Boeing claims unfair competition, but I trust that this is just a delay. For shorter trips, I note that modern busses are as fast and energy-efficient as trains, and far cheaper because they share the road costs with cars and trucks.

If the US does want to spend money, I’d suggest improving inner-city airports, and to improve roads for higher speed car and bus traffic. If you want low pollution transport at high efficiency, how about hydrogen hybrid buses? The range is high and the cost per passenger mile remains low because busses use very little energy per passenger mile.

Robert Buxbaum, October 30, 2017. I taught engineering for 10 years at Michigan State, and my company, REB Research, makes hydrogen generators and hydrogen purifiers.

Statistics Joke

A classic statistics joke concerns a person who’s afraid to fly; he goes to a statistician who explains that planes are very, very safe, especially if you fly a respectable airline in good weather. In that case, virtually the only problem you’ll have is the possibility of a bomb on board. The fellow thinks it over and decides that flying is still too risky, so the statistician suggests he plant a bomb on the airplane, but rig it to not go off. The statistician explains: while it’s very rare to have a bomb onboard an airplane, it’s really unheard of to have two bombs on the same plane.

It’s funny because …. the statistician left out the fact that an independent variable (number of bombs) has to be truly independent. If it is independent, the likelihood is found using a poisson distribution, a non-normal distribution where the greatest likelihood is zero bombs, and there are no possibilities for a negative bomb. Poisson distributions are rarely taught in schools for some reason.

By Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum, Mar 25, 2013. If you’ve got a problem like this (particularly involving chemical engineering) you could come to my company, REB Research.

Why the Boeing Dreamliner’s batteries burst into flames

14 Replies

Boeing’s Dreamliner is currently grounded due to two of their Li-Ion batteries having burst into flames, one in flight, and another on the ground. Two accidents of the same type in a small fleet is no little matter as an airplane fire can be deadly on the ground or at 50,000 feet.

The fires are particularly bad on the Dreamliner because these lithium batteries control virtually everything that goes on aboard the plane. Even without a fire, when they go out so does virtually every control and sensor. So why did they burn and what has Boeing done to take care of it? The simple reason for the fires is that management chose to use Li-Cobalt oxide batteries, the same Li-battery design that every laptop computer maker had already rejected ten years earlier when laptops using them started busting into flames. This is the battery design that caused Dell and HP to recall every computer with it. Boeing decided that they should use a massive version to control everything on their flagship airplane because it has the highest energy density see graphic below. They figured that operational management would insure safety even without the need to install any cooling or sufficient shielding.

All lithium batteries have a negative electrode (anode) that is mostly lithium. The usual chemistry is lithium metal in a graphite matrix. Lithium metal is light and readily gives off electrons; the graphite makes is somewhat less reactive. The positive electrode (cathode) is typically an oxide of some sort, and here there are options. Most current cell-phone and laptop batteries use some version of manganese nickel oxide as the anode. Lithium atoms in the anode give off electrons, become lithium ions and then travel across to the oxide making a mixed ion oxide that absorbs the electron. The process provides about 4 volts of energy differential per electron transferred. With cobalt oxide, the cathode reaction is more or less CoO2 + Li+ + e– —> LiCoO2. Sorry to say this chemistry is very unstable; the oxide itself is unstable, more unstable than MnNi or iron oxide, especially when it is fully charged, and especially when it is warm (40 degrees or warmer) 2CoO2 –> Co2O3 +1/2O2. Boeing’s safety idea was to control the charge rate in a way that overheating was not supposed to occur.

Despite the controls, it didn’t work for the two Boeing batteries that burst into flames. Perhaps it would have helped to add cooling to reduce the temperature — that’s what’s done in lap-tops and plug-in automobiles — but even with cooling the batteries might have self-destructed due to local heating effects. These batteries were massive, and there is plenty of room for one spot to get hotter than the rest; this seems to have happened in both fires, either as a cause or result. Once the cobalt oxide gets hot and oxygen is released a lithium-oxygen fire can spread to the whole battery, even if the majority is held at a low temperature. If local heating were the cause, no amount of external cooling would have helped.

battery-materials-energy-densities-battery-university

Something that would have helped was a polymer interlayer separator to keep the unstable cobalt oxide from fueling the fire; there was none. Another option is to use a more-stable cathode like iron phosphate or lithium manganese nickel. As shown in the graphic above, these stable oxides do not have the high power density of Li-cobalt oxide. When the unstable cobalt oxide decomposed there was oxygen, lithium, and heat in one space and none of the fire extinguishers on the planes could put out the fires.

The solution that Boeing has proposed and that Washington is reviewing is to leave the batteries unchanged, but to shield them in a massive titanium shield with the vapors formed on burning vented outside the airplane. The claim is that this shield will protect the passengers from the fire, if not from the loss of electricity. This does not appear to be the best solution. Airbus had planned to use the same batteries on their newest planes, but has now gone retro and plans to use Ni-Cad batteries. I don’t think that’s the best solution either. Better options, I think, are nickel metal hydride or the very stable Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries that Segway uses. Better yet would be to use fuel cells, an option that appears to be better than even the best batteries. Fuel cells are what the navy uses on submarines and what NASA uses in space. They are both more energy dense and safer than batteries. As a disclaimer, REB Research makes hydrogen generators and purifiers that are used with fuel-cell power.

More on the chemistry of Boeing’s batteries and their problems can be found on Wikipedia. You can also read an interview with the head of Tesla motors regarding his suggestions and offer of help.

 

Big new hydrogen purifier ships

Leave a reply

We shipped out our largest hydrogen purifier to date on Thursday, one designed for use in hydrogen-powered airplanes. I’m pretty happy; lots of throughput, light weight, low pressure drop, quite durable. We had a pizza party Friday to celebrate(if we didn’t invite you, sorry). I’m already working on design improvements (lessons learned) in case we get another order, or another, similar customer. I think we could do even better in our next version.