New Hydrogen Jet Engine Will Change Flight Forever
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 тра 2024
- Sign up for your FREE daily newsletter from MorningBrew: morningbrewdaily.com/ziroth - Stay up to date on interesting science and business news, without wasting time by aimlessly scrolling.
This video covers the new hydrogen jet engine from Rolls-Royce, including how it works, and how it will transform the way planes are build due to the requirement for liquid hydrogen storage!
Sources:
[BBC News article] www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-6...
[First hydrogen planes] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroge...
[How a jet engine works] • How Does a Turbofan En...
[Jet engine modifications] • GE Aviation Engineerin...
[Plane concepts] www.ati.org.uk/news/one-stop-...
[Liquid hydrogen storage] www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/st...
00:00 Intro
00:18 Background
01:16 How it works
03:37 In operation
04:06 Challenges
05:04 Hydrogen planes
#hydrogen #jet #breakthrough - Наука та технологія
![FV3805 - angelina75 [OLIMP]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-h7nS_75gjE/mqdefault.jpg)
Sign up for your FREE daily newsletter from MorningBrew: morningbrewdaily.com/ziroth - Stay up to date on interesting science and business news, without wasting time by aimlessly scrolling.
um.., it it's so heavy you need a conard, why not just not have the tail be upside down.
seriously. if it's such a problem then, simply have it upside right so you don't have parasitic drag.
Don't add another parasititc drag wing. come on.
Great vídeo ! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Can you and all the other UA-camrs STOP POSTING things like this that imply this is about to change the universe.
You aren't dumb but you are acting dumb.
Rolls Royce, GE and others had the hydrogen issues in the engine all beaten back in the mid 1990s. So why haven't there been any hydrogen powered airliners?
No engine will be any sort of "game changer" so long as there isn't a fuel supply.
@@bobsterclause342
IT l😊bou😮b
These would be used in flying wing design planes.
Interestingly, the very first operational jet engine ran on hydrogen. When they were developing the jet engine in Germany during WWII one of the main problems was flame stability. By switching to hydrogen as fuel they managed to prove that a jet engine was possible and that lead to the development of the German jet fighters.
They also used a jet engine with a piston engine driven turbine for a while.
@@paulanthonybridge5741 The piston engine drove the engine's compressor. Using a piston engine eliminates the need for a turbine.
The Lockheed skunk works had a hydrogen powered Jetstar back in the 1960’s.
@@joevignolor4u949 Wrong. The piston engine drove the compressor turbine.
Which turned out so well for Germany
Specifically, I'd add the problem of boil off. No matter how good the insulation is there will always be some boil off. When a rocket is sitting on the launch pad the propellants are constantly boiling off. As such, the gas must be continuously vented off and the propellant tanks must be constantly replenished with more liquid. This is acceptable for a rocket because on the pad it remains connected to the propellant supply and then the climb to orbit only takes about 12 minutes. But during a long commercial flight a lot of the hydrogen is going to boil off and not be replaced. Its like flying around with a leak in the fuel tank.
The rate of fuel consumption of the engines would excede that of the boiloff. As long as the engines are running its not an issue. Parked and engines off could cause issues, but could be mitigated by hooking up an empty tank on the ground with a compressor, siphoning off the boil off and storing it for re use once cooled again.
@@wizzalien7796 Conceivably you could design a system where during flight the rate of fuel consumption is high enough so that you don't have to dump the hydrogen gas. Of course the rate of fuel consumption would have to remain high enough even during cruise when fuel consumption is lowest. Plus, the tank insulation would have to be effective enough to keep the rate of boil off low enough to keep the tanks from becoming excessively pressurized. Rockets don't have this problem because they consume the propellants extremely fast during launch. As far as recovering the hydrogen gas on the ground, refrigerating the gas again to turn it back into a liquid is very inefficient because it takes a lot of energy to operate the refrigeration system.
@@joevignolor4u949 I guess you'd actually have to sit down and calculate the values. And valid the ground system would be very annoying, guess it would come down to what's more expensive, losing the fuel or refrigerating it. My bet is on the refrigeration being more expensive.
I thought it go onboard as NH4 and be converted to gas on the plane.
We need to create new insulating materials to keep the hydrogen cool and minimized boil off to the point that it doesn't matter. Probably new type of thermal semiconductor that only allow heat to flow in one direction only. In fact, it probably possible to store liquid hydrogen in 1 atm pressure, or at least in a high but manageable pressure.
I've been looking at Rolls Royce's hydrogen engine recently. You mention that because hydrogen burns hotter it creates more nitrous oxide emissions. I did a video on JCB's new hydrogen engine and they came up with a unique injection system that allowed them to run the engine at drastically cooler temperatures which meant nitrogen oxide is not produced at all. Very interesting if the same tech/principle can be applied to jet engines using hydrogen.
I would have though that running at a lower temperature means lowering its efficiency. So as you say nitrous oxide emissions are a real problem. Hydrogen is not a panacea for air transport.
@Fred Turk thermal electric might make sense.
@@fredturk6447 a hydrogen fuel cell/electric prop is the answer... prop planes are perfectly capable of flying at modern jet airliner speeds, piston engines are just not as efficient as jets.
@@jstefa2 I think you are right about the fuel cell but I also think you can have an electric fan jet. I might be wrong but I don’t think props work so well at high altitude and you need to fly at high altitude to lower air resistance and hence conserve fuel. Hydrogen, plus fuel cell, plus electric fan jet may well work, certainly no nitrous oxide. It is also possible that battery electric maybe an option if some high energy density new battery techs work out. It will be interesting to see what happens!
@@fredturk6447 C-130 and Tu-95 work just fine with props. and hydrogen fuel cell/electric motor is exponentialy cheaper and more reliable than a combustion engine
While hydrogen combustion is tricky, the real problem is the tank. In particular if you want the plane to be able to take off and fly any meaningful distance. And have space for cargo and/or passengers.
May be with composite material ? aircrafts must be lighter.
Maybe it's ok to carry less passengers if the flights aren't destroying the planet? Or maybe we should just all die because we want to keep the status quo for the rich...
@@evrythingis1 found the commie
@@casewhite-954 ahahahahahha
30 odd years back Lockheed had one of their L1011 ( Tristar) flying around with one engine running on hydrogen. As stated in this video storage and handling were the main problems.
Yup, and that is why it will never be practical.
@@Hogger280 Ah yes, avoiding the extinction of humanity is totally just not practical....
@@evrythingis1 You are really naive if you think not using hydrogen will wipe out Humanity.
Well, it is practical but it's just not profitable like using fossil fuels is.😄@@evrythingis1
Unpopular opinion: Hydrogen powered vehicles are the new fusion reactors of our time. They will always be 20 years away from full adoption.
It will be very interesting to see it play out for sure! So hard to know if/when/how all the challenges will be solved
i think its worse than that. hydrogen could have been adopted from about the early 90's but it hasn't, where as fusion reactors are an infinite onion of problems.
I lost a good friend of mine with this subject. He thought he was super smart, he worked for Toyota, and he insisted Hydrogen would be the fuel of the future. I told him of the many problems Hydrogen has (as you probably know already), and I betted that in 10 years battery technology would win the race. Thats was 20 years ago ;) Infuriated that I didn't accept his 'authority' on the subject he never spoke to me again. Oh well!
And that folks, is the reason Toyota is an 'also ran' in the electric car market :) They bet the wrong horse due to being arrogant.
Technology is already here, toyota makes really good hydrogen cars with longer range than gas and electric vehicles. We just need the infrastructure
I really enjoyed your video. The details and the work you had to do to make this video is outstanding! Great job. I will watch your channel. Thank you
Good report even got the nO2 issue. You didn't mention storing the fuel as a hydride is more energy dense than a liquid. And a turbine is the wrong way to use the fuel a fuel cell will do twice the efficiency.
I have been looking at metal hydride storage recently actually, I should have mentioned it here - Maybe a future video! I agree, fuel cells are more efficient, but for high altitude and high speed flight propellers are not very efficient, so you end up doing better using a hydrogen turbine, from what I have read! Thanks for the comment Mark.
@@ZirothTechyes there are problems with props but an electric turbine or closed prop is good. Also look up slush hydrogen engines you can go very high and fast then. Or even scram jets. I have been researching magnetic confinement plasma combustion engens except I don't think anybody is ready for that yet.
@@ZirothTech But high altitude and speed mostly required for long haul flights. For short distances people need neither of those options.
We always hear about water being the exhaust, but very little about sourcing the hydrogen and the extreme problems of pressure or low temperature, (-250C) to store it. Being the smallest molecule, it can escape from virtually any containment.
Specifically, I'd add the problem of boil off. No matter how good the insulation is there will always be some boil off. When a rocket is sitting on the launch pad the propellants are constantly boiling off. As such, the gas must be continuously vented off and the propellant tanks must be constantly replenished with more liquid. This is acceptable for a rocket because on the pad it remains connected to the propellant supply and then the climb to orbit only takes about 12 minutes. But during a long commercial flight a lot of the propellant is going to boil off and not be replaced.
Hydrogen embrittlement of tanks is the result and means the tanks have to be coated in an expensive and difficult process.
Yeah, but why does efficiency matter if the emissions are zero? You're spouting oil executive propaganda and you don't even realize it.
All of the Turbo Fan engines produce something like 80% of their thrust from the front fan assembly which bypasses the core of the engine. I know this while working at GE making parts for CF6-80C, CF6-80C2, GeNX, GE 90 85,000, 90,000, & the 115B pounds of thrust. I also made parts for the LEAP, LEAP X, & GE90X engines. All of the parts I made where for the rotating parts such as the compressor, high & low pressure turbine discs along with the front fan hub for most of the engine mentioned above.
Nuclear power plants are going to be the new hydrogen fuel production plants here soon. The reactors waste heat is hot enough to start thermochemical electrolysis which is 45% efficient at producing hydrogen from the water vapor, so even the steam that is released from the generator is being converted to hydrogen fuel. Pink or purple hydrogen as it's called. Japan is pioneering that tech right now. It's such an amazing energy process.
This is completely correct. Everyone else in these comments are literally just spouting Oil Cartel propaganda while the oil cartel itself tries to create a monopoly on new nuclear power plants, while they have the pleebs mindlessly repeating how impossible nuclear and hydrogen are....
Excellent presentation and content! 😀
After listening to Prof, David Cebon who is a hydrogen expert, it's not the fact we can run transport like aircraft with hydrogen, it's the higher cost, and the inefficiencies/complexity of making/storage and transportation that will make it unviable unless there is a large government subsidy to make the fuel. He said it's better to make electric aircraft for short hall and use all the current biofuels in aircraft and shipping, not perfect but when you consider aircraft and shipping make up currently around 6% of greenhouse emissions, it's not the biggest problem we should focus on.
Great video. As an A&P currently it’s going to be very interesting in the decades ahead.
Can tell by the intake its designed for Turbo-Props! Such a good move for short commuter aircraft
OK thanks for pointing that out! I was wondering what that whacky plumbing at the intake was all about.
I learned about and built a few revisions of electrolysis devices in middle school since I thought hydrogen jet engines would revolutionise Air travel since you could have more airports without needing fuel infrastructure just pluging into the wall. Never did make a "jet engine" and certainly not one powered by hydrogen but made some fun bottle rockets with the HHO I did make, so technically that counts.
Glad you mentioned the NOx problem.
Outstanding!!! Kudos to Rolls-Royce. Let us hope this is the future.
Aviation might indeed be one of the few viable uses of hydrogen as a fuel. The fuel could be generated and stored onsite at airports, avoiding all the issues with transportation of hydrogen. But I do fear that the hydrogen may not be "green": there are several other colour variations.
Well one fascinating one someone came up with is solar panels that create jet kerosene from the air itself. Another fun one is genius Chinese scientists figured out a method to make starch from carbon dioxide! Personally I think if Nuclear Fission is going to get ramped up in some amount, whether anyone likes it or not, until we get enough grid scale and home batteries, a lesser evil is to use excess electricity to make Red Hydrogen. Possibly good fuel for shipping. There's even a meta, hydrogen-powered ship shipping hydrogen in northern Europe I think too, lolz.
Else I'm keen on Ecotricity's Gas from Grass, seems completely pointless as the concept is strangely sound. 13% less emissions overall than fossil gas by their own calculations at this time.
1. Grass grows absorbing CO2
2. Anaerobic digestion to methane
3. use methane
4. CO2 burns off
5. goto 1.
@@TheHorseshoePartyUK
For shipping they're also looking into "green" ammonia and methanol.
The grass thing seems very interesting. I'll definetely look it up.
Two other methods to develop fuels from CO2 and H2:
- Sun reactor powered by mirrors. (company: Synhelion)
- Reactor powered by wind power. (company: HIF global)
Probably some other companies as well since this is a very hot topic.
It's the least viable.
Stratospheric jet aviation is the only proven cause of anthropogenic climate change. Using hydrogen as a fuel will only exacerbate the problem. Burning hydrogen in place of a hydrocarbon fuel will release more water vapor leading to an increase in the cloud layer.
The cloud layer produced by jet exhaust reduces the diurnal temperature difference. More water vapor, bigger effect.
I agree and hydrogen have even more energy/kg than normal jet fuel. So if the storage can be solved, it's great for weight sensitive vehicles
Problem with turbine type hydrogen drives (as opposed to ramjets) is that the turbine shovels tend to melt in the hotter hydrogen. Solving this problem would be absolutely incredible.
Graphene might solve that problem.
@@RickPotvin54 YEAHHH NOW YOU’RE THINKING WITH PORTALS
i hope this takes off... ;)
😉
we need it.
Love your content.
More of these deep dive detailed engineering topics please. The more challenging the better.
You call this juvinelle crap "Deep Dive"? It's 7th grade level at best.
That really wasnt a deepdive. This is pretty much surface level discussions.
Its a 6 minute video. Deeper then a 30 second tikkytock I guess
If you can't store the fuel (hydrogen) in the wings, then you might as well do a blended wing design. It would require some big changes to airport infrastructure, but might be worth it.
Also, the problem of affordable green hydrogen can be solved fairly efficiently by also considering red hydrogen. This comes from nuclear reactors and it's getting pioneered in Japan right now.
or using kerosine engines and saving a lot of money. every other solution makes flying unaffordable for most people how it was before the 1980s
@@marbrose4804 Most people don't know they can (or could, pandemic killed cheap flying)! For many applications, there is no convenient alternative to flying. If you want to go anywhere outside your immediate surroundings, say ~600 km, even in train-connected Europe, plane is often the cheapest, most accessible mode of personal transport. Holidays? Plane. Visit relatives on weekend? Plane. Work? Plane.
I once was in long distance relationship with a person living on the other side of the country (500 km away), which was either 6 hours on a train, ~7 hours by car (and tired), or 50 minutes by plane. The kicker was train ticket from my house to nearest airport, IN THE SAME CITY cost me more than actual plane ticket. Of course I travelled light and used cheapest of the cheap airlines, and today it's not that easy, but when I learned it's possible, world really got smaller.
@@generalrodcocker1018cheap normal planes would still exist but they would be less common
@@marbrose4804 people can survive on rice and water with some supplementation, why do we need restaurants or grocery shops?
@@generalrodcocker1018 or, maybe propane? It is just slightly less energy dense then kerosene, burns much cleaner and is actually cheaper. The only downside being special tanks and infrastructure. Additionally, there are developments of producing propane from bio waste.
I was at RR in 1982 when the 'Hydrogen' Engine was being contemplated, the obvious problem was that the fuel tank is so heavy to be able to get ANY range, the aircraft could not take off.
Stan Myer gave a talk in the 1970s where he described how they were going to test airplanes engines on hydrogen (taken from water vapor in the air) and fly around the circumference of the earth to demonstrate. Too bad the cabal killed him and sold his fuel cell patents to china.
Thanks for the video well presented .
If there's a way to mitigate or eliminate the production of nitrous oxide, this could be a viable option. But as things stand at the moment, fuel cell propellers might be better suited for short haul flights.
Nitrous oxide is 300 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and is also toxic to humans. I'm interested to see how one might eliminate NOx from the combustion process.
Nitrous oxide, is like, air air. How could air be worse than air? Too much air in your air?
@@grantmccoy6739 You're confusing a compound with a mixture. The air is just a mixture of oxygen (O₂) and nitrogen (N₂), whose molecules do no more than just bump into each other. But nitrous oxide, or, to give it its full name, dinitrogen monoxide (N₂O), is a chemical compound of oxygen and nitrogen with very different properties to its constituent elements.
@@grantmccoy6739 Look it up!
How do the efficiency/range/emissions compare between combusting hydrogen and using fuel cells?
Fuel cells in a jet for propulsion?
@@ratratrat59 No, I meant to drive a propellor
Another drawback is the HUGE amount of energy required to liquefy the hydrogen, just to turn it back into a gas before combustion.
Yeah sounds like it's better to use propane
It will be fun to watch one of these blow up!
Fuel prices are currently one of the most significant costs in running an airline. I'm sure they can make hydrogen work in this type of engine but it will be very expensive, as the electricity from renewable sources will be in great demand.
Not if you go fission . Cheap plentiful electricity is the key annnd renewables don't cut the mustard.
@@fluffycat087 Unfortunately, neither does fission as there aren't any nuclear fission power stations in the world yet. If and when the process is perfected, the transfer of that heat produced to generate electricity has to be designed and fabricated. Then the power stations have to be licensed and built. If successful, how long do you think that will take? I hope it does work but I rather doubt the electricity produced will be cheap.
I suppose you guys are actually talking about FUSION?
@@gyrogearloose1345 No, Fusion seems closer than it ever has but we can make fission plants now, very efficient nuclear plants now. An abundance of clean low emission energy is possible and has been possible since the 1960's.
@@gyrogearloose1345 Yes, sorry, a typing error on my part. Written in haste. I also misread Bruno Gray's statement, believing he was referring to fusion.
Well... at least they're only being incredibly inefficient on the electrolysis side and don't have those losses burning it in a turbine.
RR would still be better off creating methane, methanol or ammonia as these are denser sources of combustion (at reasonable pressures and temperatures)
Someone please let me know when metallic hydrogen comes into vogue as a fuel.
In the early 60's, P&W simultaneously developed a hydrogen engine, along side the J-58, for use on OXCART (A-12,...later the SR-71). The reasons for NOT choosing it over 60 years ago, were nearly identical for the same reasons fronted in this video; namely space and weight. The more things change, the more they stay the same. P&W has been there, done that.
Good job. Thank you. 👍
Almost no one is talking about the negative side, bulk and weight of the fuel tanks, so range is limited, something that seems like the most important developement in passenger aircraft these days.
And water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas at altitude
@@andrewpaulhart Greenies don't want to talk negative about clouds.
Yes, you can burn many fuels in gas turbines. Kerosene (Jet A/Jet A1) is commonly used in 'jet engines'. I suggest you take a look at Agent JayZ who has many videos on 'jet engines'. A different fuel nozzle only is typically required when changing fuel. His outfit regularly runs industrial gas turbines on butane or propane, Changing to hydrogen shouldn't really be too tricky.
" . . . shouldn't be too tricky". Yes, but it is! As pointed out in the video. Which is reporting on the real engineering issues, and their difficulty.
@@gyrogearloose1345 The only real engineering issues are that we need WAY more airlines than we have, but the Oligarchs wont let any more be built unless they own them and the tax payers paid for them.
Why don't we just take that Hydrogen and mix it with carbon from forestry waste and add heat to create synthetic hydrocarbons that have no carbon footprint? We wouldn't even need to change our engines, would just cost more.
I think it's a bootstrapping problem. In Sweden and Finland they have plenty of wind power and access to Norwegian and Swedish hydropower and they recently started building a large hydrogen pipeline system with electrolysis plants, hydrogen storage etc. The first real big scale use case will be steel foundries and green steel. After they get the systems going and millions of tonnes of hydrogen are produced it will be much easier starting to make methane, methanol and ammonia out of the hydrogen. At the moment the EU is still having daydreams about hydrogen powered trucking along the pipeline routes but I think that when hydrogen becomes available in mass they will start making synthetic liquid fuels and burning those in internal combustion engines rendering the whole molecular hydrogen issue in vehicle use completely irrelevant. I think that small cars and medium trucks will run on batteries and long-haul trucks, trains, ships and large long-range and medium-range airplanes will probably run on green synthetic liquid fuels.
It costs less if you internalize the costs of de-sequestration of petroleum to make kerosene. It is just that too many aviation passengers and freight customers demand free stuff in the form of those externalized costs.
Great video, have subscribed and to Morning Brew
all very intersting Ziroth thank you
You use liquid hydrogen and don't try to prevent its evaporation. No pressure vessel, no heat pumps, just some lightweight insulation to control the evaporation rate. As long as you keep the passive evaporation rate less than your engines' burn rate, you have a self feeding fuel which doesn't require heavy tanks.
Storage of hydrogen as a liquid requires cryogenic temperatures because the boiling point of hydrogen at one atmosphere pressure is −252.8°C.
That's brilliant Kong! You can take over at Rolls Royce anytime!
Clickbait title saying hydrogen jet engine will change flight forever when actually about all the problems with the idea😠
Using clickbait titles that never happen!
oh no
Sounds like it could have explosive performance.
GOLD STAR for The Historical Research mention
the tu-154 flew on LNG not hydrogen if memory serves me correct.
Two Videos. Just too. Thats what it took for me to subscribe. Great content, and very well done on the topics. I love the idea of hydrogen power because its literally the most common element in the known universe. Even our species cant make that run out!!
I actually got to see a hydrogen powered car at the last car show I went to. It was a Toyota but Lord help me if I could remember the name. Anyways, Great content, on a scale of one to nuclear fuision, I give rate you as damn awesome. (my scales never make sense)
Used to work in a chemical plant that made hydrogen as a “waste” product from the main reaction. We would vent 95% of that hydrogen to atmosphere while only using 5% for making hydrochloric acid. The hydrogen was processed in a small facility with some dewatering units and a couple of gas compressors. We had three explosions inside of that building before we gave up putting the walls back on it and left it uncovered. Hydrogen is a very hard molecule to contain in any system. It leaks out of every connection, flange and fitting. It will accumulate until it finds a source of ignition and the lower limit for that ignition is very low. The main 48 inch vent stack caught on fire one day because it was snowing and the wet snow made enough static electricity to cause it to flash over. Using it as a fuel on a plane is going to be challenging.
If only you knew how difficult it was to get oil out of the ground and then transport it across the world to refine it, then transport it across the world again just to burn it into the atmosphere.
In the 70's I worked in the research branch of a gas turbine engine manufacturer. One of their (many) customers supported research into the use of Metal Hydrides for storing Hydrogen Gas. Storing Hydrogen in the structure of a metal hydride can increase the 'volumetric efficiency' of storing hydrogen significantly. The safety benefits are many. In addition, there's no need for cryogenic temperatures or 'uncomfortably' high pressures. The best hydride for the task is illegal to purchase or manufacture for sale ... it's a government/military thing.
and which hydride is this? because it sounds like vapour ware
US Navy designed fuel cells and engine mods to convert aircraft during the 73 oil embargo. Non exploding fuel cells were the tough part. All tested good, plans put aside till needed.
Great explanation
Hydrogen isn't really used in liquid form for energy density reasons, but because Hydrogen is the smallest known molecule. The stuff just leaks and seeps out of any tank you can put it in, no matter how good the sealants are. It even can just diffuse through the wall of the tank.
Cooling it down and liquefying it is the only way of slowing it down and minimizing the rate at which it just disappears out of your tank without making the walls of the tank crazy thick and heavy.
I have loved hydrogen for years
Super cool new technology! Thanks for a great video
Thanks for the production, I enjoy your stuff. Just check out the pronunciation of "hai druh jn" 😏
There was an issue of *POPULAR MECHANICS* magazine from the latter 1970s that had an article about a Lockheed {now Lockheed-Martin} proposal for a hydrogen-fueled version of their L1011 airliner.
The fuel tankage was accomodated by putting two large cylindrical-ish tanks in the fuselage. One was in the tail section, the other was in the front between the cockpit and the cabin.
I love hijajen technology, it is marvelous to behold
Thought the same thing.
I believe you meant nitrogen oxides not nitrous oxide, different molecules entirely. NOx VS N20. Nitrous oxide, or commonly referred to as nitrous or NOS is laughing gas, and is also used for sort of a chemical supercharger in a internal combustion engine. Nitrogen Oxide is a byproduct of combustion from a number of fuels.
The volume constraints make me think some kind of flying wing would be better...
Very Interesting
Sweet! Let's name it after the Hindenburg.
A problem with the fuel being in the fuselage instead of the wings is needing to lift it. When it's in the wings, the weight is lifted. However, when in the fuselage, not only is the weight lifted, but the fuselage to wing joint has to be able to handled this extra weight. It also reduces the amount of storage space in the fuselage for cargo and passengers. The reduction in cargo & passenger weight may offset the weight of the hydrogen tanks on the wing joint, I don't know. I'd have to see the figures. It would, at least, to some extent offset.
So when an aircraft is at rest the fuel in the wings doesn't weigh anything?
@@davedixon2068 The landing gear is usually in the wings. I was talking about the joint between the wings & the fuselage. So, that joint doesn't have a lot to do to handle the weight of the fuel in the wings. That weight still has to be lifted when in flight and still has to be supported by the landing gear when on the ground.
There are some exceptions on the landing gear, such as the B52, C141, C17, and other high-wing aircraft. However, most air carrier aircraft are not high-wing aircraft. On those exceptions, yes the weight of the fuel in the wings has to be held by the wing/fuselage joint. On the B52, with bombs under the wings, fuel in the wings, and the external fuel tanks at the end of the wings, Boeing actually added outrigger gear on the wing tips to help support the wings.
@@wmcomprev yes but the undercarriage is hinged (usually)outboard so there is a lever distance so the attachment of the wing is taking load from the fuselage, plus it has to be strong enough to take g forces during flight and on landing, the wing tips on a 747 move a massive distance up and down during take-off and landing, and the bending point is at the wing attachment points. Basically it doesn't matter where the weight is the load is taken by the wings so the attachment to the fuselage has to be able to take that load IE if the load is in the wings and the attachments arent strong enough the wings snap off, if the load is in the fuselage the load is still taken through the wing joint so if it is too weak the wings snap off. Even taking your point as correct by the end of a flight the wing tanks are pretty well empty so most of the load is in the fuselage at landing so you still need strong attachments.
@@davedixon2068 Agree. All I said was that with the fuel distributed in the wings, that the fuel load wasn't on the fuselage to wing connection. There still has to be a strong connection there for other reasons, just not to carry the fuel load ALSO. I see what you're saying about the tanks being near empty at touchdown and, yes, that will help. But what about turbulence just after takeoff. If the weight of the fuel is in the fuselage, that connection will need to be stronger than if the fuel was in the wing. I didn't say it's impossible or that it won't work. The biggest issue of putting that much fuel in the fuselage will probably be the loss of cargo/passenger room.
Brian from real engineering will be proud of this insane title!!!
Maybe we should use ammonia (NH3) since it is easier to store and handle. Then convert it to N2 and H2 by fuel cell technology when it needs to be used.
5:13 that looks like a center of gravity issue built right into the plane…
This will make flying more expensive than it already is
Pump some of that NO2 back into the passenger area. It might make flying fun.
There is another worth-mentioning, huge challenge for expanding the use of hydrogen fuel - a critically important role of precious Platinum (together with even rarer Iridium) as a crucial Catalist in both - the production and the fuel cells of Hydrogen: if to process all the numbers of demand and supply - for the transition on global-scale, of the requirement for Hydrogen fuel, there is simply not enough Platinum available on Earth, to meet such demands; nor there are technologies that avoid use of Platinum...
From the thumbnail, i thought that thing was a light saber lol. I guess this is cool too.
The Orkney Islands wants to become a part of Norway, I just read in the news. We welcome them 🇳🇴
Containing the smallest element in the universe is not just difficult, it's expensive, but also, sometimes impossible to have both light and good containment. The last thing you want is a bunch of jets, with hundreds of tons of leaking hydrogen on a tarmac.
there's a stupid fixation with MOLECULAR Hydrogen. Like corn ethanol, the energy balance is NEGATIVE, when one takes into account the production of it and the need to compress and turn into liquid the H2, and keep it that way for long periods of time. Then, H2 has a nasty habit of leaking through or around the best designed and maintained systems. Even its flame is colorless. You'll know when there's a H2 leak when your intestines have 3rd degree burns. A much simpler alternative is to use NH3, though not made by the Haber-Bosch process, since it creates CO2. Liquid ammonia is much denser than H2, it's a liquid at -40C (or F) and any leak stinks so it's easy to detect.
Very interesting video . future is hydrogren
if the storage system is anything like the storage tank for space engines. then a big issue is storage space for fuel. which affects its overall range
What about the problem of the hydrogen during accidents? Think Hindenberg, jet engine fuel is actually quite difficult to light up (for a flammable liquid) whereas Hydrogen will light up at the slightest provocation.
You need to investigate more about Hindenburg accident if you think this is the reason. Also Toyota has already solved storaging problem for hydrogen and quite literally made it bullet proof.
@@joniholthofer6948 So the hydrogen in the Hindenburg didn't burn then?? yeah I know the skin burned too but the hydrogen really helped, and it is more flammable than JP4/5
vergeet het, alleen al het feit dat klassieke brandstof vloeibaar is en hete gassen vormt voor de stuwkracht, het extreem dure waterstof is gas en wordt vloeibaar bij verbranding, een enorm verlies van stuwkracht.
I probably I missed that part but why don't they fill the plane cabins up with helium? Cause think about it that would help so much because the tanks are to big and heavy. Great channel!
Does the Hindenburg disaster come to mind.
@@peterpankratz8798 Hindenberg was filled with hydrogen not helium as this poster has questioned but yes hydrogen would be a problem in the event of fire
There is still one unaddressed major problem: Hydrogen is the most reactive element in the periodic table. Which means Hydrogen is a very dangerous substance. Any kind of leakage would be a recipe for disaster. The Flashpoint of Hydrogen is at -135 Degrees Celsius, The Flashpoint of Kerosene in this case Jet-A has a Flashpoint of 38 Degrees Celsius which makes it a lot more dangerous than Jet-A.
moreover: there is no such thing as hydrogen fire - it'll just explode if something bad happen
Everything is getting revolutionized. #breakthrough
The problem with using hydrogen to power jets is that all you need is one tiny spark and BOOM!!!!!
It already did, remember the Hindenberg:-)
thanks
There's also one very big glaring problem though, that water. Now normal turbofan engine's also produce water vapour, that's why you see white trials from them at high altitudes but a purely hydrogen fuelled engine would only produce water vapour, that's what clouds are made of and clouds are very good at trapping heat. Just look at Venus for a perfect example.
To me? Plasma engine's are gonna eventually be better, powered by a fusion reactor the very air itself is the fuel. Subjected to pressure and an intense magnetic field to excite the atoms and create tremendous amounts of heat without combustion at all. The same air that goes in, comes out it's just several thousand degrees hotter and the basics of external thrust is if you want more power you need to move the hot gas faster or make it burn hotter. Plasma does both so you'd end up with such an incredibly powerful engine can even make them alot smaller meaning more space for passengers and luggage.
This is a cool breakthrough but, it's like me changing a V8 to run on biofuel or say ethanol or hydrogen instead of LPG. It's not that impressive when you actually think about it.
Energy density far lower than Kerosene requires larger volume tanks and high pressurisation which increases structural requirements increasing weight etc
One problem almost never brought up when hydrogen engines are mentioned, that to me seems to be the real back-breaker - above and beyond the storage issues - is hydrogen embrittlement. It's why we don't weld or cut (or only very rarely and for not later used materials) with hydrogen torches (which is a shame because they can be *much* hotter without much else in the way of mechanical complication. The short version of the problem is that because the hydrogen atom is so small compared to almost everything else, at high temperatures it infuses *everything* including solid metals, makes chemical bonds with them resulting in destruction of the metallic crystals giving various metals their properties, i.e they become more brittle and rapidly lose strength. Unless some "magic" way to prevent this from happening has been developed, it seems to me that combustion chambers and the after turbines would quickly be subject to failure.
So is there some "magic" answer to embrittlement I've not become aware of, or are "hydrogen will solve all our problem" videos singing out the exhaust pipe?
People are trying to reinvent the wheel
Source is not a problem, the Philippines posses the deuterium in the Philippines deep unlimited supply if harnessed
The Australians are testing a "Green Ammonia" Jet. It uses waste-heat from the exhaust to convert Ammonia back to H2 (Hydrogen Gas)=N2 (Nitrogen.) The former is burned in the turbojets. This is NOT the Ammonia under you sink! It's pure, liquid Ammonia and, like Hydrogen, must be stored at low temperatures. It's also corrosive. However-28 F is a LOT more practical than -400F. Plus, Hydrogen is Extremely flammable and explosive (remember the Challenger space shuttle? Ammonia doesn't burn well at all, but this is precisely why the Ammonia system is safer and more practical.
Ammonia is even more expensive to produce than hydrogen. Biofuels are obviously a better choice
You know what the aviation world should do with their hydrogen supply? Use it to create kerosene then add a few additives and call it Jet-A and use that.
Hydrogen is about 3 times more energy dense than kerosine BY WEIGHT. But the liquid density is only 70 kg/m³. Kerosine has a liquid density of 840 kg/m³. It means you have to store 4 times the volume of liquid hydrogen than kerosine. And you have to store a cryogenic liquid which needs vacuum super-isolation of the tank. Furthermore you have to keep liquid hydrogen under sub-cooled conditions. Otherwise you will lose a lot of the fuel due to boil off at higher altitudes. This requires liquid hydrogen tanks at an overpressure of 0.8 bar.
All these issues make hydrogen neary impossible for aircraft applications. Allready liquid natural gas is a serious issue for aircraft application because of its extremely wide explosive range. An alternative is methanol. Methanol is the best "liquid hydrogen" you can get. And you can use it directly with direct methanol fuel cells. So you can apply light weight electric fan propulsion with more than 3 times the efficiency of turbo-jet engines. Only for lift-off and higher ascending rates you need a small additional battery buffer.
A point everyone is overlooking, hydrogen is very very explosive, very dangerous for any vehicle having to store it on board.
A catchy title - how hydrogen jet engines will change things forever, followed by a narrative that explains all the problems of hydrogen and why it can't!
Please do some reserach on SILAN fuel (Hydrogen and fuel gained from Silicone)
Bravo Rolls Royce. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, they are making it better. Considering how much child labor goes in to mining lithium and cobalt currently, a fully electric future scares the living daylights out of me. I would much rather have a zero emissions fuel that can be used in current vehicles rather than plague the environment to try to be “zero emissions” but only while in use, not in production
I'm sure by the time we go all electric, we'll have found better alternatives to lithium...
I look forward to the first net zero war/dogfight/tank battle 🙂
All that's needed, is a catalyst that allows for efficient, on-the-fly conversion of ammonia back into nitrogen and hydrogen. Storing ammonia is way more easy than storing hydrogen.
Interesting to see how they plan on storing a fuel that needs cryogenics for any kind of reasonable density and also interested to see how they plan to store it for hours at a time when its atoms are so small they leak through solid tank walls.
I want to see how it handles fire onboard.
something with water and aluminium would make a pretty dense fuel --- it has even been experimentally tested in some rockets
The biggest problem with hydrogen for fuel is the huge energy input required to separate it from water. This is a negative situation. It takes more energy to create it than is in the fuel. Plus storage is complicated. It enbrittles steel it comes in contact with which destroys existing infrastructure.
listening to this makes me wonder what sort of world would exist had oil and coal not been available, like what sort of civilization would exist without fossil fuels, can they even reach the same stages of technology without them? (like this is the solution for jets, but what about other things)
I like your delivery Lad, thank you.
Some of these solutions might make tail strikes and belly landings a bit hazardous.