Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power

Electricity Over Glass 187

guddan writes "Running a live wire into a passenger jet's fuel tank seems like a bad idea on the face of it. Still, sensors that monitor the fuel tank have to run on electricity, so aircraft makers previously had little choice. But what if power could be delivered over optical fiber instead of copper wire, without fear of short circuits and sparks? In late May, the big laser and optics company JDS Uniphase Corp., in San Jose, Calif., bought a small Silicon Valley firm with the technology to do just that."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Electricity Over Glass

Comments Filter:
  • by pryoplasm ( 809342 ) on Monday December 17, 2007 @09:50AM (#21724522)
    ...have been using similar technology for some time.

    however, there is a problem with what is called dark current. that is when there is no light hitting the transducer, and there is still a current being developed...
  • Re:Is this needed? (Score:3, Informative)

    by JonTurner ( 178845 ) on Monday December 17, 2007 @09:57AM (#21724588) Journal
    >>Running a live wire into a passenger jet's fuel tank seems like a bad idea

    Why? it's extremely difficult to ignite liquid gasoline, or jet fuel. An air-fuel mix ignites quite easily, however. So moral of the story: if you're paranoid that wires in your fuel tank are freyed, keep your fuel tank full. Or get your crappy car fixed.

    (In fact, nearly every automobile built in the past 20 years has not one, but two powered devices in the fuel tank -- a fuel pump and a level sensor.)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17, 2007 @09:57AM (#21724592)
    Why bother with electricity at all. A piece of fiber to an optical encoder would do the job just fine. I can't think of any sensor that couldn't be implemented optically.

    Having said the above, the product seems like a solution in search of a problem. I can't recall any incidents where a fire or explosion was caused in an airplane because of faulty wiring in the fuel tank. There are lots of places where an electrical spark could cause an explosion. For instance in a mine, or factory, dust explosions are an ever present danger. To deal with that, we have explosion proof wiring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_actuator#Explosion_protection [wikipedia.org] In other words, the problem was solved long ago.
  • Re:Is this needed? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Renegade88 ( 874837 ) on Monday December 17, 2007 @10:02AM (#21724626)
    I've replaced the gauge on a mid-eighties Buick a number of times and I can tell you live wires go into the gas tank. The transducer was a one-piece unit. Did you ever consider there is more than one way to design something? Your point, therefore, is invalid.
  • by JonTurner ( 178845 ) on Monday December 17, 2007 @10:04AM (#21724636) Journal
    Millivolts. Most level sensors are variable resistors, so you only need to exceed the forward min. bias of the resistor (see the spec. sheet) to have accurate results. Above that, it's just a matter of calibration and maintaining a well-regulated power supply.
  • Re:Intrinsic Safety. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Rob the Bold ( 788862 ) on Monday December 17, 2007 @10:07AM (#21724658)

    There is nothing wrong with running wires into petrol tanks for sensors... Take a good look at how badly made the rheostats in everyone's pertol tanks are made. Most engineers freak out when they see them for the first time.

    Good point. Note that electronic sensors are also used in underground (and above-ground) storage tanks. Electric turbine pumps, too.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17, 2007 @10:09AM (#21724680)

    I can't recall any incidents where a fire or explosion was caused in an airplane because of faulty wiring in the fuel tank.

    I can. [wikipedia.org]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17, 2007 @10:24AM (#21724792)
    How does a purely mechanical device transmit the information back to the pilot/cockpit?

    It can be done, but doing it electronically is much easier and lighter.
  • by FuzzyDaddy ( 584528 ) on Monday December 17, 2007 @10:25AM (#21724800) Journal
    You're stilling bringing as much power into the fuel tank. High-power beams of light aren't any safer, a laser can cut inch thick steel.

    It's a lot easier to ensure the power is properly limited. Running a sensor is a low power application (you wouldn't be using a "steel cutting" laser), and the power is limited with the size of the laser diode. There's no other way to get power through the line.

    With electric lines, the issue is whether the wire to the sensor is going to short to another wire somewhere else in the wiring harness that will accidently put a lot more power on the line. There are a TON of wires on an aircraft, going every which way, some of which can deliver a lot of power. Short one of those to the sensor line and you can get a spark in the fuel tank.

  • Re:Intrinsic Safety. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cassini2 ( 956052 ) on Monday December 17, 2007 @10:34AM (#21724900)

    Intrinsically safe circuits can ignite gasoline when they are hit by lightning. The concern in aircraft applications isn't that the fuel ignites in normal operation. Rather, it is suspected that some airplanes have exploded after being hit by lightning.

    If enough power hits just the right wire, and the tanks are near empty (with lots of explosive fuel vapors), and enough planes get hit by lightning in flight in a sensitive location, then potentially disaster can happen. The accident data says fuel tank explosions occur, and this might be a possible cause. Safety problems demand a precautionary approach. Hence the desire to eliminate the wire going to the fuel tank.

    Further resources:
    http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-GENERAL/1997/April/Day-03/g8495.htm [epa.gov]
    http://easa.europa.eu/doc/Events/fueltanksafety_24062005/easa_fueltanksafety_24062005_large_transport_ppt.pdf [europa.eu] [pdf]

    Note: a widespread consensus exists that many possible ways for fuel tanks to ignite exist. As such, most of the focus is on minimizing the likelihood of ignition, rather than one specific cause, like the fuel tank wires themselves.

  • NOT the issue! (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17, 2007 @10:42AM (#21724968)
    Tank probes are capacitive and use a very weak signal for excitation. The spec is 25uJ maximum which is WELL under the energy required to ignite fuel. Typical systems use way less energy to make measurements. The problem is more that wiring for OTHER more power consumptive things is routed through the tanks in some designs. Also I agree, optical isn't any better or worse of a method.
  • by tomz16 ( 992375 ) on Monday December 17, 2007 @10:49AM (#21725034)
    Dark current is the signal detected from the ambient blackbody radiation around the sensor. This includes the radiation off the detector itself. It is so ridiculously small compared to the scales we are talking about here that it is not even worth mentioning.
  • Re:Is this needed? (Score:4, Informative)

    by schnikies79 ( 788746 ) on Monday December 17, 2007 @11:14AM (#21725300)
    Unless they have changed something very recently (in the last couple of years), the guage controlling unit is inside the tank, wires and all. The only thing outside is the plug to go into the wiring harness. I've changed plenty of sending units.

    The wires for your electric fuel pump are inside the tank too.
  • by WED Fan ( 911325 ) <akahige@NOspAm.trashmail.net> on Monday December 17, 2007 @11:16AM (#21725318) Homepage Journal

    Speaking as a former USAF Avionics Specialist, who worked on C-5's, C-141's, and C-130's, and who personally saw a parked C-141 burst into flames on the ramp because of a fuel probe maintenance accident, let me explain things simply.

    Design considerations:

    • There are many fuel tanks on an air craft.
    • The criticality of accurate fuel readings in any attitude is much higher than with any other vehicle on the planet.
    • Large tanks have many 8+ fuel probes running into them. Some have 12+.
    • The criticality of fuel quality readings in the tank is very high.
    • Weight and simplicity are a vital factor.
    • The system has to work in extreme temperatures.
    • The system has to work in extreame teperature changes over short periods of time.

    JP4, the fuel that makes most jets run, is difficult to ignite. It needs a heat source. You could run a bare wire into a full tank and not have a problem. However, heat that wire up, and get the fuel/air mixture just right, and you have a problem. Big Boomba Problem, to quote JJB.

    The big problem is the mostly empty tank and exposed heat sources. The C-5 has a nitrogen purging system. Basically, as fuel empties from a tank, it is replaced by nitrogen. The only way that wing is going to explode is if something other than a bare wire acts on it. Then, you've got bigger problems.

    The big problem comes when you open the tank for maintenance. So, there are massive safety considerations. The C-141 that exploded in the mid-90's at Travis AFB in California blew because a jackass tech did not follow lockout/tag out procedures. The 141 doesn't have the nitrogen purge, but the tanks were open anyway. Two senior specialists were standing on top of the aircraft when the wing blew. Several others were in the cargo box. Luckily, aside from bumped elbows and bruised body parts, everyone got out o.k. We towed nearby aircraft to safer distances. There was precious little left of the burnt aircraft that identified it as such.

    Most amatuers could make a good guess at a practical design for fuel sensors, but most of the solutions developed as such will end up being to costly, too heavy, will introduce other problems such as high maint., or simply won't work in 3-d, or extreme temperatures.

  • by ArieKremen ( 733795 ) on Monday December 17, 2007 @11:22AM (#21725368)
    You're going to overestimate your remaining fuel if you are relying on a capillary. Unless, of course, your ocular spectrogram can automatically correct for the capillary rise [wikipedia.org].
  • Re:Is this needed? (Score:3, Informative)

    by russ1337 ( 938915 ) on Monday December 17, 2007 @11:27AM (#21725410)

    What, no one ever heard of vacuum lines? Or maybe pressurized lines?


    Aircraft are required to operate at various altitudes (which have various temperatures and pressures) making compensating for differences in pressures and temperatures in a system that requires vacuum lines more difficult (and more difficult to maintain and keep calibrated). Early aircraft had a sight glass on the outside of the tank, but these are only good for reading volume and at a specific aTTitude (i.e on the ground) intrinsic safety [omega.com] is a well understood practice within electrical engineering and has proven to be extremely safe and reliable when proper maintenance and operational maintenance procedures are used.

    Modern aircraft fuel quantity measurement is through it's capacitance, as this compensates for temperature / volume, when it is the 'mass' (and hence energy) of the fuel decides which just how far you will fly. You are only interested in the mass of the fuel.

    what with all the planes we lose every year to short-circuiting wires.
    I don't recall this happening very often. Last one i remember was the center tank on an airliner that they suspected had developed a fault, and also had NO fuel - (blamed the vapor) but IIRC the fault being pinned on the fuel measurement system was not conclusive... I think they looked more closely at the fuel pump which normally sits submersed in the fuel with the electrics outside the tank. Run a pump dry and it gets hot. Heat + Oxygen + ignition source (vapor) = boom.
  • by russ1337 ( 938915 ) on Monday December 17, 2007 @11:39AM (#21725560)

    I might be wrong but I think large aircraft fuel tanks are part of the wings so there is no choice but to put wires through the cavity that holds the fuel.


    Most of the wing is the tank, but not all of it. There is room behind the 'leading edge' and the trailing edge (between the aft of the tank and the front of the flaps/ailerons. ) This is where other services go, such as air ducts for the leading edge De-Icing (heating) systems, and wires that run to those little navigation lights way out there on the wingtips. Not to mention all the wires to and from the wheelwell (undercarage).

    Not a good picture - but it shows what I mean: here [bst-tsb.gc.ca]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17, 2007 @12:01PM (#21725768)
    Most jets (the largest quantity number of them, civilian commercial and private aircraft including everything from jetliners to small turboprops) burn Jet-A, which is a completely different formulation from the old JP-4. JP-4 had a significant amount of lighter molecular weight hydrocarbons (e.g. more of the constituents of gasoline) blended in.

    JP-4 was also phased out of use by the USAF over ten years ago. JP-8 is used now, which is a completely different formulation from JP-4 and has much higher flash point than JP-4. JP-4 was a naptha-based fuel and JP-8 is a kerosene-based fuel. Today's Jet-A and JP-8 have very similar base formulations, but they have very different additive packages blended in. JP-8 has a much higher flash point than Jet-A too, since it is tailored for use in military aircraft that need to handle supersonic operations.
  • Re:Fuel Gauges (Score:3, Informative)

    by ajs318 ( 655362 ) <sd_resp2@earthsh ... .co.uk minus bsd> on Monday December 17, 2007 @12:09PM (#21725858)
    Battery monitors are trying to do an incredibly tricky job. For all practical battery chemistries, the fully-charged voltage is only a tiny fraction more than the to-all-intents-and-purposes-spent voltage.

    There are battery charging monitors that integrate the current over time to get an idea of how many amp-hours are remaining, but even these don't account for the tendency of most battery chemistries to self-discharge.
  • by AP2k ( 991160 ) on Monday December 17, 2007 @12:14PM (#21725908)
    A well regulated power supply required to stabilize a millivolt source with any semblence of accuracy is far too bulky and expensive to ever be considered. Beyond that, the noise inherent in the wiring would give lots of false readings at all operating temperatures. The ADC in the measuring circuits are also not standardized much below 1V, if there are any manufacturers that produce them at all; lets not even consider the exceptionally poor resolution they would give.

    Thus, such a system would be extremely cost prohibitive for next to no safety gains.

    exceed the forward min. bias of the resistor (see the spec. sheet)
    Even as an EE, I've never heard of a resistor having a forward bias voltage...
  • Re:Is this needed? (Score:2, Informative)

    by rollercoaster375 ( 935898 ) on Monday December 17, 2007 @12:17PM (#21725930)
    Biodiesel has a very high flash point... Definition of "flammable" being: "easily set on fire" (Oxford American Dictionary), Biodiesel fails that definition, thus meriting the "non-flammable" designation.
  • just 2 words: (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anne Honime ( 828246 ) on Monday December 17, 2007 @02:00PM (#21727390)
    Gimli Glider. [wadenelson.com]
  • by trayrace ( 1182967 ) on Monday December 17, 2007 @04:08PM (#21729786)

    Flight 800? [wikipedia.org]

    The NTSB investigation ended with the adoption of their final report on August 23, 2000. In it they concluded that the probable cause of the accident was "an explosion of the center wing fuel tank (CWT), resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank. The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system.

  • Re:Is this needed? (Score:2, Informative)

    by markxz ( 669696 ) on Monday December 17, 2007 @06:00PM (#21731700)
    I think you are getting confused with TWA Flight 800 which went down in 1996. It is thought that some electrical fault created a spark in the centre fuel tank of the aircraft (which was warm and almost empty) causing an explosion. It is likely that due to the age of the aircraft that the wiring was degraded (or had been altered in an unauthorised manner) resulting in ignition taking place.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800 [wikipedia.org]


    The flight that went down November 2001 was AA Flight 587. It suffered mechanical failure of the rudder.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587 [wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800 [wikipedia.org]

To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to provide a test load.

Working...