51–60 of 68 posts
The article is very vague on how the radioactivity allows detection of leaking gas. The video at the bottom explains from 7:50 in. Gas pressure pressing on a spring holds a radiation shield in place. If the gas leaks the shield moves and the radiation can be detected.
Was solved in Mi-6/Mi-8/Mi-26 blades without it.
> The solution is so elegant it’s still being used today. The newest versions of the CH-53 of fiber optics to detect faults in the newest all-composite blades. The older variants? They’re still going with the nuclear option. Huh? So it's not really in use today as much as hasn't been retrofit out. Those are very different. This also doesn't read well. Maybe rewritten without proofreading
If it hasn't been retrofitted out, then it's still in use today. That sentence would only be incorrect if the new solution was retrofitted on all aircraft.
I think it's the "so elegant" part that's wrong. It's not still being used today because it's so elegant. It's still being used today because the old helicopters haven't replaced it.
Boss: we need to transmit 1 bit of information indicating pressure loss from a spinning rotor blade to the main body of the helicopter. The blade spins too fast for electronics to work properly.
Engineer: What if we make the blades radioactive when they depressurize, then point a Geiger counter at them to detect if that happens.
Boss: ... where did you say you got your degree from?
The blades are a foot wide and 30’ long, so five of them carrying 25,000lbs is about 1psi of pressure. 3x that for a laden Stallion. I guess I expected it to be a lot more because, from the perspective of the rotor blade, it is in a very windy regime.
The other major open question for me is with the cracks. The system implies there is a non instantaneous progression from unbroken, to having a small crack on the surface, to having a crack large enough for nitrogen to escape, to having a crack so large that the rotor blade fails. I’d love to know what sort of timeframes sit between each of these phases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The titanium spar is filled with gas. If there was a crack in the spar the gas would escape, therefore tripping the pressure sensitive radiation shield. Releasing radiation that can be detected inside the helicopter. Wireless systems aren’t used for opsec reasons.
carrying a radiation source doesn't sound very opsec either to be honest...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The titanium spar is filled with gas. If there was a crack in the spar the gas would escape, therefore tripping the pressure sensitive radiation shield. Releasing radiation that can be detected inside the helicopter. Wireless systems aren’t used for opsec reasons.
carrying a radiation source doesn't sound very opsec either to be honest...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it hasn't been retrofitted out, then it's still in use today. That sentence would only be incorrect if the new solution was retrofitted on all aircraft.
> is so elegant it’s still being used today I think it's the "so elegant" part that's wrong. It's not still being used today because it's so elegant. It's still being used today because the old helicopters haven't replaced it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it hasn't been retrofitted out, then it's still in use today. That sentence would only be incorrect if the new solution was retrofitted on all aircraft.
> is so elegant it’s still being used today I think it's the "so elegant" part that's wrong. It's not still being used today because it's so elegant. It's still being used today because the old helicopters haven't replaced it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess in this extremely contrived hypothetical where a Navy helicopter flies through heavily-irradiated dust cloud from a nuclear detonation, yes, the blade alarms might go off spuriously. Well done.
what helicopter do you expect EXCEPT a navy helicopter to be flying through the fallout from a nuclear explosion? especially with all the nuclear tests they were doing for decades?