Current research teams at Harvard are looking into new organic molecule known as quinone. With the help of Japanese industry, they have found that optimal batteries for this state would need to be flow batteries. The liquid power tanks could hold days of energy for solar and wind farms in comparison to the batteries that hold just a few minutes of energy to regulate fluctuations. The issue with these flow tanks of this molecule is that they would cost about $700 per kilowatt hour. The reasoning behind this is that on the positive side of the battery would be an expensive bromine ion complex. For batteries to be economically feasible within the industry, the target price needs to be $100 per kilowatt hour. Harvard has discovered a battery that could reduce the price to as low as $27. Quinone is one of the main reasons for it. Continuing the search for efficiency, they are running simulations and tests narrowing down possibilities from a 10,000 variant table searching for the right conditions like voltage levels, ability to withstand charging and discharging, and dis-solvable in water. Though not involved with Harvard, Robert Savinell, professor at Case Western Reserve University has dived into the project as well. He sees that Quinone is a realistic economic possibility to pushing the solar and wind industry into mainstream use. His skepticism consists in that, can the dis-solvable organic molecule continue its marvelous conducting results 10 to 20 years from now. The sustainability is a key factor to the success of Harvard’s research.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/523251/new-battery-material-could-help-wind-and-solar-power-go-big/

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2014/01/organic-mega-flow-battery-promises-breakthrough-for-renewable-energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinone

This is one article I am very skeptical of, yet very very amazed. Popular Science released an article talking about recent advancements in material science and buildings. In the past 4 years, Waugh Thistleton has been at the forefront of

architecture engineering. He has brought up a seven-story apartment tower, 90-foot-tall building, and his most famous building, Stadthaus. Stadthaus was the world’s largest modern timber building untill 2012 which was replaced by a 10 story apartment complex. Now all of these accomplished buildings do not compare to the 40 or 60 story skyscrapers in Chicago or New York, but it’s only a matter of time until they are introduced. Architectures now adays are looking for a more environmental friendly approach while continuing to strengthen the building and reduce building costs. CLT was a rec

ent discovery promoted by Australia’s cross- industry funding due to their abundant supply of timber. CLT stands from cross-laminated timber. Wood is naturally strong in its direction of grain and weak in the cross direction. CLT is a fixture of two layers 

crossed and glued so that as one grain faces one direction, the other layer is perpendicular giving significant strength.

When I began reading the article, I had an immediate red alert go off. FIRE! FIRE! FIRE! The idea that wood can burn so easily distorted by concentration, but the more the read, the more I began to see the logic. The creation ton of steel requires more than 24 times the energy need to create a ton of CLT. CLT is also 15% cheaper than conventional steel and concrete. To continue further, CLT is 350 times more insulative than steel and 5 times than concrete.  Now as all of these numbers are nice, the main perk has yet to come.

Wood is a carbon sink. In the creation of the Stadthaus building, it will absorb over 186 tons of carbon. That is equivalent to offsetting 20 years of its daily operations on top of the carbon creatation from the using of concrete and steel in the material process. Wood is also renewable, we can cut it down into more intricate smaller parts for later projects.

Finally, how do we handle the whole fire safety regulations? We all know wood burns, so why would we built apartment complexes or skyscrapers next to each other in a small vicinity? Let’s compare the scenarios, each dealing with the same temperature and size. Because steel is a conductor and lack of insulanity, it will heat up faster and will begin to melt. Once steel begins to melt, “it’s like spaghetti” says, B.J. Yeh, the technical services director for the Engineered Wood Association. When wood begins to burn, it chars and leaves the inside wood protected.

Now, I see many flaws within this ideology. First, it’s clear wood will catch on fire faster than steel. When it chars, structural damage occurs regardless. You would have to repair the entirety of a burning for that you cannot truly know how much damage was taken to underneath the wood. With woods ability to char, it’s also harder to put out because of coals. In case a fire was to occur, the burning smell would be absorbed into the wood. How would you fix that? How would earthquakes affect these wooden structures? Does CLT have a better strength density than steel? If these apartments were set to New Orleans or Jacksonville where water damage is common, how will that affect the building structure. Water warps wood. These are a few skeptics of mine.

http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/world%E2%80%99s-most-advanced-building-material-wood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadthaus,_London

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_wood

Aerion is taking matters into their own hands. Since the retirement of the Concorde in 2003, companies within the commercial airline industry have done little to nothing about supersonic flight. As Boeing, Dassault, and Airbus have dabbled into designs, they are mainly waiting for policies to change. The FAA has restricted supersonic flight in U.S. Domestic airspace. A common way to get around this policy is by flying over the ocean. Aerion isn’t waiting. They are looking to bring their finished product to the market by 2021.

The Concorde was a flawed engineering product of the 1970s. Almost 40 years ago, the idea of looking into the NLF(natural laminar flow) was out of reality. Engineers didn’t have the technology or the capability of creating simulations and prototypes accurately to benefit from this concept. The NLF is the area between the atmosphere and fuselage that allows clean and smooth flight.  This allows significant potential for fuel efficient flying at and near supersonic speeds. Aerion’s philosophy was centered around fuel efficiency and maximizing the NLF. Aerion’s engineers optimized the NLF to within almost 60% of the SBJ’s airframe. However, these concepts weren’t the only priorities. In order to fly over Europe and meet regulations they needed to minimize the sonic boom. To dampen the booms, they moved the traditional swept back wings to being thin and perpendicular to the fuselage. Look at the picture closely, it does not look like the ideal fuselage that you see today. Aerion maximized the SBJ’s flight speed to be right below supersonic speed (647 mph) and one at cruising speed out on the ocean at 1056 mph. Aerion is looking to push the FAA into updating it’s regulations and restrictions to allowing supersonic flight in the U.S., but will not wait for the policy to change. They will be the early birds in this bright morning competition.

http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/beyond-boom

http://aerioncorp.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerion