(discharged) Super capacitor in checked luggage on airplane?

[Zucca]

Many thanks for all the answers!

I decided to build my own super cap bank here in USA and leave my friend in peace. I will ask him to bring me only a Kweld, which should be not a big problem....

[MadScientist]

Don’t ask anyone anything. Just put it in your luggage and proceed as normal. I’ve brought super caps on checked luggage

[tggzzz]

Don’t ask anyone anything. Just put it in your luggage and proceed as normal. I’ve brought super caps on checked luggage

Before anybody bothers to reply to MadScientist, they may find it beneficial to look at his other posts (via the profile).

Here's a response to one I read 5mins ago; IMNSHO there are many others.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/ev-based-road-transportation-is-not-viable/msg4645195/#msg4645195

[Robert763]

An electrolytic capacitor or supercapcitor will not burst at aircraft altitudes. There are hundreds if not thousands of them on every aircraft. the units used are the same as used in commercial equipment.
There is little or no gas in a capacitor to cause a pressure differential never mind excessive force. They burst in operation due to the electrolyte being boiled by a fault.
The reason for putting it in checked baggage is so a screener does not see it.

Robert G8RPI.

Depends on what kind of life the capacitor has lived. If they have been heated before externally via some other means besides the power on their terminals they could have produced a bubble internally which could cause a pressure differential and rupture the canister. If they are brand new then this is extremely unlikely.

Err,
If the pressure is generated by boiling the electrolyte the presure will reduce when the temperature falls. Even if there is some permanent chemical decomposition that produced gas, if it didn't burst the capacitor when it was hot it certainly isn't going to bust when it's cold. In anycase all modern capacitors are designed to safely vent any internal pressure.

Robert G8RPI.

[Robert763]

So why do you think it is OK to carry a prohibited item? They are prohibited for good reason. You either had a actual or potential weapon or something that was a risk to aircraft  / passenger safety.

There was totally no risk. It just falls into oxidizing agents category which is prohibited. Why? Because I needed this drying agent for gas analysis to do my job. As of dangers, if there was condition when it would pose some danger, it wouldn't be our main trouble as it decomposes at 250^oC and there wasn't that much of it to begin with.

You may think there was no risk, but oxidizers are banned for a reason. Do you have qualifications in aviation safety? It's not your place to make that assesment. I am qualified to make that assesment and even then would never pack any prohibited item or substance on a aircraft. People have died because oxidisers were carried on passenger aircraft. Even the airlines are not allowed to carry smoke hoods etc as cargo on a passenger aircraft even though that same aircraft may have several installed as emergency equipment.
You do not have the right to put other peoples lives at risk.
If you needed the material for your work you should have arranged for a supply at your destination or had it shipped by a suitable freight carrier.
No excuses.

Robert.

[tggzzz]

So why do you think it is OK to carry a prohibited item? They are prohibited for good reason. You either had a actual or potential weapon or something that was a risk to aircraft  / passenger safety.

There was totally no risk. It just falls into oxidizing agents category which is prohibited. Why? Because I needed this drying agent for gas analysis to do my job. As of dangers, if there was condition when it would pose some danger, it wouldn't be our main trouble as it decomposes at 250^oC and there wasn't that much of it to begin with.

That's a pretty good example of the Dunning Krueger Syndrome: an amateur that thinks they know more  than the professionals who understand the dangers because of long experience and because they face the possible consequences every day.I

Too would be right at home in the extreme right wing of the UK Conservative party, who are planning to make a bonfire of all the EU regulations. That's bonfire in the Geenfell Tower sense.

Many safety rules in many fields are apparently unnecessary. But they are all there because of previous accidents - many of which would not could not have been predicted by people like yourself.

Now if you can't think of the potential dangers when oxidisers get loose, then .... I'm surprised in a bad way.

[wraper]

People have died because oxidisers were carried on passenger aircraft.

Please list at least one accident.

[SiliconWizard]

People have died because oxidisers were carried on passenger aircraft.

Please list at least one accident.

i'm curious too.

[tggzzz]

People have died because oxidisers were carried on passenger aircraft.

Please list at least one accident.

Don't bother, of course.

If you did bother to find and list an occurrance, he would find a way to dispute its relevance. There is, after all, no true Scotsman.

[hans]

Maybe this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Airways_Flight_295
I really only punched in 'oxidizer airplane incident', minimum effort. Some research points to oxidizer material as cause.

Nonetheless, this sounds like a classic for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

One can point to hazardous materials (like Lithium batteries) that are considered OK and carried in/out everyday. Why not reinforce those rules as well?
Well maybe because the real danger is on other materials because you never hear someone about it's story, because there is no one to tell that story, and the story does not tell itself because the plane and/or bag in cargo hold is long gone after the incident.

[james_s]

Depends on what kind of life the capacitor has lived. If they have been heated before externally via some other means besides the power on their terminals they could have produced a bubble internally which could cause a pressure differential and rupture the canister. If they are brand new then this is extremely unlikely.

No chance. Aircraft cabin altitude is 6,000-8,000 ft at cruising altitude. That's enough of a pressure change to cause a plastic water bottle to bow in or hiss slightly when opened but it's not nearly enough to make anything rupture.

[Thunderer]

Aircraft cabin altitude is 6,000-8,000 ft at cruising altitude.

While the aircraft engines are cruising at 30,000 ft altitude  . What kind of plane are you making reference to? Commercial ones, not only the trans-atlantic (as the present case) do not fly at 6-8,000 ft altitude but in the 5 minutes from take-off and while preparing the landing.

[james_s]

Aircraft cabin altitude is 6,000-8,000 ft at cruising altitude.

While the aircraft engines are cruising at 30,000 ft altitude  . What kind of plane are you making reference to? Commercial ones, not only the trans-atlantic (as the present case) do not fly at 6-8,000 ft altitude but in the 5 minutes from take-off and while preparing the landing.

Uh, perhaps you are confusing cabin altitude with the actual cruising altitude of the aircraft? Commercial airliners are pressurized to an equivalent pressure of 6,000-8,000 ft, this is called cabin altitude. If not for that, the passengers and crew would lose consciousness by the time the plane reached cruising altitude.

[amc184]

I've taken equipment containing large electrolytics that were similar in appearance to supercapacitors as both checked luggage and carry on in the US before.  TSA took the equipment from the bag and tested a swab from it with an ion scanner.  Getting a clear result from that seemed to be all they wanted to see.  I haven't taken large cylinders on their own, and I don't have any experience in the EU.

I don't want to get involved in the discussion about safety, but the plane the crashed because of on-board oxidisers might be this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592

It was a pretty extreme amount in this case, from a large quantity of improperly stored chemical oxygen generators.

[wraper]

People have died because oxidisers were carried on passenger aircraft.

Please list at least one accident.

Don't bother, of course.

If you did bother to find and list an occurrance, he would find a way to dispute its relevance. There is, after all, no true Scotsman.

He claimed people died because passengers bringing oxidizers. I googled and found nothing.

[wraper]

I don't want to get involved in the discussion about safety, but the plane the crashed because of on-board oxidisers might be this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592

It was because of improperly handled oxygen generators by airlines company.

The National Transportation Safety Board spent more than a year working up an accident report that ruled the crash had been caused primarily by a contractor’s mishandling of the packaging and shipment of oxygen generators in the cargo hold.
The oxygen generators had been loaded without the proper safety caps, causing them to ignite in the cargo hold and trigger the deadly fire, the report said.
Investigators identified three employees of SabreTech, the maintenance contractor for Valujet at the time, who had a role in mishandling the oxygen generators, according to the FBI. Two of those employees were criminally charged but later acquitted.

What I brought is chemically stable, unlike hydrogen peroxide for example. Unless you throw a bottle into a strong fire, nothing will happen. Also unlike gas generators which contain components to react, there was nothing it can react with.

[Robert763]

Well you have not named the chemical so I don't know why I should bother.
Valuejet flight 592.
But it does not have to be a fireball accident. spillage of even common chemicals can cause damage to airframe and systems causing issuews later. At a lower level a diversion costs money delays passengers and increases risk due to non-normal operation.

EDIT:
Note that a serious incident or accident normally requires a chain of events and / or actions. A oxidizer alone may not cause a crash but if something else is wrong it may be a vital part of the chain. Banning such items is a important means if refucing the risk.
Google James Reason swiss cheese model
You made an extra hole in the cheese.

[tggzzz]

Well you have not named the chemical so I don't know why I should bother.
Valuejet flight 592.
But it does not have to be a fireball accident. spillage of even common chemicals can cause damage to airframe and systems causing issuews later. At a lower level a diversion costs money delays passengers and increases risk due to non-normal operation.

Just so. Even water is a potential problem.

In the 757 cockpit after a flight landed my I and my daughter were chatting to the pilot (he even let her sit in his chair ). He mentioned that he had once had to delay a flight because water was leaking from a package containing live elvers. Elvers are a particularly edge case: if fresh water then no problem, if salt water then he would have grounded the aircraft for inspection. (it was fresh water)

And, of course, mercury has "interesting" and subtle effects on aluminium alloys.

EDIT:
Note that a serious incdent or accident normally requires a chain of events ot actions. A oxidizer alone may not cause a crash but if something else is wrong it may be a vital part of the chain. Banning such items is a important means if refucing the risk.
Google James Reason swiss cheese model
You made an extra hole in the cheese.

Precisely.

Any arguments to the effect that "I ran into a road without looking and wasn't knocked down" should be ignored. There's a good argument the person making such arguments should be ignored too.

[Thunderer]

Commercial airliners are pressurized to an equivalent pressure of 6,000-8,000 ft, this is called cabin altitude.

I see now, you are right.