HyFlux Extensions#
Capabilities beyond the CASCADE parity perimeter. These are HyFlux-originated workstreams — they cite CASCADE data where disclosed but make no parity claim.
Superconducting LH₂ + SC propulsion analysis#
Source: src/engine/cascade.ts:computeLCA (scAnalysis),
src/engine/fuel-costs.ts:q5Renormalisation
Test evidence: tests/fuel-costs.spec.ts,
tests/cascade-parity.spec.ts
The superconducting (HTS) motor lever sc (%) scales delivered LH₂ CI by
\((1 - sc/100)\) and reports an analysis block: power density 5.2 kW/kg
conventional vs 25–35 kW/kg HTS, “free” cryogenic cooling from the LH₂
sink, and programme anchors (Airbus ASCEND 500 kW demo, RTX/Pratt 260 kW →
2.5 MW, Hinetics MW-class). In the cost model the fuel-cell + SC chain
converts fuel to shaft at η = 0.55 vs 0.40 for turbines — enough to invert
the methane-vs-hydrogen cost ranking per unit of propulsive output (see
Costs).
Airport infrastructure map groundwork#
Source: src/map/ (geodesic.ts, demand.ts, airports.ts,
provider.ts, AirportMap.tsx)
Test evidence: tests/geodesic.spec.ts,
tests/airport-demand.spec.ts
Phase 5 scaffold (DL-031/DL-035): a MapLibre-first airport comparison map behind a provider abstraction (token-free default tiles, zero recurring cost per DL-011), with all geometry computed geodesically — haversine distance, direct-geodesic destination points, Chamberlain–Duquette spherical polygon area; never from screen pixels (Web-Mercator pixel areas are latitude-distorted). Six airport archetypes (LHR, AMS, INV, SIN, DXB, MEM) and a demand-driven sizing model (peak-day/peak-hour factors, reserve-days storage, tank counts, truck movements with a pipeline threshold) carry a standing CONCEPTUAL — NOT VALIDATED label: every constant is named, editable and literature-approximate, and the outputs must not be used for design, safety or cost decisions.
Usable-fuel pathways (Workstream A)#
Source: src/engine/fuel-pathways.ts:usableFuel,
reproduceBoeingUsableFuel
Test evidence: tests/usable-fuel.spec.ts
An independent first-principles chain model: usable fuel = fuel energy delivered to the aircraft (LHV) ÷ primary input energy, with per-stage retentions and overheads,
evaluated at central, all-pessimistic and all-optimistic stage values. Boeing’s published chart values (claim register BC-01…BC-05) fall inside the independent envelopes for all five pathways — bio-CH₄ 54.3 % vs 54 %, e-CH₄ 48.1 % vs 43 % (claim digitised/unverified), LH₂ 44.8 % vs 38 % (Boeing pessimistic-side), bio-SAF 30.2 % vs 30 %, e-SAF 23.8 % vs 22 % — all classified Conditionally validated since Boeing discloses no stage assumptions. Key boundary finding: e-SAF’s 22 % is only reproducible when non-jet Fischer–Tropsch co-products are treated as losses (no energy allocation); with co-product credit the chain stays above 28 %. Boeing’s implicit boundary choice is undisclosed (WorkstreamA-UsableFuel-Report).
Pulse curve#
Source: src/engine/curves.ts:pulseAt, buildPulseSeries
Test evidence: tests/pulse-curve.spec.ts
The CASCADE custom “pulse” curve (cf. CASCADE Operations, Custom Curves → Pulse), implemented exactly from its published formulation (DL-020): two concatenated sigmoids
with exact value \(A_{peak}\) at \(t_{peak}\), \(A_f\) held
beyond \(t_f\), and zero-slope knots for \(a > 1\). Eleven tests
cover monotonicity, half-amplitude midpoints, continuity at all knots,
zero-duration edges and shape-parameter behaviour. UI exposure remains
deferred: the shared CurveEditor param model (shape, entry/end years
and values, slope, inflection year, custom points) does not map onto the
pulse parameter set, and no approximate mapping is offered (see
Aircraft — Fleet Renewal & Future Aircraft).
LH₂ CI-driven accounting view (lh2_ci_driven)#
Source: src/engine/cascade.ts:computeLCA (lh2CiDriven,
deliveredLH2CIAt, lh2LedgerSharePct)
Test evidence: tests/lh2-energy-ledger.spec.ts,
tests/cascade-measured-lh2.spec.ts
An opt-in HyFlux accounting view (default off, bit-identical when off):
the LH₂-attributable share of the aircraft wedge (the sc × 0.5 term) is
re-attributed to the energy wedge as a CI-driven term of the same form SAF
and methane use, so LH₂ abatement tracks the delivered carbon intensity —
and becomes a visible penalty on slow-decarbonising grids.
lh2_ledger is accepted as a deprecated alias (DL-142) and is not
URL-serialisable.
This is not CASCADE’s method. A live orchestrationLayerInterface
capture (2026-08-01) measured that CASCADE books LH₂ aircraft abatement
wholly in the Aircraft wedge, applies delivered-LH₂ CI inside the
Aircraft module, and prevents double counting by sequential activity
removal — hydrogen aircraft shrink the residual Jet-A pool that the later
Operations and Energy stages receive; there is no Energy-wedge LH₂ term and
no explicit de-duplication subtraction (see Methodology Parity,
“Measured CASCADE LH₂ wedge accounting”). The engine therefore refuses
the combination: enabling this view under
evidence_basis: 'CASCADE_PARITY' throws, and no library preset sets the
flag. UI surfaces label it “HyFlux CI-driven LH₂ accounting view —
experimental HyFlux analysis; CASCADE parity uses sequential Aircraft-stage
LH₂ accounting instead.”
Known deviations / limitations#
SC analysis constants (power densities, programme powers) are literature anchors, not validated product data.
Airport sizing is explicitly conceptual; no geocoded demand data yet.
Usable-fuel stage values are literature-approximate envelopes, not calibrated plant data; the e-methane Boeing value remains unverified pending chart digitisation (DL-008).
Pulse curve is engine-level only (CurveEditor param-model mismatch, documented under Aircraft — Fleet Renewal & Future Aircraft).