NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/electron/21438

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-25 | 1.8 KB

Xref: sparky sci.electronics:21438 sci.energy:6386 rec.autos.tech:17089
Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!ncrlnk!ncratl!mwilson
From: [e-mail] (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,sci.energy,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 92 01:55:56 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA
Lines: 24

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (I am a terminator.) writes:

|The particles will fly off linearly, but what if the housing surrounding the
|flywheel was turning? Then the breaking flywheel may just cause the housing
|to turn faster. The flywheel particle momentum is lost with a less
|forceful impact (prolonged impact) because the turning housing is moving at
|a lower speed relative to the flywheel particles (which in turn move at a
|lower speed relative to the housing). It's a flywheel inside a flywheel inside
|a flywheel.

Unless the vessel is spinning at a significant fraction of the rotors
velocity, there will not be time to transfer a significant amount of energy
to it, before the shock waves tear it apart.  Then again if it were spinning
that fast, it would already be under a lot of stress and would need less
of a shock to cause a catastrophic failure.

Sounds like your working on the idea of multiple flywheels, so that each
wheel needs to carry less kinetic energy.

--
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
[e-mail]