NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/electron/21456

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 1.7 KB

Xref: sparky sci.electronics:21456 sci.energy:6400 rec.autos:30393
Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!ncrlnk!ncratl!mwilson
From: [e-mail] (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,sci.energy,rec.autos
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 92 13:57:02 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA
Lines: 22

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>Energy has been used bending molecules, which may or may not snap back, but
>more significantly in breaking bonds which originally held the flywheel
>together.  Now if you've got the inter fiber bond strength of a material of
>carbon carbon fibers we could use for a fly wheel, your a hell of a lot
>farther ahead that most in the carbon carbon field.  Now is this energy enough
>to make the fluff safe, I don't know, that's why I asked.  Remember that
>carbon carbon bonds are one of the strongest bonds around, thats why we
>want to use carbon carbon in the first place.

What you have done in essence is vaporized the flywheel.  If anyone knows
the heat of vaporization of carbon-carbon please post it.

My intuition is that while it will take more energy to vaporize than does
iron, it won't absorb anywhere near enough to make a difference.

--
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]