🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec19.192819.1816@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.065254.8562@athena.mit.edu> ankleand@mtl.mit.edu (Andrew Karanicolas) writes:
>>A major disadvantage that I see with the flywheel scheme is the amount
>>of time it would take to "charge" it up from zero energy.  If the
>>flyweel can provide a large amount of output power for a long time,
>>then it should take at least the same time to charge it back.  A
>>scheme where flywheel systems are interchanged at "fuel" stops could
>>alleviate this issue.

This is kind of like saying that a wind up watch takes 24 hours to wind.
You can add X ammount of energy in Y ammount of time to the flywheel and
use X (minus a slight ammount for bearing loss) in Z ammount of time.
ie.  Charging time and dis-charge time are as unrelated in the flyweel
as charging time and dis-charge time are in a lead-acid battery.

>
>If I were a terrorist, I would drool at the thought of being able to
>get such wonderful bombs so easily... All you'd have to do is arrange
>for the vacuum valve to be opened on command or the magnetic bearing
>to be turned off, etc.
>
>BOOM!

Modern composit materials, when used in a flywheel, will disintegrate
with such a failuar.  This bomb would be about as wonderful as some
fiber-glass insulation falling out of your attic.

>
>-- 
>My opinions are my own.

-
Troy Frericks                      Internet: troyf@MICROWARE.COM
Microware Systems Corporation          UUCP: uunet!mcrware!troyf
1900 NW 114th St                      Phone: (515)224-1929
Des Moines, IA 50325-7077               Fax: (515)224-1352