🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <78580@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1992Dec22.214616.27043@fcom.cc.utah.edu> bbarkey@lark.utah.edu (Brian Barkey) writes:
>
>|	And gasoline isn't explosive? 
>|	I may be mistaken but any power source capable of propelling
>|	a ton or more at speeds greater than 50 mph for hundreds of 
>|	miles must have a significant amount of energy in it. 
>
>It doesn't sound like you have been listening either.  In the event of
>a catastrophic failure, gasoline burns, it does not explode.  The energy
>contained in the tank is released over a period of 15 to 20 minutes.
>
>The flywheel will try to dissipate it's energy over a span of milliseconds.
>
I guess I missed the part about dissipating energy over ms. What's the 
basis for this?
Also, sometimes in accidents the gasoline does mix sufficently well
with the air to be a hazard (remember the Pinto?) I'm certain that
in a flywheel powered car there wil be accidents that will be explosive
and many that are not. Isn't this a factor of the design? If the 
flywheel power source is a viable and marketable option I'm certain
that manufacturers in lawsuit happy countries like this would 
make a couple of prototypes and run 'em into walls to see what happens.
This technology is relatively new, gasoline powered cars have been 
around for a century or so and there are still problems. 
Maybe the flywheel isn't safe. Could it be used in a smaller capacity 
to augment accelerations from braking energy? All of this discussion is
conjecture, but aren't ideas wonderful to ponder?
		Brian Barkey