🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1h7r1iINNqo5@access.usask.ca>, choy@skorpio.usask.ca (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.

So you're proposing nested flywheels?  Well, unfortunately, there's that nasty
old law of conservation of energy again:  You're trying to store a certain
amount of energy. That energy has to go someplace.  Now, you can spin a little
flywheel up *REAL* fast, or you can use a somewhat larger flywheel, which
doesn't have to be spun up quite so fast.  Or you could have your flywheels
within flywheels scenario.  First of all, such a setup would require much
higher precision in the implementation of the system.  Second, what if it were
the rotating container that failed?  That'd be likely to cause a failure of the
internal flywheel, and you still get a rather large boom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.