🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec23.015933.24919@erg.sri.com>, rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent) writes:
=Is anyone here missing the point that flywheel powered cars need far
=less total energy to go a certain distance (stop and go) than a
=gasoline powered car?

No, nobody's missing the point, but you seem to have missed a lot of the
discussion.  The people touting these flywheels are talking about a car with a
range of 600 miles, though they plan to divide it up among 20 flywheels,
something that wasn't mentioned in this thread until a couple of days ago). 
Now, we've been talking about the energy required to drive a car 100 miles at
freeway speeds, and one of the more fuel-efficient cars on the road today, to
boot.  I.e., we've been talking about roughly 2 gallons of gasoline.  Now, if
the people touting the flywheel technology are really trying to mislead us and
they're talking about a 600 mile range at an average speed of 15 mph, then yes,
you might have a point.

=Car designers aren't completely stupid, you
=know, they do try to recover kinetic energy during braking in a
=vehicle that is capable of doing so (gasoline engines aren't).

If they're talking about stop-and-go driving, why are they talking about a
600-mile range?  The two just don't seem to go together somehow.

=Also,
=flywheel vehicles aren't really intended to provide as high a range as
=gasoline powered vehicles, nor are they intended to be used for
=towing. We're talking commuter cars here.

The people touting the vehicles said a 600-mile range.  That sounds a lot like
as high a range as a gasoline-powered vehicle to me.

=Additionally, gasoline engines are basically heat pumps. A large
=percentage of the energy escapes in the form of heat out the exhaust
=pipe in normal operation. This much energy, at least, would not
=present in a flywheel.

Yes, we know that.  That's why we've made generous allowances for the relative
efficiencies.  We've been assuming the IC engine was about 25% efficient while
the EV was 100% efficient.  You *REALLY* should have read more of the thread
before jumping in to prove that you haven't been following it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.