Article View: sci.electronics
Article #15678Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
From: Richard Stead
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:31
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:31
92 lines
5472 bytes
5472 bytes
In article <1992Dec17.010235.986@cmkrnl.com>, jeh@cmkrnl.com writes: > In article <1goebdINNik@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes: > > In article <1992Dec16.192456.6261@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, andyh@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Andrew J. Huang) writes: > > =2. There are several places for the energy to go during an explosion. > > =Since the energy is kinetic, a lot of it will end up as particle > > =velocity. ... > > =What residual energy escapes these will have to be determined by testing. > > > > Er, the amount of energy that escapes is exactly the amount of energy you > > started with. Law of conservation of energy comes into play. ... > > It didn't just vanish. And that's a LOT of energy. And it got dumped FAST. > > Carl is absolutely right. ... > Therefore, if the flywheel comes to a stop > quickly, ALL of that energy gets released as heat. > > Yes, all of it. Including that part that momentarily goes to breaking up the > flywheel, hitting the inside of the container, maybe breaking the container, > etc. Ultimately *all* the released energy ends up as heat. > > > In other words: BOOM! > > Couldn't have said it better myself. Nor could I. I find it hard to fathom that people are actually arguing about this. Let's say that car is real efficient, and that 100 miles represents the equivalent of 2 gallons of gas. That's a lot of energy, equivalent to about 50 pounds of TNT (if I did the math right). TNT is the proper comparison, because it dumps the energy fast, unlike liquid gasoline that will burn for a long time. I can't conceive of a Kevlar jacket strong enough to withstand the blast of 50 pounds of TNT. That blast will take down a moderate size building, let alone a little kevlar. And that same energy dump will occur in any failure - if the flywheel has any microscopic flaws made during manufacture, or acquired during use - these could induce fracture. A fracture in a material with that kind of rotational energy means instantaneous and complete failure - BOOM! > > Unless you wrap the flywheel in a massive enough container that it can absorb > > all that energy without vaporizing, you're going to have an explosion. > > And even if the container does hold, we're not out of the woods yet. > If the container doesn't break, it is because it is able to absorb the energy. > Which means that the energy STILL gets turned into heat -- it's just that it > isn't enough heat to break the container. The container, nonetheless, is going > to get damned hot. Absolutely - I get about 92,000 kCal for my 2 gallon example (I am not a chemist, so I could have screwed that up). So let's say the flywheel is steel-jacketed, how much iron would be required to prevent the iron from melting? I get 300 kilograms. That's a lot of iron at 1500 degrees C. The same heat would completely melt 250 kilograms of iron. It would raise 140 kg of iron to 3000 C - the vaporization temperature; and could vaporize 40 kg of iron. So if you wrapped it in 40 kg of steel, and none of the energy went beyond the container, it would vaporize entirely. It doesn't matter how much energy it briefly took to deform the container, etc., it all goes to vaporizing it in the end. Anyone who knows the heat of vaporization (or heat of formation) of Kevlar want to figure out how many kilograms the flywheel can vaporize? > The only way around this is to make the container so sturdy that the flywheel > keeps spinning in the worst collision imaginable. Right. And design a flawless flywheel, so it doesn't ever blow up on its own. Actually, I could imagine a pretty sturdy container. Afterall, 300 kg of steel around a little flywheel would be nearly indestructible at mere highway speeds. However, the flywheel axle would probably fail in a sharp enough jolt, destroying the flywheel anyway. The only good answer to this problem that I can come up with (and this takes too much wild imagination): 1) develop a sensor that can sense something wrong with the flywheel, and respond in less than one revolution. (No such technology currently) 2) have the sensor close a circuit that permits the flywheel to become a very powerful dynamo, essentially braking the flywheel within only a handful of revolutions. (This can be done on big flywheels - it is used as a technique to get a lot of energy in a very short time). 3) dump the power to something that can use it that quickly. I don't know of many such things - some big lasers can eat up power fast, but where would you shoot the laser, and how could any mechanism capable of eating up the power quickly survive a collision? Maybe you could design a coil that generates an EMP, and wipe out everyone's unshielded electronics for a few blocks around (it'd be a big coil). -- Richard Stead Center for Seismic Studies Arlington, VA stead@seismo.css.gov
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<51664@seismo.CSS.GOV>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!seismo!skadi!steadReferences:
<1992Dec13.114534.961@cmkrnl.com> <1992Dec15.004956.465@mtu.edu> <1992Dec17.010235.986@cmkrnl.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!seismo!skadi!stead From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) Newsgroups: sci.electronics,sci.energy,rec.autos.tech Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source Message-ID: <51664@seismo.CSS.GOV> Date: 17 Dec 92 17:31:32 GMT References: <1992Dec13.114534.961@cmkrnl.com> <1992Dec15.004956.465@mtu.edu> <1992Dec17.010235.986@cmkrnl.com> Sender: usenet@seismo.CSS.GOV Followup-To: sci.energy Lines: 92 Nntp-Posting-Host: skadi.css.gov