🚀 go-pugleaf

In <BzE2oz.I4H@ns1.nodak.edu> csmith@plains.NoDak.edu (Carl Smith) writes:

|I am not going to argue the above point, but consider this.  If you are
|going to measure danger by the amount of stored energy, then which is
|more dangerous when it explodes?  A flywheel that has enough energy to 
|move a car 100 miles at freeway speeds, or a tank of gasoline with enough 
|energy to move a car at greater-than-highway speeds for 300 miles?

|>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.

|Why bother, we don't wrap our gas tanks in a container that would contain
|their explosion?

Except that under rare circumstances, gas tanks don't explode, they burn.

|The point I am trying to make is that flywheels may be dangerous, but driving
|around with 20 gallons of gasoline strapped to the bottom of your car in a
|thin sheet metal container is A LOT MORE dangerous.  But we consider that 
|risk as acceptable considering the convenience that we get from our cars.
|So, why the worry about deriving the same convenience from a lesser danger?
|Because people are not used to doing it every day...

I disagree that the gas tank is a lot more dangerous.  In most accidents
the gas never catches fire.  If the tank does rupture it usually just
leaks all over the place.  If it does catch fire, as long as the tank
has already been ruptured it will just burn.  All of the chemical energy
is released over minutes or hours.

Now if the flywheel fails, all of the energy will be dumped in a matter
of milliseconds.  While there may be more energy in the gas tank, the
time compression makes the effects of the flywheel failure much more
dramatic.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com