🚀 go-pugleaf

>=The housing I've proposed is suited to these conditions.  Since we're 
>=encouraging collisions between particles by containing them, much of their
>=kinetic energy will be dissipated in collision-induced fractures of the 
>=flywheel material. Heat is generated in the housing only in irrecoverable
>=deformations of the flywheel materials and the housing itself, not fractures
>=or elastic deformations. Assuming the flywheel is brittle, there will
>=be fractures but not much elastic deformation.

>I'm afraid you've forgotten the law of conservation of energy again.  I ask
>again:  IF THE ENERGY THAT'S BEING DUMPED DOESN'T END UP AS HEAT, WHERE'S IT
>GOING?  HOW'S IT BEING TRANSFERRED OUT OF THE SYSTEM?

You are making two assumptions that may not be justified.  First you assume
that all energy gets dumped as heat.   It is quite possible that this 
energy can be dumped into some sort of chemical energy, (heat of fusion,
vaporization or endothermic reaction).  Granted, I have not given a 
possible scenerio, I merely point out that conservation of energy is NOT
a proof of infeasibility.  

Second, heat by itself is not THAT bad.  I really don't care if the flywheel
compartment is hot enough to melt steel as long as I survive the crash 
unburned.  If the crash was bad enough that I don't survive, does it matter
that much if I get burned too?   The problem with heat is that it can cause
explosions if released too quickly.    Preventing explosions IS a goal
that good engineering has a chance of accomplishing.  Again, I don't offer
solutions, just pointing out that it is not as hopeless as you make it 
out to be.

On the other hand, I could see how solving these problems might be expensive
and that a better overall solution could be found to the EV problem by
not using flywheels as the primary storage device.  

Vance