🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1gqhqfINNjot@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.165111.10240@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>It seems that the energy would never be more than in a tank of gasoline
>>and that it need not be shielded any better than that tank of gasoline
>>for it to be considered as an alternative from the perspective of
>>safety.  We know how dangerous an exploding gas tank can be but we
>>also know that it doesn't explode too often.
>
>Dean, try the following experiment:  Take a fairly small amount of gasoline,

I understand that difference.  My mistake was in comparing 2 worst case
accidents with radically different probabilities.  A gas tank _explosion_
may be worse than a fly-wheel failure but whereas the gas tank almost
never explodes, the flywheel failure is assumed to immediately release
its energy.  Is this assumption correct?  Is it possible that flywheel 
failure might occasionally (or frequently?) result in the flywheel just 
slowing down due to a partial mecanical failure?  It seems that this
might be a more productive approach than trying to contain the
explosive force.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.


-- 
==============================================================================
A though for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com