🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <gfATnhq00iUzI1mV0H@andrew.cmu.edu>, cd1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Christopher Bradley Devlin) writes:
=In article <1992Dec15.004956.465@mtu.edu> cmwolf@mtu.edu (christopher m. wolf) 
=writes:
=>The same flywheels are referenced in the last IEEE.  They are low mass, very 
=>high speed devices.  The low mass does not obstruct cornering, while the
=>high speed and low diameter helps them to store more power.  They supposedly
=>should take about 10 minutes to fully "charge", given a large enough (not
=>impossible) power source, although usually not available in the normal home.
=>They should be made of a composite fiber material, so if they should break 
=>apart, they will basically turn into something resembling cotton, instead of
=
=What is all this talkk of particles blowing through the housing?  What
=particles?  The original premise was that these flywheels disintegrate
=into a light cotton like fiber.  Heat, yeah, but how much kinetic energy
=does a flying piece of cotton have?

See?  I *TOLD* you the propaganda would be effective.  The answer to your
question is: That flying piece of cotton will have approximately as much
kinetic energy as was originally stored in the flywheel.  That follows from the
law of conservation of energy.  Just because it's fluffy doesn't mean it's not
dangerous, given that it's going fast enough.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.