View Single Post
Old 04-19-2019, 04:38 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,597

Originally Posted by Rakarskiy View Post
The fact that I counted, in the video, our "cunning mathematician" did not impress me. I disagree with his calculations. The fact that it takes into account the radius of the flywheel in the calculation is true. Judging because it introduces the force for acceleration of the flywheel, not through the axis, but closer to the circumference line, it is also true (similarly impose the force of the jolt and your American engineers). You argued that the calculation is not true, and there is not any additives. The calculation is really slippery, but the flywheel at certain speeds has a quadratic increase in the energy index. For this, I gave an example conducted under the guidance of Professor Guli (inventor of the super flywheel). My answer satisfied you.
Thanks for your explanation, but the kinetic energy or angular momentum of the rotor (flywheel) does not enter into the power and efficiency calculations of the motor in the video demonstration because it is spinning at a constant speed at the point where the experimenter makes the measurements and calculations.

As you can plainly see in the Russian paper you posted, they are interested in and measure the acceleration (and deceleration) of the flywheel. A change in speed (RPM) is needed to use or store energy in the flywheel. That energy is simply irrelevant in a constant speed power or efficiency calculation. That is why I call the bad math guy in the subject video an idiot.

Sorry if you disagree but no sense of me posting more. I have explained my stated opinion.

Thanks for the discussion.

Reply With Quote