Slashdot Mirror


NYC Subways Testing Flywheels

socolow writes "The New York Times (free registration required) has an article about the NYC subway system's use of flywheels to store the braking energy of trains approaching stations. Not only does this advance the development of flywheel energy storage, but it will help relieve a lot of the heat subways generate (always appreciated during the summer)."

138 of 363 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Subway trains shouldn't stop by bbk · · Score: 2

    While a worthy idea, there are simply to many frail/handicapped/uncoordinated people who would make a system like this a nightmare...

    BBK

  2. Regenerative braking by nuggz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why not just use regenerative braking.
    Aren't they already electric?
    It is probaly easier to implement (mechanically) and less additional weight on the subway.

    1. Re:Regenerative braking by Maniakes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Flywheels are (theoretically) more efficient than batteries or fuel cells. IIRC, batteries are 10% efficient, fuel cells 30-40%, while flywheels can be as efficient as the motors (up to 80%).

      --
      A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
    2. Re:Regenerative braking by Noofus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think the reason for not using regenerative braking is that it would essentially requirew the flywheel to be ON the train. This isnt necessaraly a bad thing. You could regenerativly brake INTO your on-board flywheel and then use the stored energy to get the train moving again (with a little help from the third rail).

      They may not have wanted to implement it this way because it might have been easier to build a few flywheels into each station rather than build them into every train in the system. Also this way they can get the idea implemented quickly (install flywheels at stations) rather than have to wait many years while the trains get replaced slowly as they wear out and die.

    3. Re:Regenerative braking by marauder404 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you read the article, you'd know: they can't put power right back into the third rail because the resistance of the rail is too high. And they can't put it into batteries because there aren't batteries big enough to solve the problem. So they use a flywheel.

      Please read the article before posting, next time.

    4. Re:Regenerative braking by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 2

      I'm thinking the batteries aren't that much lighter than a flywheel.

      But one of the biggest reasons not to use the electric motors as generators during breaking to store the power in batteries, is it is probally more efficient to not conver the mechanical energy to electrical, and then when you start rolling again, to turn the stored electrical back to mechanical. Just store the energy as mechanical in the first place.

      On the other hand high energy flywheels are about as scary as wet cell batteries when things go wrong. I saw a video of a Kevlar flywheel coming apart and doing its best to take apart the shield around it.

    5. Re:Regenerative braking by mosch · · Score: 3, Informative

      They are using regenerative braking. That's what the whole article is about, a new application of regenerative braking in a place that people don't usually associate with relatively new technologies.

    6. Re:Regenerative braking by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      Batteries are heavier. Still, they didn't actually say AFAIK, but I think that they were planning to put the flywheels in the station, not on the train; so the weight doesn't matter much. It may be that the flywheels are cheaper than the batteries, and they only have to store the energy for a short time in this case anyway- so it's a perfect application.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    7. Re:Regenerative braking by n9hmg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why not just use regenerative braking
      I'm usually a little kinder than this, but you plainly don't know what regenerative braking actually is. It's a lot more than just a feature of your R/C car. The story is all about regenerative braking. Rather than using friction to convert kinetic energy to heat and getting rid of it, using the motor to convert it back to electrical energy. The flywheels are just the most efficient place to hold on to that energy until it's needed again. It's more efficient to store it near where it's generated, since a stopping train is likely to start again, from the place where it stopped, than to send it all along the system on the rail, where it will mostly be wasted in heating the third rail before it reaches a useful load.
      The thing i found surprising about this story was learning that they weren't already doing something like this.

    8. Re:Regenerative braking by pfalstad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      clue me in please... why is the resistance such a problem, if the third rail is how they are powering the trains in the first place? Why does the braking energy from the trains get wasted, but the energy from the systems that are powering the third rail does not?

    9. Re:Regenerative braking by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 2

      The third rail is already highly charged. Trying to push power from a battery would be like trying to save on power bills by hooking a 9V battery w/ an AC Adaptor to the wall outlet - there's too much power there to push more back in.

      --
      That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    10. Re:Regenerative braking by km790816 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Slow down, turbo.

      Fly wheels have one big issue: very low tolerance for movement. A lot of time and money has gone into using flywheels for cars, but the biggest issue was always trying to keep the thing from crashing--it moves so much that it can't be held by the magnetic ball bearings and it touches the side of the container. This is really bad. Not only do you loose a lot of speed, but it increases the chance of an explosion of carbon-fiber.

      Better to make big flywheels that are stationary and burried in a mountain of cement.

    11. Re:Regenerative braking by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 2

      If the flywheels are built into the subway stations, they can be more than shielded. They will probably be sealed into massive metal chambers surrounded with concrete. Sure, if one breaks it'll be a huge undertaking to replace, but you won't have lost any efficiency compared to now, and you won't kill people as 100-pound chunks of flywheel go flying at 80MPH.

      And you don't really design a system like this with the intent to have it break down.

      Flywheels won't make it into vehicles for some time, especially cars - there's too many unpredictable problems. You wold have to install self-destructive safety mechanisms in your flywheel to avoid killing people.

      Imagine yourself stopping at a light, and when someone rear-ends you, your flywheel immediately blows itself into dust to save your life. Only your life didn't need saving, and now you need a new car.

      --
      That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    12. Re:Regenerative braking by gorilla · · Score: 2
      'The third rail' should really be 'The third rails'. No subway system has a single third rail which powers the whole system, they're always broken into short sections.

      I don't see any reason why there can't be an unpowered third rail specifically for returning power at the stations where most of the braking will take place. If for some reason a train gets stuck there, then the power can be turned back on for long enough to get the train into the next section.

    13. Re:Regenerative braking by GigsVT · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The third rail is already highly charged. Trying to push power from a battery would be like trying to save on power bills by hooking a 9V battery w/ an AC Adaptor to the wall outlet - there's too much power there to push more back in.

      Yeah, it's almost as ludricrous as putting solar panels on your roof and then trying to sell power back to the grid. Oh wait.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    14. Re:Regenerative braking by mcg1969 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, I'm pretty sure that the power is put back into the third rail. The article does not, in fact, say that the resistance in the third rail is always too high. Rather, it says that the resistance is too high if there are no trains close by. After all, resistance is proportional to distance.

      So basically, the plan will be to distribute these flywheel batteries throughout the subway system so that there is always one close by when a car is generating power through its regenerative braking system.

      The author's attempt to simplify the description of the system probably made this hard to see.

    15. Re:Regenerative braking by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Informative
      clue me in please... why is the resistance such a problem, if the third rail is how they are powering the trains in the first place? Why does the braking energy from the trains get wasted, but the energy from the systems that are powering the third rail does not?

      IAAEE, so I'll hazard a guess. They say in the article that the 3rd rail uses 650V DC. For power distribution, this is a relatively low voltage. To minimize resistance losses, power is typically distributed at thousands of volts. To be able to easily convert voltages, you need AC, not DC so you can run it through a transformer.

      I'll bet that they have high-voltage AC power distribution throughout the system, and they step it down to 650 V and rectify to DC it at frequent intervals along the tracks. The distance the power needs to run at low voltage along a high-resistance steel rail would never be very long, so losses are minimal. (I assume they use DC becuase it's easier to design train motors for DC, or something like that.)

      The AC -> DC rectification is not reversible, however, so there would be no way for power generated by a train to get back into the main distribution grid, and the average distance the 650V DC would have to flow throught the 3rd rail to the next train would be too far to be economical.

      (Of course, I could be wrong about all of this, since I don't really know anything about their system.)

    16. Re:Regenerative braking by 4of12 · · Score: 5, Funny

      clue me in please... why is the resistance such a problem, if the third rail is how they are powering the trains in the first place?

      It's all tied together with social security.

      Politicians are often heard saying something along the lines of

      "Social Security is the third rail. Don't touch it."

      You've probably noticed that Social Security benefits are mostly received by old people.

      You've probably also noticed that those old people move slowly. The reason they move more slowly than you or me and the reason they can't drive more than 20 mph under the speed limit is simply because they are encountering resistance.

      Hope that clears it up.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    17. Re:Regenerative braking by candover · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's how the system works, yes. The MTA has 214 substations around the city, which are fed something between 11-27 kV AC, transformed to 400 V AC, and rectified to 600 V DC.

      It's only within the last ten years that they finally retired all of the old pre-solid-state rotary converters in the system - running power backwards through them would have actually worked. :)

      The new cars actually have AC motors - the DC third rail powers a battery on board, I'm not sure exactly what the AC conversion tech is. There's still a couple thousand DC-motored cars riding the rails, so I'm not expecting to see the system switch over to AC distribution....

    18. Re:Regenerative braking by Weh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Afaik the problem is not that the flywheel moves too much but that it moves very little and tends to resist movement due to it's large axial momentum. This creates a problem when it's surroundings (car etc.) moves a lot because the flywheel will resist the movement and thus cause large forces on the bearings etc. If the metro would slow down while spinning up the wheel it wouldn't be that much of a problem I guess, especially if the flywheel is directed in a horizontal plane.

      I don't know where I heard the story, but some guy was telling about how he had a small flywheel which he and his mates would spin up and put into a suitcase, then they would take the suitcase into a hotel and ask the porter to carry the suitcase to their room. The porter would have a real hard time turning the suitcase around any corners and wouldn't understand what was going on.

    19. Re:Regenerative braking by homer_ca · · Score: 2

      Any storage mechanism has its safety downside. If it's not a 36000rpm flywhell, it'll be a compressed gas cylinder or a chemical battery with lots of nasty stuff you don't want leaking out- acid, lithium, or my favorite hot molten sodium and sulfer.

    20. Re:Regenerative braking by ross.w · · Score: 2

      Large DC motors are only used in vehicle applications because of the need to run at a wide range of speeds, even close to zero RPM. In stationary applications AC motors are used even for variable speed because they don't require a commutator.

      Commutators are constantly switching heavy currents while the motor is running and therefore tend to have a short life.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    21. Re:Regenerative braking by Phil+Karn · · Score: 2, Informative
      AC motors are starting to displace DC in electric traction, thanks to modern power semiconductors that can replace mechanical commutators.

      Think of it this way: every motor is really an AC motor. The so-called "DC motor" is really an AC motor that performs an internal DC->AC conversion, usually mechanically. So the change is not from DC to AC, but from mechanical to solid-state DC->AC conversion.

      My EV1 electric car uses a 3-phase AC induction motor driven by a variable frequency, variable voltage inverter that uses IGBTs (insulated gate bipolar transistors), a hybrid between bipolar transistors and MOSFETs. On routine driving around San Diego, regeneration gives me back maybe 10-20% of the energy I move from the batteries to the car. It's not a large percentage, but every little bit helps, and it's not hard to do.

    22. Re:Regenerative braking by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

      If you are doing regenerative braking (using the motor to generate electricity, and slowing yourself down in the process), you can waste the energy as heat (uncomfortable), use it to charge batteries (wasteful, since the efficiency is low, probably less than 50% for the round trip), pump water uphill (might be problematic in NYC, might not be very efficient), or spin up a flywheel attached to a generator. This last might actually have lower efficiency than the battery solution ...

      No way! Motors and generators can easily be designed with efficiencies approaching 100%. Excluding electric heaters (which are exactly 199%, since all the waste is heat B-) they're about the most efficient electrical devices known.

      They'd slag down otherwise - ONE horsepower is almost exactly 3/4 of one KILOwatt - or half a high-end portable electric space heater. So one percent of loss in a 10,000 horsepower motor, generator, or rotary converter is 50 space heaters running full-blast at once. Much of that appears as heat in the copper windings and nearly all the rest as heat in the iron cores they wrap (with negligible losses as bearing friction and air resistance). So you'd quickly have molten copper and red-hot soft iron rather than a rotary machine if it weren't hysterically efficient.

      The flywheel is even better: Bearing and air friction are the main drags, and they're tiny. (If you could put it in a magnetically-shielded perfect vaccuum bottle on hypothetical frictionless bearings the next biggest loss would be tidal heating - which won't stop it for geologic time.)

      Batteries aren't in the same league.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    23. Re:Regenerative braking by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

      electric heaters (which are exactly 199%, since all the waste is heat B-)

      Oops. Typo: 100%

      (I'd have proofread it better but previewing or posting through the company's firewall and proxy server tends to crap out 19 times in 20.)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    24. Re:Regenerative braking by rew · · Score: 2

      Flywheels are (theoretically) more efficient than batteries or fuel cells. IIRC,

      If you have a connection to the power grid you can deliver the energy back to the power grid. You can then hope that some other subway is "using" your regenerated power.

      Generators can be had at 98% efficiency, electrical motors around 90%.

      Roger.

    25. Re:Regenerative braking by ebh · · Score: 2
      RTFA. 650VDC. But MONSTER current.

      A trip to the NYC Transit Museum is very enlightening when you start looking at the hardware required to get all that current to the right place (think of what a 2000 amp circuit breaker would look like).

  3. levitrain by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now if they just make the flywheel out of a superconductor, then not only will it store energy, but the train will be weightless!!!

    Boeing, get on it!

    --

    Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    1. Re:levitrain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Considering how trains in the US are rarely on time, I'd prefer they be waitless :)

    2. Re:levitrain by dbrutus · · Score: 2

      Of course they have a timetable. If they didn't, they couldn't plan properly and avoid crashes. They just don't publish the timetable to avoid the moaning and whining that they're late.

    3. Re:levitrain by Surlyboi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Of course they have a timetable.

      Yeah and all the entries on that timetable read,
      "when we get around to it." The New York City
      subway system is a study in chaos theory sometimes.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
  4. Wow - that would take us all the way to 1920! by sphealey · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Wow - that would take us all the way to 1920 and the Milwaukee Road's use of regenerative braking on their electrified lines through the Cascade Mountains!

    sPh

  5. Gyroscopes by Maniakes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since the flywheels are just great big gyroscopes, what happens when the train makes a sharp turn?

    --
    A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
    1. Re:Gyroscopes by L.+VeGas · · Score: 2

      Who said they are mounted vertically?

    2. Re:Gyroscopes by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      Since the flywheels are going to be in the station, not the train; not a lot.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    3. Re:Gyroscopes by msheppard · · Score: 2

      Mount them horionztally, or implment two with conteracting spins.

      M@

      --
      Krispy Cream is people
    4. Re:Gyroscopes by jmoloug1 · · Score: 2

      Read the article! The flywheels are not stored on the train, but are attached to the tracks.

    5. Re:Gyroscopes by Baba+Abhui · · Score: 2

      Geesh. The flywheels are not on board the train. Did you actually read the story?

    6. Re:Gyroscopes by L.+VeGas · · Score: 2

      OK, then what happens when they enter a sharp downhill section?

      Hee hee. That's a good question. That explains why gyro sandwiches always upset my stomach.

    7. Re:Gyroscopes by iabervon · · Score: 2

      Plus, this'll help tourists by keeping the stations from flipping around when you're not paying attention...

    8. Re:Gyroscopes by L.+VeGas · · Score: 2

      "two with conteracting spins"

      You got me thinking. Can you do such a thing? Another flywheel rotating in the opposite direction would have no additional effect (or would it make it twice as hard to turn an object?). Two gyroscopes mounted perpendicular to each other would make it difficult to turn an object in any direction, wouldn't it?

    9. Re:Gyroscopes by AndrewHowe · · Score: 2

      That's due to the steering geometry, not the gyroscopic effect. You could look at it like this: You are sitting backwards on the bike, and it is going forwards down the hill. The problem is that real wheel steering is inherently unstable.

  6. A Wired article by L.+VeGas · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wired ran an article about the new flywheels a while ago.

    1. Re:A Wired article by borgasm · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...spin a flywheel 20 times faster, at 100,000 rpm, producing 400 times the centrifugal force.

      Silly journalist....there is no such thing as centrifugal force.

      Centripital. Yes.

      Oh how I love rotating bodies.

  7. Pros and Cons by teamhasnoi · · Score: 4, Funny
    Every seat will have a little crank to turn to help drive the flywheel.

    Unfortunately, it takes 45 minutes of winding for 4-5 seconds of run time.

  8. Best quote from the article by displacer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Before the visit ended the other day, a final question had to be asked: What is the purpose of the floating ping-pong ball?

    "Oh that?" Mr. Lobenstein smiled like a child. "That's just to amuse us. Sometimes we get bored."

    1. Re:Best quote from the article by fatbastard10101 · · Score: 2, Informative
      I liked this one more, concerning putting the excess joules right back into the rail:

      "The only problem is that when the power goes back into the rail, it is quickly eaten up by the resistance of the metal. So if other trains are not close by, to scoop up the power, the extra electricity dissipates like so many ripples in a pool."

      If other trains are not close by? How close do they want trains to be?

      That quip about the heat in the stations is no joke. If you go to the yellow line (N/R/Q/W) stations, it is like 110 deg F down there minimum, at 2 AM! People stagger around down there panting and sweating like they're Ozzy.

    2. Re:Best quote from the article by gpinzone · · Score: 2

      If you've ridden on the NYC subway system, you'd know that the trains can be VERY close to each other. But that's not the point...

      This system is essentially giant battery (or rather, 10 small ones) in every station to suck up the power put back into the rail by trains stopping at that station. If a train slows down far away from another train or station battery, there's not much good that power being pumped back into the rails are gonna do anyone.

      Oh, by the way. The reason that the resistance is such a problem? They're DC motors. That's why they can be REVERSED and used as generators. You can't do that with alternators/AC motors. For reasons why DC has problems with transmission across long conductors, ask your local Slashdot geek about the "war" between Edison and Tesla.

    3. Re:Best quote from the article by BrookHarty · · Score: 2

      Yes, but the trains have AC, so its nice and cool, then the doors open, and its 110 degrees blast of air. Doors Close and its nice and chilled again. Real problem to using trains, the heat.

    4. Re:Best quote from the article by Nightpaw · · Score: 2

      That quip about the heat in the stations is no joke. If you go to the yellow line (N/R/Q/W) stations, it is like 110 deg F down there minimum, at 2 AM! People stagger around down there panting and sweating like they're Ozzy.

      That's because they're on drugs like Ozzy.

    5. Re:Best quote from the article by Mignon · · Score: 2

      Here's my goofy idea for dissapating all that extra power - when the train brakes, charge up some mondo capacitors and have them pop off a big-ass EMP, which will fry all those damn cell-phones that people start yammering on the second they get out of the tunnel.

    6. Re:Best quote from the article by zenyu · · Score: 2

      Oh, by the way. The reason that the resistance is such a problem? They're DC motors. That's why they can be REVERSED and used as generators. You can't do that with alternators/AC motors.

      The resistance is a problem because the voltage is only 600V vs 720,000V on an above ground transmission line. 32,000V is the most I know of on underground line. A bigger problem they didn't talk about is that there isn't one big 600V third rail. Each station, more or less, converts grid electricity into 600V DC for the area surrounding it. So two trains, one accelerating and one decelerating near a single station would be needed to use the electricity. Maybe true during rush hour, but definitely not most of the time.

      The AC vs. DC isn't really an issue the new trains that will be running on the L use AC motors. The L line is the only totally isolated track so they will be testing unmanned trains there too. The third rail is 600 V DC. The AC motors will generate AC on a range of frequencies when stopping, but this is all converted to DC before being shunted to the third rail. Normally this would raise the voltage unless another train was accelerating out of the station, since the stations don't try to convert the DC back to AC and send it back to the grid. But with the flywheels the energy will instead be stored for when the train leaves the station.

      I believe the old trains do have regenerative breaking, but mostly to save wear and tear on the breaks. This is only an experiment, maybe it's better to get the generated power back to the grid. It depends on how reliable these things are. The iron rich air in the subway tends to be brutal on electronics, hopefully they have isolated space to put them in. The track power distribution has system has changed a couple times since the original 11,000V 25 Hz. First cuz mercury arc rectifiers were invented and later cuz solid state rectifiers became usable for high power applications. They don't care much about higher frequencies, so they allowed the switch to 60Hz grid power. The original rotary converters probably did distribute regenerative breaking power to other trains much better than the current system, but the cost was still much greater since the subway operators had to run their own power generation and distribution systems. I don't know if the trains had regenerative breaking back then anyway, some of them were wood with coal heaters, not exactly high tech.

      PS IANSE, just an EE with an interest in trains.

  9. Do they manufacture spell checkers? by Jailbrekr · · Score: 2

    I believe thats what they are doing, except they are using flywheel batteries to store the electricity generated during braking.

    --
    Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
  10. I don't buy it by L.+VeGas · · Score: 5, Funny

    I still think my hamster could spin a wheel faster than some dumb fly.

  11. Honda Insight by qurob · · Score: 2, Informative



    regenerative braking, not sure what technologies are used by it.

  12. Re:Subway trains shouldn't stop by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

    they'd still have to slow to a crawl, unless you want to jump off a train going 35 mph...

  13. Heat due to A/C by yasth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hmmm the heat has little to do with the electric motors, and much more to do with Air Conditioned Subway cars. The heat in the cars has to go somewhere so it (and some energy involved in moving it) goes out into the tunnels and the stations. Suposedly before A/C the cars were hot but the stations were cool(as one would expect for what is bassicaly a basement.)

    --
    I'd do something interesting, but my server can't handle a slashdotting.
    1. Re:Heat due to A/C by afidel · · Score: 2

      600M Watts is what the system uses, thats a crapload of power. I am guessing total efficiency of the system for actually moving people is like 20%, that means the heat from 480M watts of wasted electricity is given off into the subway system, quite a bit. I just got back from vacation and my brain is still mostly off or I would compute how many BTU's.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Heat due to A/C by southpolesammy · · Score: 2

      That's not really true. The stations are hot during the summer and cold during the winter because even though they are underground, they are essentially prone to the elements. When it rains, it's humid in the stations, when it's hot outside, it's even worse down there. When it snows, it gets arctic-like in the stations, and when the wind from the train blows through during the winter, it's bone-chilling.

      The A/C on the cars in the summer and the heat from the 3rd rails almost certainly have little to do with the heat down there, IMHO.

      --
      Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
  14. Re:Could we get a "No NYT" option? by Arcturax · · Score: 2

    I wouldn't mind that myself.

    I wonder how much the NYT pays Michael to post their articles links here. I swear almost every article he posts is from the NYT page.

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  15. Where to stick your flywheel.... by Sweetums · · Score: 5, Informative
    Several posts refer to the flywheel as being on the train. I don't think it explicitly says in the article, but I think it's clear that they are talking about stationary equipment in the stations, not flywheels on the trains. Lots of advantages to this.

    The modifications to the trains are actually significant to support this, but it's about how the braking systems work and how the motor controllers work on the trains. There are a class of motor controllers that are not really compatible with regenerative braking, and they are fairly commonly used since they are cheaper than the others. The conversion to regenerative braking may involve replacing a fair bit of gear on the rolling stock. They were considering this kind of thing in San Diego, which is where I picked up lots of this trivia.

    Many rail systems and streetcar systems have regenerative braking, but frequently they don't store the energy. What they do is have one unit braking while another is accellerating, so the excess power is in effect transferred via the wire to the other vehicle. Think of cable car systems where the guy at the top of the hill counterbalances the one at the bottom. This is hard to make work though, the timing issues being what they are.

    My $.02

    --
    ------------------------
    Jack not name, jack job!
    1. Re:Where to stick your flywheel.... by gspeare · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wouldn't say the article does an exceptional job of describing where the flywheels are placed, but a closed read does imply very strongly that they are outside.

      Besides, 10 batteries, each the weight of a Volkswagen, might have some negative impact on the performance characteristics and power usage of your average subway train.

  16. Registration Required ? by unixmaster · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the out_of_the_topic dept.

    If you dont wanna register at NYTimes visit NYT Random Login Generator
    But because NYTimes block based on referrers you got two chances 1 - Disable Javascript or a better one get Multizilla Toolbar for Mozilla
    It has a nice option like "Dont send referrer" .
    Choose it and boom you are in !

    --
    Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again
  17. A little too excited? by dr_dank · · Score: 3, Funny

    Or, as Robert Schmitt, another transit electrical official, put it, excitedly: "They're sitting here, saying: `Give it to me! Give it to me! Give it to me!'

    Ok, this guy needs to get laid. Now.

    --
    Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
  18. Smell by cporter · · Score: 2
    "it will help relieve a lot of the heat subways generate (always appreciated during the summer)."

    Now, if they could just do something about the smell. The Broadway-Fulton-Nassau station certainly gets rank in the summer.

  19. Flywheels: Just Say No!! by dfn5 · · Score: 4, Funny
    Yes, but they have a nasty habit of slowing down the Earth's rotation.

    Save the planet. Vote NO on flywheels.

    --
    -- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
    1. Re:Flywheels: Just Say No!! by Nightpaw · · Score: 3, Funny

      No no, keep using them until our day is 25 hours long. Then we can get another hour of sleep each day.

    2. Re:Flywheels: Just Say No!! by Have+Blue · · Score: 2

      Why not just randomly alternate the spin direction of all manufactured flywheels? It can't be that hard.

  20. Wow, 36,000 is a lot of RPM... by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Informative

    and a million watts is a lot of power.

    Let's hope those flywheels are enclosed in something pretty solid.

    Storing that much energy is one thing. Accidentally releasing it is another. When I was a student at MIT there was a permanent display in a glass case in the hallway of the biology department showing a centrifuge rotor that exploded, just to remind everyone of what happens when something spins too fast.

    Let's also hope there's something to muffle that 600 Hz whine (which is close to the peak of human hearing sensitivity).

    And I thought the wheels on Boston's Green Line screeching when going around sharp turns was bad...

    1. Re:Wow, 36,000 is a lot of RPM... by Tim+Doran · · Score: 2

      Last I heard, high-performance flywheels were being made of graphite fibre... spin 'em too fast and the fibres separate, dissapating the energy (and turning your very expensive flywheel into a box of cotton candy).

    2. Re:Wow, 36,000 is a lot of RPM... by aeoo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, modern flywheels are almost never solid. They are usually made from rings, or fiber. There is a Russian scientist named Gulia who invented and patented (to my knowledge) a way to wind fiber so that both ends end up inside the flywheel. This is critical because at high RPM a loose end can undo the entire flywheel. Using kevlar and other fiber like that allows you to have flywheels that can withstand incredible forces. In general, flywheels are far more efficient than any battery in terms of energy storage, and how fast they can store and release energy. Also, modern flywheels can fly on a magnetic suspension and in vacuum as well. Flywheels, in my opinion, are simply the best way to store energy. When fiber flywheel explodes, it does so one thread at a time. They are relatively safe and the only thing they generate when they explode is heat.

    3. Re:Wow, 36,000 is a lot of RPM... by khendron · · Score: 2

      But that cotton candy still contains all the energy that was stored in the flywheel, and that energy has to go somewhere.

      A flywheel's mode of failure is catastrophic. A failure in a set of flywheels that stored a *megawatt* of power is going to kill a lot of people unless it is properly contained.

      --
      Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
    4. Re:Wow, 36,000 is a lot of RPM... by rabtech · · Score: 3, Informative

      I work with pro audio, and let me clue you in on the range of human hearing...

      We can hear as low as 20hz and as high as 20,000hz (20k). However, most people perceive stuff above 16k as some sort of noise, but they can't really make it out or get a directional location on it.

      The human voice has a smaller range... around 85hz for a really good male bass singer up to 1.1k for a really good female soprano.

      That's not the whole of it though, because you get into things about even/odd harmonics, plus the fact that one octave around 20hz doesn't take many additional cycles to hit the next octave, but it takes thousands of cycles around 20k to jump an octave.

      Human hearing isn't linear by any means. We are nearly deaf at the lower end of the scale; that's why we often "feel" bass -- not because when its loud enough to hear it is also felt, but more like to get enough energy so that our ears can even hear it you have to put out a LOT of power. But I digress...

      --
      Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
    5. Re:Wow, 36,000 is a lot of RPM... by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* Umm, aren't flywheels supposed to be encased in a vacuum? Hence, no noise? *)

      If the entire mechanism was, perhaps (such as magnetic levitation). However, if there are bearings and gears and axiles, then these can transmit noise to the outside.

    6. Re:Wow, 36,000 is a lot of RPM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The neat thing about composite flywheels is that, if they fail, they tend to explode into alot of small fagments, which are much easier to contain then metal flywheels. When a metal flywheel fails, it typically comes apart into 3 large chunks.

      And, IIRC, composite flywheels are almost never built using filament winding. Thsi would put the fibers mostly tangential, and just matrix supporting the highest stress radial directions.

      Flywheels failures tend initiate in tension near the hub, not at the rim. That's why optimal flywheel radius profiles are thicker in the middle & taper toward the edges, and why a filament-wound flywheel probably wouldn't work very well.

      I did some research on this back in grad school. The best arrangement for a laminated composite flywheel was to have alternating +-theta plys, with theta slowly increasing through the thickness (and symmetric about the center plane). Or use a woven pre-preg, and again rotate it through the thickness.

    7. Re:Wow, 36,000 is a lot of RPM... by Perdo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      10 inch diameter 25 pound carbon fiber flywheel at 36,000 rpm.

      Edge speed is 1071 Miles per hour.

      A "flander" is a large splinter that explodes off the inside of a ship's hull when a cannon ball hits broadside at sub-sonic velocities. Thus the term "smash to flanders".

      a 25 pound cannonball will completely breach 8 inches of wood creating a manticore of wood splinter shrapnel.

      A tornado will drive pieces of straw through a wall at subsonic speeds.

      A winch cable will crack at supersonic speeds if it snaps. A winch cable will shear an engine block.

      100 lashes is a death penalty.

      Kinetic Energy = 1/2*I*w*w

      I = moment of inertia --> ability of an object to resist changes in its rotational velocity

      w = rotational velocity (rpm)

      I = k *M*R*R (M=mass; R=Radius); k = intertial constant (depends on shape)

      Inertial constants for different shapes:

      Wheel loaded at rim (bicycle tire): k =1
      solid disk of uniform thickness; k = 1/2

      I assumed 4/5 because of the design they used

      Kinetic Energy of flywheel = 68,428,800 Joules

      357 Magnum = 937 Joules .50 cal sniper rifle = 16,539 Joules

      4000 sniper rifle bullets worth of energy exploding outward in the form of tiny splinters of a substance that happens to have one of the highest tensile strengths. Assume 98% of the kinetic energy is lost to heat. 80 sniper bullets.

      Bad news.

      --

      If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

    8. Re:Wow, 36,000 is a lot of RPM... by Storm+Damage · · Score: 2

      What you're not calculating is the dispersion effect. 80 Sniper bullets contain a lot of kinetic energy, sure, but all that energy is divided up around several thousand tiny little pieces of shrapnel, the size of a cornflake or smaller...

  21. Re:Arthur C. Clarke by gilroy · · Score: 2
    Blockquoth the poster:
    I believe that they had a transportation system that was essentially a wide moving sidewalk; the closer to the middle you moved, the faster it went.
    I haven't read enough Clarke to be sure, but you're definitely describing something like Asimov's "strips" in the novel The Caves of Steel -- set, appropriately enough, in New York City (albiet a NYC that had expanded to consume north Jersey and Connecticut).
  22. Parry People Mover by gwernol · · Score: 2

    Related to this is the Parry People Mover which has been developed by a small company in Wales. This is designed as a light urban tansit system using flywheel to run the "people movers". The flywheels in these lightweight cars are recharged by either onboard LPG internal combustion engines or by electric motors fed from recharging points at stations.

    They have been trialed on the Welsh Highland Railway and on the island of Mauritius omngst several other schemes - a quick Google search will turn up a lot more information about some of the trials.

    While not a total success it is good to see innovation in this area.

    --
    Sailing over the event horizon
  23. More information here by brandonsr · · Score: 5, Informative

    Right here A very good article (with illustrations) that tells how flywheels work and store energy. Pretty neat stuff.

  24. No heat? What about the homeless? by TheLocustNMI · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What about the homeless people who rely on the subway heat vents in the winter?

  25. Is there any danger? by Dirtside · · Score: 2

    I personally love the idea of using flywheels to store energy in this manner -- it seems very elegant to simply transfer the energy into rotational motion, rather than simply losing it all as heat.

    There's one safety concern I have that I haven't yet seen addressed, though I've probably just missed it. If a flywheel is spinning at several tens of thousands of RPM (such as the 36,000 RPM flywheel mentioned in the story), what happens if the flywheel's physical supports are damaged or destroyed?

    Basically, let's say a truck crashes into the building storing a spinning flywheel. The flywheel's housing is hit and breaks, putting the flywheel into physical contact with other materials. What happens? I have visions of a thousand-kilo ceramic disc either spinning off like the Tazmanian Devil, leaving a disc-shaped cartoon hole in whatever it encounters, or shattering upon impact and spraying shards of material at hundreds of meters per second in sundry directions.

    The problem is, I don't know if this is actually true or not. Can anyone with an actual knowledge of such things answer? Thanks.

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    1. Re:Is there any danger? by Dirtside · · Score: 2

      Actually, I already had one idea for avoiding this (potential) problem... if the flywheels are rotating around an axis perpendicular to the ground, then you can place the flywheel in a pit dug into the ground. That way, if the flywheel "crashes" or spins off, it will (in theory) embed itself a few meters into solid rock. Seems better than having it above-ground, anyway.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    2. Re:Is there any danger? by MindStalker · · Score: 2

      Shrugs, these are underground. And there arn't that many earthquakes in NY, (though some are predicted) I assume they have figured most of this out already.

    3. Re:Is there any danger? by afidel · · Score: 2

      They are carbon fibre so they disintigrate, though the immediate surroundings may take some punishment. That is why they are usually entoumbed in several feet of concrete.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  26. This is old news! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2
    I used flywheel technology many years ago with my Hot Wheels Destuction Alley Playset(TM). The flywheels would drive the cars at unpossible! speeds.

    Of course, I don't recommend loop the loops, and the CrossRoads of Danger(TM) would have to go.

    The cool cardboard desert backgrounds and grandstands could stay, though. And the orange plastic track would make an excellent subway defense weapon!

    "Mom, he's beating me with the track again!" "Well, hit him back, I'm busy!"

  27. Re:Arthur C. Clarke by sphealey · · Score: 2
    I haven't read enough Clarke to be sure, but you're definitely describing something like Asimov's "strips" in the novel The Caves of Steel.
    Clarke's Against the Fall of Night (later rewritten as The City and the Stars) predates Asimov's Caves of Steel. Clarke's ciy of Dispar had the variable speed walkways.

    sPh

  28. Flywheel info by Real+World+Stuff · · Score: 2

    A good break down of Power vs. Energy located here . Not here.

    --
    If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
  29. nycsubway by nycsubway · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I love the NYC Subway system. It smells bad at times, but its an engineering marvel. So many people, tunnels, electrical, mechanical systems. a good website is http://www.nycsubway.org

    1. Re:nycsubway by dbrutus · · Score: 2

      Also, it never closes, unlike many other subway systems.

  30. Re:Subway trains shouldn't stop by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 2

    Yes, and what do you do when you get to the end of the moving sidewalk; get thrown off the platform at 20 MPH?

    --
    That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
  31. Jumbo Capacitor by dnoyeb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Effectively this is like a big capacitor. I surmise a chemical battery would have issues with constant discharge/recharge. Whereas a flywheel couldn't care less.

    The flywheels could not go in the train because the bumpy ride would continuously siphon off power, and you know power siphoned off would be in the form of heat. Not to mention that each battery weighs as a small volkswagen :D

    Their solution to the voltage loss in the 3rd rail is a half-assed one. They claim the distance between the trains would cause too much loss in the line if they tried to transmit power back across it. Yet they are still transmiting power across it anyway?!? They must plan on the average distange between a train and the battery station to be smaller than between a train and another train, though the article strangely failed to say.

    I really didnt enjoy 1/2 the article being fluff about the lack of glory in being a transit engineer...

    1. Re:Jumbo Capacitor by dnoyeb · · Score: 2

      True but the main objective is to preserve power. They would have to evaluate if more power is lost in the transmission line, or if more power is lost through the jarring of the flywheels.

  32. Re:Flywheels -- the REAL ULTIMATE POWER. by 3-State+Bit · · Score: 2

    It's been done.

  33. Danger involved! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2
    Here is an article describing some early testing of flywheels and how dangerous they can be in the wrong hands. Please take care when experimenting with flywheels.

    They'll put your eye out.

  34. Braking power? by ldopa1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I understand the concept of harvesting braking to push a flywheel to greater speeds, therefore storing the energy, but I have a couple of questions:

    Aren't flywheels tremendously heavy? Wouldn't the additional weight cause longer stopping distances, especially under emergency braking?

    I do understand that the braking would be assisted by the flywheel itself (spinning it up), but you never get anything for free (See The First Law of Thermodynamics.). When spinning up the wheels, you'd have heat loss, and loss again when they are spun down. Secondly, again, because of the 1st Law, wouldn't the heat generated by all of those flywheels spinning up and down exactly equal the heat savings? Moreover, thinking of emergency braking - What is the top speed of the flywheels? How strong do the gears need to be to spin up the flywheel to top speed very quickly? And at what tremendous gear ratio?

    Don't think that I'm against it, cause I'm not. I think the electricity savings alone make it worth the effort and expense, but I'm not convinced that the trains would be as safe as the existing ones, and that there would be any heat savings. That said, CA needs to convert the BART next....

    --
    The Dopester
    "Yes, I'm a Karma Whore, but I'm doing it to pay my way through school."
    1. Re:Braking power? by boarder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the wheels aren't on the trains, they are on the tracks. yes, putting heavy wheels on the train would increase stopping distances, but these are ground fixed and change the translational motion of the train to rotational motion. because of friction and other losses, the energy isn't completely transfered, but it's better than nothing. the way this will help braking is that the brakes won't have to work so hard on the trains themselves so it will help emergency braking (IF it is near one... there will only be a certain number of them spread throughout the grid).

      Of course, I didn't read the article so I may be wrong... but I've read a lot of posts and this is what they are saying.

      --
      IANAL, but I play one on /.
    2. Re:Braking power? by Arcturax · · Score: 2

      Yes, you don't get back out exactly what was put in, but it does make the system more efficient and saving $20 million a year in electric costs is nothing to sneeze at. Nothing wrong with making the system a bit more efficient, helps both the environment and the city at the same time.

      --

      --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
    3. Re:Braking power? by MicroBerto · · Score: 2
      You're probably right about the weight, but think about situations that are currently using batteries. These guys are saying that you'll get more energy output than batteries, and they are lighter and longer-lasting!

      But since there's no batteries on subways (right?), you're probably right because we're just adding a bunch of metal components.

      --
      Berto
  35. I think we're missing the big picture... by 3am · · Score: 2

    The article says that the chief electricians were able to get a ping-pong ball to levitate!

    Has anyone told Boeing yet?

    --

    A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
  36. Re:Slashdot NYTimes Login by d3xt3r · · Score: 2

    Try to do people a favor and this is the thanks one gets around here. ;)

  37. Another little contributor... by mlinksva · · Score: 2

    ...to the conservation bomb.

  38. Re:Very cool idea. by Real+World+Stuff · · Score: 2

    Flywheel UPS information is here.

    --
    If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
  39. It's been done, for elevators by Animats · · Score: 2
    Cyclic elevators that don't stop have been built. In Europe, they're called "Paternosters". There's also the vertical conveyer belt with steps, the Manlift, a rather scary device sometimes found in parking garages, grain elevators, and factories.

    Both require some physical agility, and are rarely seen today.

  40. Re:Could we get a "No NYT" option? by gorilla · · Score: 2

    I think he's saying NYT, because NYT is the registration required website which has the highest likelyhood of being on /.?

  41. Exploded centrifuge images by uberstool · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://web.mit.edu/charliew/www/centrifuge.html

  42. Re:Could we get a "No NYT" option? by dschuetz · · Score: 2

    How about we all simply agree that we all know that NYT requires registration, and stop putting "free registration, blah blah blah" in all the damned stories!

    Sorry. Too much caffeine today.

  43. Little Effect on Subway Heat by MoNickels · · Score: 2

    Most of the warmth in the subways is caused by heat that has been absorbed by the roadbeds above radiating downward into the stations, to a lesser degree by the exhaust of the air conditioning on subway cars, and to a still smaller degree by steam tunnels that border some of the tunnels and run in parallel conduits. Not by braking trains.

    --

    Wordnik, a dictionary project which aims to collect

    1. Re:Little Effect on Subway Heat by mihalis · · Score: 2
      Most of the warmth in the subways is caused by heat that has been absorbed by the roadbeds above radiating downward into the stations, to a lesser degree by the exhaust of the air conditioning on subway cars, and to a still smaller degree by steam tunnels that border some of the tunnels and run in parallel conduits. Not by braking trains.

      Well, that directly contradicts what I've read about it, so perhaps you'd like to cite your sources. Even just thinking about it a moment shows that the heat of the brakes must be significant. A huge amount of energy is used to accelerate these trains, and what brakes do is convert the momentum into heat. That heat is dissipated from the brakes into the air in the tunnels/stations.

  44. Re:Arthur C. Clarke by matthewn · · Score: 2, Informative

    Heinlein's "The Roads Must Roll" (1940) predates Clarke's Against the Fall of Night (1953). You can read the Heinlein tale in The Past Through Tomorrow. It tells the story of what happens when the blue-collar workers who run and maintain the moving-sidewalk "roads" go on strike. (Hint: Mayhem.)

  45. Re:Very cool idea. by gpinzone · · Score: 2

    That would assume that a flywheel would be a better battery than fuel cells. At the power output level that you need for a UPS, the answer is probably no.

  46. Re:No heat? What about the homeless? by dbrutus · · Score: 2

    Well, maybe the next time the cops offer them a spot at the shelter, they won't turn it down. Police and social services go out every night and round up the homeless so they don't freeze to death. Some of the homeless prefer a subway grate to the shelters and if they're not obviously nuts, the police have to let them do it. 1/3 of the homeless population is mentally ill.

  47. Re:No heat? What about the homeless? by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 2

    It's illegal to be homeless in New York City.

    Don't believe me? Want to mod me down? Go ahead, just don't try to not have a job or a home or any money in NY, otherwise they'll throw you in jail.

    --
    [o]_O
  48. Are we to take this seriously? by treat · · Score: 2
    Considering this confused statement:

    A very, very big battery. Or, to be more accurate, 10 of them, each weighing as much as a Volkswagen Bug and together able to store up to a million watts of power.

    Are we to take this article seriously, or to believe anything it says? If they do not know the difference between power and energy, there is no telling what else in the article may be untrue.

    1. Re:Are we to take this seriously? by treat · · Score: 2
      Power, measured in wattage, is the sum total energy that is available from a system.

      Power, measured in wattage, is the rate at which energy is being used.

      However, I believe that a different problem does exist in their statement, a P=IE is only part of what is necessary. I believe that stored power is supposed to be measured in watt hours.

      A different problem with their statement? That is the problem which I referred to.

    2. Re:Are we to take this seriously? by delcielo · · Score: 2

      They're dumbing it down for the simple folk. Kind of like I do for my three-year old daughter.

      "We're going to Grandma's later."
      "How much later?"
      "8 Sponge Bobs"

      --
      Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
  49. Re:Slashdot NYTimes Login by d3xt3r · · Score: 2
    Weird, i just tried to log back into NYT and that user/pass fails for me too. Maybe they did block it. Or maybe they blocked it because I gave them a fake email address.

    Oh well, guess I deserve to be considered troll then. :)

  50. a few years ago by KingPrad · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I remember Discover magazine doing an article about a scientist named Bitterly workeing for US Flywheel Systems developing flywheel technology for use in cars. At that time he had developed a way to make superdense flywheels from (I think) carbon thread spun into solid rings. It was extremely rigid and dense and maintained shape for a long time and at high (1700) rpm.

    Each flywheel gave steady 25 horespower and could double that for short kicks. Four would drive a car, but you could fit about 16 in an engine compartment (don't need engine, transmission, etc). That's 400 horsepower, and if you floor it you get 800 instantly! Also they would take you about 300 miles on a spin-up, which was accomplished by plugging the car into a wall socket, revving up the wheels with an electric motor - a charge would cost about 6 dollars of electricity.

    Flywheels are better than batteries in a lot of ways. I'm glad to see they are finally being used for commercial applications. I haven't heard anything about the automobile flywheel guy since, but I'm sure his work won't be for nought. I'm equally sure car manufacturers and oil companies would stop him flat if he tried to market it though.

    http://www.discover.com/search/index.html

    You can search for it here with 'flywheel' as keyword - article name is 'Reinventing the Wheel'.

    --
    Stop the Slashdot Effect! Don't read the articles!
    1. Re:a few years ago by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2

      if a car with flywheel crashes it gets very bad.

      these things can jump all over the place still spinning and cutting any one they hit in two.

      thats the main reason flywheels are not used on cars.

  51. Re:Could we get a "No NYT" option? by donutello · · Score: 3, Funny

    any /. story where the bulk of the information is on a NYT-hosted page is useless to me

    Why can't you just post without reading the articles - like everyone else?

    --
    Mmmm.. Donuts
  52. Re:Subway trains shouldn't stop by spike+hay · · Score: 2



    Yes, and what do you do when you get to the end of the moving sidewalk; get thrown off the platform at 20 MPH?


    I dunno, lay down some foam or somthing.

    --
    If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  53. Re:thank goodness by Russ+Steffen · · Score: 2, Funny
    it was starting to feel a little too much like California

    Yeah, 'cause here in Califronia we're all huddled in the dark trying to cook food with power from the rationed 9-volt batteries that FEMA hands out once a month.

  54. why 25,000 mph? by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 2

    I saw this figure mentioned in the boeing article as well. I don't understand where it comes from.

    If an object sitting on the ground were to no longer feel the earth's gravitational pull, I don't think that it will fly up into the air. At first, it would just hover up against the ground. It would continue moving at ~1050mph (the tangential velocity of an object on the earth's surface) in the direction it was moving when the gravity stoped. It's like if you were to stand on the edge of a fast moving merry-go-round, and slip off. In the first few instants, you would have almost no speed relative to the ride, but you would continue going the same speed that you were before, in the same direction. If you were to continue flying away for some time, the greatest speed relative to the center of the ride would be the origional tangential speed. In the case of the earth, that's ~1050 mph.

    --

    Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    1. Re:why 25,000 mph? by MyHair · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I just pulled that figure from the anti-grav story for a silly reference.

      In all the discussion in how a gravity-shielded object would fly off the Earth I never saw anyone consider the effects of air friction or the fact that the gravity shielding situation would change depending on whether the anti-grav spinning disc were fixed to the ground or the flying object, and if it were fixed to the flying object then if there were some mechanism to rotate the gyroscopic superconductor to new angles as it's angular position over Earth changed, etc. Plus it would block gravity from certain angles; there would be plenty of gravitational pull from other nearby sources if you blocked Earth's gravity. To me the whole discussion was silly. But hey, this is Slashdot and I'm by no means a physicist.

      Also, tangential speed on the Earth depends on your latitude.

      And speaking of gyroscopic tendencies--and getting back on topic--some people thought the flyweels would be on the trains. A flywheel heavy and fast enough for this purpose would interefere with/be interfered with by the train's motions, wouldn't it? Plus the refrigerator-sized boxes (one of which featuring a hovering ping pong ball) the article describes are presumably the flywheel batteries, and they were in a control/monitoring station and not on the train, although the article didn't seem to clearly state this.

  55. Re:You are retarded. Really. by Mignon · · Score: 2
    "your ZIP/email/state/whatever is invalid".

    I was thinking about this the other day, when signing up for some similar site: I thought the WTC used to have their own ZIP code(s). I was too lazy to look them up to use them, but I wonder if they would have worked.

  56. Weapon? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Out of morbid couriosity, has anybody researched using fast flywheels as weapons?

  57. Gyroscope effect? by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I seem to recall reading many years ago about testing on a bus that had a flywheel for regenerative breaking (in Scandinavia IIRC). The main problem with it was the gyroscope effect - trying to turn left or right creates a force at ninety degrees (ie up or down) and this proved too much for the suspension to deal with. Guess it's less of an issue with a subway train...?

    --
    My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    1. Re:Gyroscope effect? by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2

      i cant see why that would be a problem, unless they positioned the fly wheel verticaly which would not be very smart.

  58. Re:Subway trains shouldn't stop by isorox · · Score: 2

    Yes, and what do you do when you get to the end of the moving sidewalk; get thrown off the platform at 20 MPH?

    Move onto a 15mph one

  59. The Cincinnati Subway by Doktor+Memory · · Score: 2

    Amusingly enough, there is a subway in Cincinnati. Well, about three or four stations worth, anyway. They started construction on it in the 70s, ran out of money, and never completed it.

    More details here.

    --

    News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.

  60. Re:Subway Discomforts by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2

    so they have to figure out a way to close off the stations ventilation during the winter. there is not going back :)

  61. Re:thank goodness by bleckywelcky · · Score: 2


    I think people all over the country are being hit with blackouts due to the unseasonably hot and humid weather. Here in SE Michigan we have been routinely having 90%+ humidity levels on 90+ F days. People run their A/Cs non-stop and power consumption is extremely high overall. So far I think we have run into 10 or more blackouts over the last 2 to 3 months. I sweat like a fking pig out in the weather during the day (classes , plus I install and service A/Cs heh) so I crank my A/C down to 65 or 70 during the day depending on how I feel, and 65 or below during the night. Feels like winter when I wake up, but damn I sleep good! :P

  62. They use DC... by Newer+Guy · · Score: 2

    They use DC for the same reasons that elevators use DC..smooth braking and acceleration.... Also, DC is necessary because as part of the power distribution there are 'breaks' in the third rail...and the rail actually uses the car to complete the break. An AC system would have to maintain phase scycronization for this to work.

  63. Re:WOW thats fast!! by MicroBerto · · Score: 2

    Carbon fibers, but that will change with nanotubes within 10 years.

    --
    Berto
  64. Re:No heat? What about the homeless? by zenyu · · Score: 2

    What about the homeless people who rely on the subway heat vents in the winter?

    They actually hang out near the steam vents so it's not really a problem. I live near a co-generation plant so there are a few extra citizens on cold winter days around here.

  65. I thought it said "Party People Mover" by brianvan · · Score: 2

    ... and I'm thinking about all these drunk people never going home, and some Guinness world records being set for party length and alcohol consumption.

    They need to have this.

  66. A little OT: Noise reduction by fractaltiger · · Score: 2
    Let's also hope there's something to muffle that 600 Hz whine (which is close to the peak of human hearing sensitivity).


    I'm not sure which of the noises you are talking about but I agree with you!

    It's kinda like a forced upgrade
    The new trains like those that operate on the 6 line actually drown out a lot of the track noise and have less jumpy/noisy ractions to track imperfections, right? However, whatever it is, their new turbine-like humming is very noisy, though it sounds more like something between 440+ and 512- Hz (near the key of B). The train ride is more comfortable, but I have found it hard to talk to girls because the noise drowns out their voices. The loud whine starts up as soon as the train accelerates and I have not heard it inside or outside the older trains (A, B and D, older 4 models, etc)

    I hope someone notices the whine before the state spends millions replacing the trains that didn't have that 'feature.'

    --
    "Wireless : LAN :: Laptop : Desktop"
  67. Re:Could we get a "No NYT" option? by NickV · · Score: 2

    1) Slashdot won't sell my e-mail address. NYT will.

    They say they won't, and they're the most reputable and respected news source in the WORLD. They depend on their reputation. I'd expect /. (with VA as their parent company) to sell our email addresses WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY before the largest, richest, and arguably most powerful news source in the world.

    2) Being a registered /. user provides me with significant benefits (increased posting level, accumulation of karma, a journal area, friend/foe tracking) above and beyond simple access. Obviously, you can read everything on /. as an AC, unlike NYT.

    Since you aren't a NYT registered user, you have NO clue as to what extras you get for being a subscriber. How about trying it to see? (customization, custom stories sent to your email, custom story pages... very very nice overall)