Mechanical Steel vs. Magnetic Levitation Composite Flywheels?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

An ideal composite flywheel, magnetically levitated in a vacuum, can store approximately eight times more energy per unit mass compared to an ideal ball bearing steel alloy flywheel of the same size and shape. This significant difference arises because composite flywheels, particularly carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP), can withstand much higher rotational velocities. The energy density of these materials is directly proportional to their specific strength, while maximum velocity is related to the square root of that strength. Active feedback mechanisms may be necessary for maintaining balance in maglev systems, potentially consuming additional energy.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of composite materials, specifically carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP)
  • Knowledge of energy density and specific strength concepts
  • Familiarity with magnetic levitation (maglev) technology
  • Basic principles of rotational dynamics and flywheel design
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties and applications of carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) in engineering
  • Explore the principles of magnetic levitation and its applications in flywheel technology
  • Investigate the relationship between specific strength and energy density in materials
  • Learn about the design and control mechanisms for active feedback in maglev systems
USEFUL FOR

Engineers, material scientists, and researchers interested in advanced flywheel technology, energy storage solutions, and the applications of composite materials in high-performance systems.

BasketDaN
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
Spinning at their respective maximum velocities, approximately how much more energy will an ideal composite flywheel (magnetically levitated in a vaccum) be able to store than an ideal ball bearing steel alloy flywheel of the same size and shape? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Anybody? ..
 
Isn't it purely dependent upon the rotating mass (and distribution thereof) as opposed to what material is used?
 
I think he's asking about the difference that the support mechanism makes -- maglev versus bearings with physical contact. It seems like the maglev approach will still burn energy, because it will likely take some active feedback to keep the flywheel balanced while it spins, especially at high velocities. To the OP -- were you thinking of some passive maglev scheme to try to minimize the extra energy needed? Is passive maglev going to be sufficient? Do you have examples of maglev flywheels that you can point us to for reference?
 
I see. I thought that the phrase 'ball bearing steel alloy flywheel' meant that the wheel was made out of bearing metal, not that it was supported by ball bearings.
 
BasketDaN said:
Spinning at their respective maximum velocities, approximately how much more energy will an ideal composite flywheel (magnetically levitated in a vaccum) be able to store than an ideal ball bearing steel alloy flywheel of the same size and shape? Thanks.

Looks to be about 8x more energy / unit mass for composites from the figures at

http://www.aspes.ch/faq.html#Why%20composite%20materials

(CFRP, some sort of carbon fiber composite, I guess, having the highest rating).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The difference only exists because composite flywheels are able to withstand far greater rotational velocities than are steel flywheel.s

Yeah, I found that site too,, do you think the specific strength is directly proportional to the maximum speed it can withstand?
 
Nope, velocity goes as the square-root of the specific strength, energy density goes directly as the specific strength.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
21K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
955
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
16K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K