Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [carfree_cities] Maglev - energy

Expand Messages
  • Ed Brighton
    ... Energy consumption for small-gap EMS type levitation is surprisingly not a big deal. The HSST apparently uses less energy for levitation than it does for
    Message 1 of 30 , Nov 19, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      on 11/18/01 9:22, J.H. Crawford at postmaster@... wrote:

      > On the down side, you have the energy losses involved
      > in magnetically levitating the vehicle.

      Energy consumption for small-gap EMS type levitation is surprisingly not a
      big deal. The HSST apparently uses less energy for levitation than it does
      for air conditioning.

      Ref: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UrbanMaglev/files/HSST/HSSTfaq
    • Ed Brighton
      ... EB: I disagree. If you inform yourself I think you will find there is some great advancements here. Here are some links re the low-speed Pittsburgh
      Message 2 of 30 , Nov 19, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        on 11/18/01 16:48, Mark Rauterkus at mark@... wrote:

        > Both are on the drawing board in Pittsburgh. Both are horrid for this space
        > given the costs, IMHO.

        EB: I disagree. If you inform yourself I think you will find there is some
        great advancements here.

        Here are some links re' the low-speed Pittsburgh maglev project, the design
        details of which little are yet a bit unknown, probably for proprietary
        reasons. The ongoing development work is part of an FTA project to develop
        and demonstrate "USA" maglev technology, . For example, the PASS vehicle
        could use superconducting magnets.

        Here are some refs:

        http://www.urbmaglev.com/index_b.htm (check out the video)
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UrbanMaglev/message/438
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UrbanMaglev/links
      • Ed Brighton
        ... EB: Wind noise at high-speed is an issue. Steel-wheel scream at high-speed is a much bigger issue. At lower speeds, in urban areas, maglev would be
        Message 3 of 30 , Nov 19, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          on 11/18/01 9:22, J.H. Crawford at postmaster@... wrote:

          > No noise is an important advantage, but not one that exists
          > at high speed--wind noise is appreciable.

          EB: Wind noise at high-speed is an issue. Steel-wheel "scream" at
          high-speed is a much bigger issue. At lower speeds, in urban areas, maglev
          would be much quieter.
        • Ed Brighton
          ... There is sufficient power stored in onboard batteries to keep the train elevated and to get it to at least the next station, at least that is how the HSST
          Message 4 of 30 , Nov 19, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            on 11/18/01 9:22, J.H. Crawford at postmaster@... wrote:

            > What happens to maglev if the power fails on a hill?

            There is sufficient power stored in onboard batteries to keep the train
            elevated and to get it to at least the next station, at least that is how
            the HSST is designed.

            The HSST can apparently also be moved on the rail if need-be by deploying
            caster-type wheels.
          • Ed Brighton
            ... EB: An elevated urban maglev structure should be smaller and less bulky. For heavier elevated rail systems like LRT, the structures are often too big to
            Message 5 of 30 , Nov 19, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              on 11/19/01 10:15, Karen Sandness at ksandness1@... wrote:

              > ... I fail to see how it's any more "disruptive" than having to build
              > a whole new elevated infrastructure. ...

              EB: An elevated urban maglev structure should be smaller and less bulky.
              For heavier elevated rail systems like LRT, the structures are often too big
              to be prefab'd off-site and trucked in, they have to be cast in place. That
              would be much more disruptive, both in time and space.
            • Ed Brighton
              ... EB: Here s a comparison of trainset options, by empty train weight, length, capacity: - LRT(ie: Portland Max) Wt.empty 218,000# (180 2-car train)(522
              Message 6 of 30 , Nov 19, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                on 11/18/01 9:22, J.H. Crawford at postmaster@... wrote:

                > The weight of the magenetic elements would be considerable, and given that
                > rails are still needed, I would have to be convinced that they are any
                > lighter, comparing like for like (i.e., aluminum car bodies on both systems).


                EB: Here's a comparison of trainset options, by empty train weight,
                length, capacity:
                - LRT(ie: Portland Max) Wt.empty 218,000# (180' 2-car train)(522 cap)
                - Skytrain ALRT (ie: Vanc. BC) - 132,000# (227' 4-car train)(520 cap)
                - Alweg Monorail (ie: Seattle) - 100,000# (122' 2-car train)(450 cap)
                - HSST-100 maglev (ie: Nagoya) - 132,000# (180' 4-car train)(484 cap)
              • Mark Rauterkus
                Hi All, ... You can disagree with my opinion. However, you can t claim I m uninformed. I m informed. And, I ll repeat, IMHO, low-speed Maglev would be horrid
                Message 7 of 30 , Nov 20, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi All,

                  I wrote with confidence:
                  >> Both are on the drawing board in Pittsburgh. Both are horrid for this space
                  >> given the costs, IMHO.
                  >
                  > EB: I disagree. If you inform yourself I think you will find there is some
                  > great advancements here.

                  You can disagree with my opinion. However, you can't claim I'm uninformed.
                  I'm informed. And, I'll repeat, IMHO, low-speed Maglev would be horrid in
                  Pittsburgh given the costs.

                  But, I agree, there are some great advancements in Maglev in terms of:
                  - cash to politicians' Political Action Committees,
                  - advanced spending of tax dollars, and
                  - hype.
                  Trust me, I'm doing and have done a great deal of homework.

                  Thanks for the URL pointers.

                  Finally, thanks for the support and boost to my main sticking point of
                  Maglev! You wrote in part:
                  > ... the low-speed Pittsburgh maglev project, the design
                  > details of which little are yet a bit unknown, probably for proprietary
                  > reasons.
                  Bingo! Maglev is full of proprietary entanglements. Installing a private,
                  closed, proprietary system is fine for a theme park's monorail. However,
                  this is a public project with tons of tax money going to its funding. I want
                  open source projects with public efforts. We should have no part of Maglev
                  for that very reason, its proprietary nature.


                  Ta.


                  Mark Rauterkus
                  Mark@... http://Rauterkus.com

                  Recent candidate for Mayor, City of Pittsburgh
                • Ed Brighton
                  ... Your cynicism is showing. Not good. (But then I don t know Pittsburgh politics.) But I am cynical myself, living in Seattle, how our RTA Sound transit
                  Message 8 of 30 , Nov 20, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    on 11/20/01 8:25, Mark Rauterkus at mark@... wrote:

                    > ... there are some great advancements in Maglev in terms of:
                    > - cash to politicians' Political Action Committees,
                    > - advanced spending of tax dollars, and
                    > - hype.

                    Your cynicism is showing. Not good. (But then I don't know Pittsburgh
                    politics.) But I am cynical myself, living in Seattle, how our RTA Sound
                    transit has pushed "LRT" technology to the exclusion of giving any of the
                    alternatives like monorail a fair evaluation.

                    > We should have no part of Maglev for that very reason, its proprietary nature.

                    All great advancements are usually proprietary in the beginning to some
                    extent. The incentives are needed to spur innovation. Unfortunately some
                    hype is often needed to get political and financial backing. Its a reality.

                    Proprietary concerns can usually be settled as part of the contract, to
                    allow purchasers some security or rights to the technology, so down the road
                    other firms can bid on components, etc. Call it licensing or whatever. It
                    is done all the time.

                    It is interesting that conventional EMS type maglev, the small-gap
                    wrap-around type, had matured to the point now that the designs are very
                    similar - ie: Japanese HSST is like the KOROS UMV is like the Chinese CPCP
                    is like the AMT ODU demo - and these are all like the German Transrapid,
                    except the Transrapid is larger and built for high speed by [lacing the
                    active coils of the linear motor in the guideway itself. For the low-speed
                    maglev systems, the guideway is kept simple, and the active motor coils are
                    in the vehicle. High speed systems can't do it this way because of the 3rd
                    rail power transfer problem.
                  • Mark Rauterkus
                    Hi All, ... Wrong again. Your insult and assumption of me ( if I looked into it... ) came before your false claim of my cynicism. What isn t good, IMHO, is
                    Message 9 of 30 , Nov 20, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi All,

                      > Your cynicism is showing. Not good.
                      Wrong again. Your insult and assumption of me ("if I looked into it...")
                      came before your false claim of my cynicism. What isn't good, IMHO, is
                      Maglev and your assumptions. What is "Not good" is that the future for
                      maglev is bleak. Your discussion needs to stay -- 'on track.' I'll explain.

                      >> We should have no part of Maglev for that very reason, its proprietary
                      nature.
                      >
                      > All great advancements are usually proprietary in the beginning to some
                      > extent.

                      No so. Consider, say The US Constitution.
                      I dare say that the really great advancements were NOT proprietary at all.
                      Mostly at the outset.

                      Maglev is a modern mode of transportation that needs advocates (such as
                      yourself) who are capable of being modern themselves. The old-world,
                      proprietary Maglev is going to flounder for additional decades to come,
                      IMHO.

                      >The incentives are needed to spur innovation.
                      Not so. Pure public good is a wonderful motivation.
                      Case in point: Much of the internet has flourished because of no incentives
                      other than the need to better communicate and transfer bits from one
                      location to another.

                      > Unfortunately some
                      > hype is often needed to get political and financial backing. Its a reality.
                      Not so. Hype is a reality in making false claims. But, I dare say, inspired
                      ideas can stand on their own merits.

                      Truth needs no hype. Truth garners great investments as well.

                      > Proprietary concerns can usually be settled as part of the contract, to
                      > allow purchasers some security or rights to the technology, so down the road
                      > other firms can bid on components, etc. Call it licensing or whatever. It
                      > is done all the time.

                      Because it is done all the time does not make it right, ideal, or even
                      tolerated. People go to jail all the time too.

                      The boundaries of freedoms in an open society fueled by public money are not
                      easily placed in the contracts you suggest. The compromise to freedom is in
                      stark contrast to the mission of our greatest tasks. I'm not buying. And,
                      thankfully, many other Americans are not for purchase as well.

                      The proprietary concerns for a public investment such as Maglev can't be
                      settled as part of a contract. The offer is not good enough for the costs
                      and the risks.

                      > It is interesting that conventional EMS type maglev, the small-gap
                      > wrap-around type, had matured to the point now that the designs are very
                      > similar - ie: Japanese HSST is like the KOROS UMV is like the Chinese CPCP
                      > is like the AMT ODU demo - and these are all like the German Transrapid,
                      > except the Transrapid is larger and built for high speed by [lacing the
                      > active coils of the linear motor in the guideway itself. For the low-speed
                      > maglev systems, the guideway is kept simple, and the active motor coils are
                      > in the vehicle. High speed systems can't do it this way because of the 3rd
                      > rail power transfer problem.

                      What you find "interesting" and what I find interesting are worlds apart.
                      What is interesting is how I can hit the send button on my keyboard and a
                      free-and-open pathway zooms the packets to you in efficient, non-proprietary
                      ways. A closed system isn't going to evolve as smoothly as an open one.

                      If Maglev's vision and gains were leveraged for the greater public good,
                      we'd build one to the moon. But, sadly, Maglev's contracts are too binding
                      for that to occur. We, the people, are ready for a different mind-set.
                      Perhaps there is a future for Maglev in the Chinese or Japanese culture /
                      society / public investment landscape. But, it ain't going to happen here as
                      it is now being planned (proprietary) and structured, IMHO.



                      Ta.


                      Mark Rauterkus
                      Mark@... http://Rauterkus.com
                    • Ed Brighton
                      ... We would not have the internet today if there had not been enormous government support and investment, spurred on and still supported today more than ever
                      Message 10 of 30 , Nov 20, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        on 11/20/01 13:55, Mark Rauterkus at mark@... wrote:

                        > ... a free-and-open pathway zooms the packets to you in efficient,
                        > non-proprietary ways.

                        We would not have the internet today if there had not been enormous
                        government support and investment, spurred on and still supported today more
                        than ever by all sorts of vested economic interests, and if the inventors of
                        the various and evolving packet switch technologies had not had patent
                        protection and been able to benefit financially. The packet switches on the
                        internet and most of the other hardware is all patented technology.

                        Besides patent protection, another reason the internet is succeeding is
                        standardization, like the standard protoco TCP/IP, and other standards or
                        conventions like HTML. These standards, once set by industry, then allow
                        various comapnies to innovate and to develop proprietary user components and
                        products that are sold to end users like you and me for PROFIT. Ain't free
                        enterprise great! But maglev, like the internet, might require a kick-start
                        by some government taxpayer largess and nurturing.

                        Conventional EMS maglev technology might evolve in a manner similar to the
                        internet. Remember the "ARPANET" ("Advanced Research Project Agency
                        Network) - the predecessor to the INTERNET - that was developed by the
                        Department of Defense using tax dollars? It was then then basically given
                        to the universities (first), and then to the public. The internet today is
                        not a freebie - but it is to us users - because it is subsidized by the
                        government using our tax dollars. Many people have gotten rich off the
                        internet - using proprietary hardware and software.

                        It appears to me that maglev may now have evolved to a point where the
                        technical people might be able to agree to certain standards - it might be
                        possible to set certain guideway standards such as the track guage that
                        would then allow various companies to develop new and better maglev
                        vehicles. I'd like to see a few maglev developers, like internet
                        developers, get rich.
                      • Mateus de Oliveira Fechino
                        I know this aint exactly the topic , but how much attention do you guys grant to urban maglev plans I see popping up through the web for american megalopolis
                        Message 11 of 30 , Nov 30, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I know this aint exactly the topic , but how much attention do you
                          guys grant to urban maglev plans I see popping up through the web for
                          american megalopolis in the next 20-40 years ?
                          THey seem to me to be for real , and that should really be very cool
                        • J.H. Crawford
                          Not much. Maglev is a side show. The Germans planned to build one from Hamburg to Berlin, to demonstrate the technology they had developed. When they found out
                          Message 12 of 30 , Dec 1, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Not much. Maglev is a side show. The Germans planned to build
                            one from Hamburg to Berlin, to demonstrate the technology they
                            had developed. When they found out how much it costs, the dropped
                            the plans.

                            It offers no significant advantage over conventional rail, and
                            costs a fortune. Apparently, the claims for silk-smooth ride
                            are also untrue.

                            So, IMHO, let's not discuss it.

                            Regards,

                            >I know this aint exactly the topic , but how much attention do you
                            >guys grant to urban maglev plans I see popping up through the web for
                            >american megalopolis in the next 20-40 years ?
                            >THey seem to me to be for real , and that should really be very cool
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                            >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                            >Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                            >
                            >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            >
                            >
                            >


                            -- ### --

                            J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                            mailbox@... Carfree.com
                          • Mateus de Oliveira Fechino
                            I see what you mean ; I m even registered in an Urban Maglev group , just wanted to feel the mood around here about it, Just tell me , what does IMHO mean
                            Message 13 of 30 , Dec 1, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I see what you mean ; I'm even registered in an Urban Maglev group ,
                              just wanted to feel the mood around here about it,

                              Just tell me , what does IMHO mean exactly?

                              Mateus

                              --- In carfree_cities@y..., "J.H. Crawford" <mailbox@c...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Not much. Maglev is a side show. The Germans planned to build
                              > one from Hamburg to Berlin, to demonstrate the technology they
                              > had developed. When they found out how much it costs, the dropped
                              > the plans.
                              >
                              > It offers no significant advantage over conventional rail, and
                              > costs a fortune. Apparently, the claims for silk-smooth ride
                              > are also untrue.
                              >
                              > So, IMHO, let's not discuss it.
                              >
                              > Regards,
                              >
                              > >I know this aint exactly the topic , but how much attention do you
                              > >guys grant to urban maglev plans I see popping up through the web
                              for
                              > >american megalopolis in the next 20-40 years ?
                              > >THey seem to me to be for real , and that should really be very
                              cool
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@e...
                              > >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-
                              unsubscribe@e...
                              > >Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                              > >
                              > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              >
                              >
                              > --
                              ### --
                              >
                              > J.H. Crawford Carfree
                              Cities
                              > mailbox@c... Carfree.com
                            • Patrick Hudson
                              IMHO = in my humble opinion
                              Message 14 of 30 , Dec 1, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                IMHO = in my humble opinion

                                Mateus de Oliveira Fechino wrote:
                                >
                                > I see what you mean ; I'm even registered in an Urban Maglev group ,
                                > just wanted to feel the mood around here about it,
                                >
                                > Just tell me , what does IMHO mean exactly?
                                >
                                > Mateus
                                >
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.