Japanese Researchers Test Flying Trains 221
An anonymous reader writes "As an alternative to maglev trains, Japanese researchers are working on ground-effect vehicles. A ground-effect vehicle takes advantage of fast-moving air and uses some stubby little wings to fly just above the ground, like a maglev without the mag. This is a tricky thing to do, since you have to control the vehicle more like an airplane than a train: you have to deal with pitch, roll, and yaw and not just the throttle. A Japanese research group has built a robotic prototype of a free flying ground-effect vehicle that they're using to test an autonomous three axis stabilization system."
I don't know what to say. (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Konichiwa and welcome aboard Space Cruiser Yamato DWMorse-san!
Yamato? (Score:2)
Surely you mean Galaxy Express 999, [animenewsnetwork.com] considering the
Granted, both are created by Leiji Matsumoto, so it is understandable that one could get confused.
Re: (Score:2)
And Maetel, Trilana and Nova are all the same (drawn) character.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
spaceship (Score:3)
" do they also have ... Space Boats?"
They have spaceships so I guess, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that's a good idea: don't bother with powerful magnets to keep the thing levitated, but use relatively week magnets to keep the thing on course.
seems to occupy a lot more space (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see how it could save energy. At it's simplest, maglev requires two permanent magnets to provide the "lift" (or technically, the repulsion) and then some motor to provide the forward motion. This requires a motor to provide the forward motion and the lift.
Or put another way, maglev must overcome the friction of the body. This must overcome the friction of the body and the wings.
The only possible energy savings that I see is that the current generation of maglevs use superconducting magnets which req
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, a ground-effect train would require more energy to propel at a certain speed than a mag-lev train of similar mass and size, but there are other areas where both energy and cost savings are made.
It would require a lot of energy and cost a lot both to produce the materials needed and during the construction of a mag-lev rail network. A ground-effect "rail" is basically a concrete culvert. Takes much less energy, resources and money to build and maintain.
Then we have the energy needed to, as you mentioned
Re: (Score:2)
No it won't. It's only floating on a cushion of air a few centimeters above a track, just run 2 electric rails in the track and drop a pickup arm to make contact with the rails.
Something the weight of a train, I can't see it bobbing up and down very quickly, I doubt it would even need to be an actively positioned arm, just something with a pivot and a spring pushing the arm
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about saving energy, but the tracks would be cheaper to build. Maglev tracks require magnets in every inch of rail; that's a lot of technologically complex stuff. This looks like it needs a concrete trough; something we can build with an extrusion machine if needed. (Look them up; they make extrusion machines for bridges; why not this?)
Lots cheaper and simpler. It will require lots of room and it will be ugly, and there are other issues - trash, water, etc - but that could all be handled som
Re: (Score:2)
An extruder? Like this:
http://www.jovian.com.au/contents/media/Extruder.jpg [jovian.com.au]
I'm just kidding, but I agree with what you're saying - the tracks would be cheaper to build. And to the earlier poster who asked about the performance of this train in wind or rain, as long as you're building half of a concrete tunnel, you almost might as well build the other half and not have to worry about most storms.
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of except much bigger...
http://www.made-in-china.com/showroom/rogersluoluo/product-detailGMkJqRbyCehL/China-Bridge-Fabrication-Machine.html [made-in-china.com]
The one I was looking for is made by an Italian outfit but my google-fu is weak today....
Re: (Score:2)
Such a thing wouldn't even be new; they already make concrete sewer pipes that big. All you'd need to do is cut them in half (or rather, mold half a pipe in the first place).
Re:seems to occupy a lot more space (Score:5, Informative)
They will run into problems with noise. In Japan noise concerns have limited train speeds since the first days of high speed rail in the early 60s, particularly around tunnels where there is a boom every time a train exits. One advantage of maglev is that due to there being no contact with the ground noise is reduced significantly, but adding prop or jet engines would seem to make this train louder than a normal electric one.
France runs 500kph trains and the only reason Japan doesn't is noise. The latest generation bullet trains that do 300kph have a very unusual shaped nose designed to reduce noise.
Re: (Score:2)
France runs 500kph trains and the only reason Japan doesn't is noise.
France runs trains at up to 320km/h, the speeds higher than that were only for a demonstration/recordbreaking attempt, where the noise doesn't matter.
Living near a moderate-speed line (200km/h conventional trains go past) almost all of the noise seems to be wind, not wheels, but ICVWBW.
Re: (Score:2)
ICVWBW == I could very well be wrong. ?
Re: (Score:2)
However friends that have gone on the maglev in china said its is *not* quiet.
Also you can reduce friction by going slower. Going 70% the original speed will halve the air friction. Again it follows that this is also quieter.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if you could solve that by changing the shape of the tunnel exits, like maybe with a gradual funnel shape instead of a hard cut-off?
Re: (Score:2)
They have put baffles on some of the tunnels in an attempt to do that, or used sound barriers at the side of the track.
Ok (Score:3, Interesting)
So if you look at the article, doing it this way does NOT eliminate the track. There's still a complex track that the train runs in - that U shaped concrete trough that you can look at in TFA. The walls of the trough prevent gusts of wind from shoving the train around. The control system would have to be extremely precise, and able to react very quickly to events like a big gust of wind. I would guess the 'train' car has wheels.
Advantages - the track doesn't have coils or magnets in it. But one glance reveals that it's still an extremely expensive, complex effort to build the track - probably millions of dollars per mile.
Disadvantages : in every respect, it's still a high speed train. The ground effect trick is to achieve faster speeds without magnets, that's all. If you board one of these, you have to be going to a specific destination all the other riders are going to. Every stop slows it all down. Most of the time you save on one of these you lose due to waiting to board the train, walking to the train, etc. And you're crowded in with the public.
And while you eliminate the need for coils in the track, you have to use even MORE concrete and steel to make the cage visible in TFA, and you now need an extremely high performance control system in the train that needs to work for the train to not crash.
In short, it's a terrible idea. What we need are cheap robotically controlled cars that run on a switching network that go from starting point directly to individual destination. These cars don't even need to be all that fast, and could use conventional technology (except perhaps using capacitor banks and frequent charging points or something...but conventional tires, road, etc...we'd use the road network we already have and install fencing and barricades and bridges so no pedestrians can ever enter the streets)
Re: (Score:2)
First off, concrete is cheaper than magnets. You'd need the control system anyways to run a maglev train. And when you're talking about a trunk line that's already moving hundreds of thousands if not millions of people on a regular basis, it doesn't matter that everybody is going the same route. No, you've got it half right: combine the two. Have a high-speed trunk line and then the cheap switching cars branch off from major stations.
Re:Ok (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Very low energy consumption because of metal to metal rolling friction. Car tyres bend to become a plane of rubber in contact with sticky tar causing very high friction. Yes, the packet switching analogy is nice and best for computers but not for people. Because people will use the car more and more. See the bad points below.
2. A thousand cars driven by thousand individuals has a far bigger probability of accident simply because 1000 minds are involved without any central oversight. Who knows what these minds are doing on the road. A train is centrally controlled with professional crew.
3. When you have a car and the road is free and there is parking space, you will use it to go the next street to buy milk. In effect we will use a hammer all the time for all the jobs because the hammer is easy to hold and use. The moment public transport has to be used, you will make a trade-off analysis and use it only when required. Saves the planet, saves your limbs from degeneration.
4. Trains uses far lesser space. Compare a 8 lane highway with a two-lane railway track. Not only do cars need lot of space while moving, they lot of space at both origin and destination. Since destination can be anywhere, you need lot of space everywhere. What a sheer waste of resources.
5. You can be a zombie in a car or enjoy relaxing and eating and sleeping and reading and listening in a train.
Re: (Score:3)
But that's just it. You can't go down the street to Walmart for some groceries without a car. Even if there were buses, they are full of just anyone - including scary people that the American public has been conditioned to fear. (yes, I know rationally that that scraggy guy who smells funny is probably not an axe murderer or rapist...but does a woman bringing her 2 kids know that? This is why no one rides the buses unless they can't afford anything else)
And we've spent uncountable amounts of money creat
Re:Ok (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, no one should shop at Walmart period. It is a soulless evil company at all respects that hurts all of us on a daily basis. Second of all, thanks to their tax cheating ways, no one lives down the street from a Walmart anyway. There are plenty of grocery stores in reasonably built areas that are walking distance. Many of them even deliver.
Second of all, you absolutely can buy groceries on foot -- ever heard of a cart?
Third, sunk money? All of the road maintenance and fuel and costs to the environment are on-going. Slowly moving to a model that makes economic and efficient use of space will save money in the long run.
Really, all of your problems have been solved already: people not living in places that are less dense than streetcar suburbs. Raise the price of gas over time, people will move, and we don't have to deal with all off this robot cockery.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, all of your problems have been solved already: people not living in places that are less dense than streetcar suburbs. Raise the price of gas over time, people will move, and we don't have to deal with all off this robot cockery.
Thank you for making the decision for me and my family on where we will live. It's such a relief knowing that people like you, who are so much more smarter than little old me, are out there protecting me from myself.
Make an opportunity out of a crisis (Score:2)
Or wait till the next natural disaster happens, when you'd have to rebuild anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, no one should shop at Walmart period. It is a soulless evil company at all respects that hurts all of us on a daily basis.
Yes, Walmart is so much more evil than all the small stores that 1) don't provide health insurance, 2) hire illegal immigrants at below minimum wage 3) charge higher prices and carry less selection.
Second of all, thanks to their tax cheating ways, no one lives down the street from a Walmart anyway.
The Walmart nearest to me (within biking distance) is, oh, 2 blocks away from a large neighborhood.
There are plenty of grocery stores in reasonably built areas that are walking distance.
Most of the grocery stores in this country are large national chains. How exactly are they different than Walmart, either economically or "morally"?
Re: (Score:2)
Walmart's huge buying power gives it an incredible advantage over its suppliers. They may only make 4% profit; but the farmers are making a lot less than that.
Re: (Score:3)
So basically what you are saying that since it's a bad idea for the US to implement this, it's a bad idea for everyone? You know, different countries and cultures have different needs and priorities :)
Maybe it really is a bad and impractical idea for the US to implement a system like this, even if the US as a society really should look into ways to reduce their dependency on conventional cars - if nothing else than for the fact that the rising gas prices means the average american uses more and more of his
Re: (Score:3)
So basically what you are saying that since it's a bad idea for the US to implement this, it's a bad idea for everyone?
I think he's saying that his part of American society is based on paranoia and class warfare, and they like it that way.
Furthermore, most of American society is fundamentally evangelical: they believe everyone should be like them. Their paranoia extends not only to the "other" in their midst, but to anyone anywhere in the world who is the least bit different from them.
Not all Americans are like this, mind. I took the city bus in LA on occasion when I lived there (the only white person in the city who did
Re: (Score:3)
But that's just it. You can't go down the street to Walmart for some groceries without a car.
Why not?
This is why no one rides the buses unless they can't afford anything else
No one rides the bus because is 90% of America the bus doesn't go where you want it to go, when you want it or in reasonable time. In places like NYC where it does most everyone is perfectly fine taking public transportation.
But if we surrounded every roadway used by the robot taxi network with fences (including a barrier on top),
And where would you place these magical roadways? In what empty space? Which roads would you block to existing traffic? How would you get with cross traffic?And are you aware of how bloody expensive this would be? And how ugly? NIMBY wouldn't let that get within 500 miles of the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wholeheartedly agree that for trains and walking / cycling would be an excellent alternative. I own a car, but haven't driven it for over 6 months as I simply haven't needed to: walk to work (20 mins each way), walk or cycle to the shops and take the train for longer journeys.
Whilst driving can be enjoyable, there is nothing fun about motorway (freeway) driving. For long distances I'd much rather be in a train where I can walk around, stretch my legs, have a table to do some work on, even use Wifi on man
Re: (Score:2)
haven't driven it for over 6 months
Your car battery is probably dead by now. Better check it just in case you do decide to drive, and find you can't.
Re: (Score:2)
Your car battery is certainly dead by now
FTFY. He'll be lucky if the battery isn't completely useless by now, maybe if he's driving something really old and simple like a Willys Jeep that doesn't have a million little gizmos draining the battery. If it's a car designed from the '90s onward, he might as well pick up a new one right now.
Re: (Score:2)
When you have a car and the road is free and there is parking space, you will use it to go the next street to buy milk. In effect we will use a hammer all the time for all the jobs because the hammer is easy to hold and use. The moment public transport has to be used, you will make a trade-off analysis and use it only when required. Saves the planet, saves your limbs from degeneration.
So we shouldn't use a vastly flexible tool for other uses because you think of it like a hammer? That's really short sighted. Automobile don't have a fixed use. Nor should they. And trains or other public transportation don't help you with those short shopping trips so this argument is pretty much irrelevant. I notice you also ignore that cars are flexible point-to-point travel. Sure, they use extra space than trains or buses do, but you get so much more out of it.
Re: (Score:3)
No you are wrong. And you are right.
Japan has good mass transit. They also have car companies. It is not a one size fits all. I would like good mass transit to go to work but I will still want my car to go shopping.
1. Yes you are right but tracks do not go everywhere and are not practical in low density areas.
2. He wanted automated cars. The idea does have some merit. I think a good step would be smart roads. To give an example from experience. Last night it took my wife and I 30 minutes to go a mile becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you know, an earthquake.
Has everyone else got the memory of a goldfish?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's suppose I want to go from Houston to Austin. I just get in my car, and from my driveway to my destination takes ~3 hours. (assuming I don't try to travel during rush hours, or I start at the outskirts of Houston)
This 160 mile journey consumes about $21 of fuel each way (28 mpg) plus about that in depreciation and future repairs on my car. So $40, each way. If I want to go somewhere else in Austin I could just drive there in a few minutes.
Suppose a high speed train line existed between Houston and
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that Japan has a very large network of transportation trains, many of them high speed [wikipedia.org], as does much of the rest of the world outside of Texas, right?
You driving your car, along with 1,000 other people driving their cars from Austin to Houston uses orders of magnitude more energy than 15 busses and 2 trains to transport the same 1,000 people the same trip.
Additionally, a commute from the outskirts of Toronto, where I live, to downtown central takes ~2 hours during rush hour, that same trip take
Re:Ok (Score:4, Insightful)
You're missing piece is the price of gas. Gas is artificially low now, which changes the price and which, since it's not taxed to the degree that it should be, stunts growth in mass transit partially because that money could fund transit and partially because no one has to use the train and so there is not enough demand for more service.
In your scenario, in a better case, your high-speed line would be augmented by low speed (but still fast) trains and light rail, all of which shorten the distance and the amount of time required to travel. Also, even in your current case, if you can avoid the bus, you can travel during trafficked periods because you are unaffected. And, in your current case, if that's a trip you make often, you probably live more proximate to the train.
Additionally, I have carried a lot of stuff on trains before.
Re: (Score:2)
In some countries, like Pakistan, the government subsidizes the price of gas. There, it's artificially low.
In what sense is gas artificially low in America?
Re: (Score:3)
I live in a place that HAS high speed trains (south China). I also drive. The train is great for a trip to Guangzhuo (80km) or Shenzhen (72km). Driving to either of those places is a pain in the butt and the train is pretty cheap (about $8).
There are places that they work. I've also spent a fair amount of time in Japan. The high speed trains there also work great.
All of the previous posts about suburbia are correct, but you have to look at the big picture. Not everyone lives in suburbia. I'm not an advocate
Re: (Score:3)
With all of that being said, it will probably NEVER work in the US.
It depends - I think there are certainly areas of the US where it can work, and areas where it's unlikely to. A high-volume sector like Boston-New York-Philly-Washington DC could definitely be a target for upgrading to high-speed rail, much as Japan's main Shinkansen line is across the densest part of Honshu, connecting Hiroshima-Kyoto-Osaka/Kobe-Nagoya-Tokyo. A plane might be able to carry 200 passengers, a train 10 times that easily - so there's a pay-off point with speed and capacity of the trains with h
Re: (Score:2)
That's cheating slightly, because you can't drive from London to Paris without taking either a ferry or the channel tunnel. Well, you can [youtube.com], but you wouldn't necessarily want to.
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking of your own particular use case, with a reasonable income and assets. Now imagine someone who doesn't have a car, but needs to travel that same journey - a student, or a labourer with a family in Houston and work in Austin; it's a heck of a commute, but cheaper than moving the whole family. High-speed rail offers a quicker alternative to a bus service, one not affected by or contributing to congestion from private transportation.
As others have mentioned, Texas isn't necessarily the best examp
Re: (Score:3)
I find it ironic that you claim a major disadvantage of trains is the amount you can carry and then you go on talking about flying.
Having high speed trains to major cities is a good idea, better for environment, you can carry more and you are way less constricted than on an airplane.
I'll grant you your example it doesn't make sense, but what if you wanted to go across the country? Airports are generally out in the boondocks, central train stations are quite often centrally located, less groping, better faci
Re:Ok (Score:5, Informative)
Let's suppose I want to go from Houston to Austin.
I've not been to Houston, but just 18,000 [wikipedia.org] people used Houston's Amtrak station last year. For comparison, 16,000 people used the station in a village [wikipedia.org] of 1,200 people in the English countryside. The nearest big city to that village, Birmingham (pop. 1M, 2M in the conurbation), has several large stations. The largest [wikipedia.org] had 25.3 million passengers last year. Less people used a train in all of Texas combined than my local suburban station, which isn't even open at weekends.
I think you'll find there is demand for trains (of all kinds) in many settlements all around the world. Fortunately, most people don't reject solutions that don't satisfy 100% of the population.
I just get in my car, and from my driveway to my destination takes ~3 hours. (assuming I don't try to travel during rush hours, or I start at the outskirts of Houston)
This 160 mile journey consumes about $21 of fuel each way ...
My parents live 100 miles away. The journey by public transport takes two hours (I allow 40 minutes to get from my house halfway out of London to the appropriate main station, the inter-city journey takes 1h10, and I like to arrive 10 minutes before the train departs) and a little walking (10 minutes). Driving, according to Google, takes 2h5. That's correct -- off-peak on a Sunday. Usually it's nearer to 2½ hours on a Sunday, or 3 hours + any other day. (The train is "normal" speed, about 110mph.)
I've no idea how much the fuel costs -- I don't own a car. My parents will take the train to visit me if it's one or two of them, but if they bring my younger brother they'll drive. I always take the train, owning a car would be a huge expense for the tiny number of journeys I'd make with it.
(Commenting on the rest of your post: if Houston built high speed rail, there'd probably be intermediate stops a few miles out (e.g. 5, 10, 20 miles) which you could travel to instead of going all the way to the centre. Even if you live on the wrong side of town [like I do for visiting my parents], the railway going in the other direction should connect to the high-speed station.
30mph average for a bus is way too high, assuming you're including stops. That's a decent speed for light rail. 10mph is more like it. For a huge city like Houston, buses only every 15 minutes would be pretty crap. Buses near my house are more frequent than that all night.
If transport is reliable, you wouldn't have to wait more than a few minutes for your train. You plan to leave at the appropriate time to make the connection. How much spare time you allow depends on the cost of taking a later train [here, booking for a specific train saves money] and the time you have to wait if you miss it.
Many destinations would be within a short walk of the station.)
I'm not a railroad engineer (Score:2)
Great! The worst of both worlds! (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not too often you see researchers combine technologies and come up with less than the sum of their equal parts. Imagine, a transport that can crash AND derail. Woo!
Energy supply? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Wireless Energy Transfer [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could possibly pull power from lines above it like some rail lines do. Of course then you are introducing an element of friction, but it should be small if done right.
Re: (Score:2)
They already (Score:2)
tried floating trains, but that didn't work so well...
Its an ekranoplan (Score:3)
ekranoplanes don't need perfectly flat surfaces (Score:3)
Ekranoplanes don't need perfectly flat surfaces- they were tested and ran mostly on water. Water is not perfectly flat yet the ekranoplanes ran....
Would this really use jets? (Score:2)
In the graphic showing the concept for the final vehicle, the train appears to use jet engines. Is this really how you would do it? I thought that jets were pretty much dreadfully inefficient unless operated at altitude.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No. They are ducted fans [wikipedia.org] driven by electric motors. The tips of the vertical stabilisers have small pantographs that contact the underside of the lip at the top of the track walls. It's mostly in Japanese, but you can get the idea from some of the pictures here [tohoku.ac.jp] (e.g. this image [tohoku.ac.jp])
already invented: pneumatic post (Score:2)
Then it will really mean it, when someone says: I'll ride the tube ;-) ( greetings to London )
Re: (Score:2)
England had vacuum railways in the 1840s. (Croydon and South Devon from memory.) One of IKB's madcap schemes.
Boring (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The research isn't into how to use the ground effect, the research is into how to stabilize the object autonomously.
already invented: pneumatic tube post (Score:2)
The power to build the air cushion beneath and on the sides can be produced converted within the craft in contrast to the old pneumatic tube model.
The air for the cushion will be sucked in on the front, reducing the drag.
The technology of electric pickups for high speed trains is there.
I think the construction cost for a length of big tube is less than for a Maglev track!
already invented: pneumatic tube post (Score:2)
The power to build the air cushion beneath and on the sides can be produced converted within the craft in contrast to the old pneumatic tube model.
The air for the cushion will be sucked in on the front, reducing the drag.
The technology of electric pickups for high speed trains is there.
I think the construction cost for a length of big tube is less than for a Maglev track!
Re: (Score:2)
Typical! You wait ages for a post to point this out and then two arrive together!
Why? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Honest question #2: What benefits would this have over a regular train? 'Cause I'm not seeing any, at the moment. It looks tough to board, and takes a whole lot of space just for a wingspan.
Re: (Score:2)
Geek Toy (Score:2)
It looks like a geek toy to me. At least as train, such a vehicle would not be very practical. The main problems of todays train systems is not speed, but how many people can be moved and how can cargo be distributed more efficiently. The first thing involves two deck trains, trains without locomotive (which follow more or less the concept of a tram). The second thing has to do with shorter or easier to decompose cargo trains. So they can transfer containers from the harbors to the interior.
But cool device
Starman Jones (Score:2)
Am I the only person who read this and remembered the old Heinlein juvie "Starman Jones"? I loved that book.
Holy Scott! (Score:2)
It's not a trainrobbery, it's a scientific experiment.
It's not a train! (Score:2)
It's more like a grounded-airplane, or plane-on-a-rail.
mag-lev is mag-lev not only because it use mag to keep things on rail, but it's the propulsion source. Now that "train" thing is going to use turbo fan engine as the propulsion source, not wheel nor mag. So...hey it's really an airplane
Why use a wing when you could use an air cushion? (Score:2)
Once you have the train sitting in a trough, why not use an air cushion to push up rather than a wing pull up? The air cushion exists in the trough where there is no wind. The train could provide the cushion on its own power or the track could carry compressed air in a pipe and deliver it under the train through a network of valves. You would need a low friction moving seal along the length of train but it doesn't need to be great. Make the seal interface float on magnets if you want. It would carry a
Solution: (Score:3)
Tracks? (Score:3, Funny)
Where we're going, we don't need tracks.
Re: (Score:2)
It would fly over it or you'd punch a hole in the thin aluminum fuselage of the traincraft.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
300+ mph without all the expensive and fragile magnets required for maglev trains, while still powered by overhead electrical lines.
Re: (Score:3)
300+ mph without all the expensive and fragile magnets required for maglev trains, while still powered by overhead electrical lines.
AFAIK a good part of the trouble they had when running the french TGV to >550km/h speeds was related to the overhead electrical lines. Waves propagating along the line and preventing a good contact between the line and the train.
Plus with this kind of train, there is no ground connection. So they would need two overhead electrical lines.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus with this kind of train, there is no ground connection. So they would need two overhead electrical lines.
Why would the second wire have to be overhead? What's to stop this thing from dragging a ground-strap? It would have exactly the same friction running on a wire below as above, and if the concrete trough this thing would likely run in was even moderately conducting it wouldn't need an actual rail or wire for grounding at all.
Mostly, I'm curious about your thought process here, because this is the kind of channeled, associative thinking I see humans engage in all the time. Why did you think "This kind of
Re: (Score:3)
I'm actually now designing software which calculates the parameters for the hardware that supports the power lines.
It's amazingly precise and complicated. Even at 200km/h tracks, the tolerances where the line should be in the sky are in millimeters. For example, there should be enough tension to hold the line almost straight, but not quite straight. You have to let it hang just enough so the that the weight of the line holds it firmly to the receiver on the train.
You have to account for tilted rails in turn
Re: (Score:2)
The small boy inside every geek is very very jealous of your awesome train set!
Re: (Score:2)
How does one go about finding a job like that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have been warned.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay then. Make it carry 1500 people and operate it in urban areas as rapid transport and you'll have one-upped these guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if Slippy is in trouble.
Re: (Score:3)
The only spot you will find flat water surfaces is on lakes (which accounts for about 10% of global water surface).
- I think you WAY overestimate the amount of non-ocean water on this planet.
Bolox (Score:3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgtaeRZjWNc [youtube.com]
The Russians mastered the use of ground effect to fly 500 ton aircraft over the sea, beneath the radar. The ekranoplan was reaching speeds of 400 mph over sea in the middle of the last century. This is not even new technology. The Swedes were making them before the last war.
so strange it's GOT to be true! (Score:2)
And he did it with a plane made out of wood , like some sort of super caveman.
Bolox (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgtaeRZjWNc [youtube.com] [youtube.com]
The Russians mastered the use of ground effect to fly 500 ton aircraft over the sea, beneath the radar. The ekranoplan was reaching speeds of 400 mph over sea in the middle of the last century. This is not even new technology. The Swedes were making them before the last war.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought the problem with ground effect super freighters was that it was very hard to land them in anything other than water, and once you'd landed them in water you had to expend so much energy getting them back out that in the end it wasn't really worth it.