For Kirston

[Jack Slade]

This might be a place where you can find support for your Megarail....   http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pollution-suit-20110909,0,6848007.story   Lawsuit against increasing Diesel traffic in LA   Jack Slade

[WALTER BREWER]

I'm familiar with the site.

 

It used to be a huge cattle yard.

 

Which stink do you prefer?

 

Walt Brewer

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[Roy Reynolds]

Leave it to Kamala to kill a few thousand jobs in illegal alien land.

[WALTER BREWER]

I think the nearby residents managed to get the cattle yard to move.

[kirston henderson]

   We have been trying and have offered these people a plan to install our CargoWay system with CargoTrams over the Alameda Corridor.  (See the attached pdf presentation.)  We believe that this is a real and affordable solution to both the traffic and air pollution problems in the area, but it appears that non of the public agencies involved appear to have never taken the time to look at, even though some of the citizen groups have been pushing this as an answer.

   I am beginning to believe that the big problem out there is that there are too many public agency employees involved and too many agencies that are far more interested in expanding their jobs and importance than solving the problem.  Hence, they are probably drag out doing anything to really solve the problem until after the ports lose all of their business and the economy of the area totally collapses.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems

[Jerry Roane]

Kirston

I want to go on record in support of your system to solve this transportation issue.  It clearly cleans up the air to move goods as your vehicles would move them compared to the present diesel powered approach.  Even with new trucks with stickers pasted all over them saying " Clean Idle" with all kinds of official trappings and holograms printed on the label with a 9.2 gallon "DEF" tank sealed with glue are not clean by any stretch.  The lengths they go to to make them look clean just emphasizes the fact that they are not clean.  We have a brand new diesel truck here with no miles on it I took down the information on the Mexican built Ford with Cummins turbo charged engine F750 XL Super Duty.  It is so dirty the EPA site that lists how dirty cars and light trucks are will not list this vehicle.  The closest model number they do list is F450 (300 less) diesel and it is rated 1 out of 10 for air pollution score and it is so bad it is blank for green house gas score.  How can this be "Clean Skies" or "Certified Clean Idle" like the red, frost and blue sticker proclaims?  What the ports are betting the lungs of the residents is these clean trucks will soon (15 years) replace the older super nasty trucks and your system will not be necessary.  Of course in reality this sticker will long have fallen off the truck and the "DEF" blue stuff will be plugged up so it shows full but doesn't use any blue fluid because it is expensive these new trucks will be old trucks polluting just like the old trucks today.  All the bolt on piled on crap will wear out much faster than the short block so their plan for clean air of let's wait and see if the air gets breathable  will fail and the kids living near this mess will suffer the consequences.  Apparently they are expendable in the interest of trucking the old way.  

When will the adults stand up?   Hard to say.  When will we do the right thing?  Good question.  First we need to understand how stupid the present trucking system is as it operates.  I see nothing that suggests that the state of California knows where pollution comes from.  They have rejected my system at CARB more than once as my air pollution solution is less condensed than this particular application of CargoWay.  This one is so simple to grasp because it is so concentrated and so bad.  If the few with the government can overthrow the holdouts then perhaps they will be able to fairly evaluate CargoWay with respect to the goals written.

Tonight I have a similar fight at the public comment meeting for building sidewalks to nowhere.  Hundreds of millions of dollars blown on the silliest projects you can imagine.  I can hardly contain myself reading the list of approved projects that will do nothing against the list of goals.  Why do they bother to write down goals if they only ignore them completely?  I may just sit and listen I am so amazed at the goings on with being so out of touch with the reality I know as an engineer and technical person.  

Jerry  

[WALTER BREWER]

Kirston,

 

Have you contacted SCAG? So. California Association of Governments.

 

I'm not really familiar with individuals, but it is likely to have more forward looking members than individual transit etc agencies.

 

Walt Brewer

----- Original Message -----

From: Jerry Roane

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:28 PM

Subject: Re: [t-i] For Kirston

[kirston henderson]

on 9/20/11 3:56 PM, WALTER BREWER at catc...@verizon.net wrote:

Kirston,

Have you contacted SCAG? So. California Association of Governments.

I'm not really familiar with individuals, but it is likely to have more forward looking members than individual transit etc agencies.

   The answer is yes.  As a matter of fact, it was a local branch of SCAG that originally asked us to come out and present our ideas.  However, in the end, they threw it all into the bigger planning apparatus that will likely never do anything other than let a lot of people in the area die from lung ailments and the economy (based heavily on the ports) die from lack of business from court suits, ever increasing clean air fees, and competition from other ports.

[Jack Slade]

Jerry:  I think the anti-pollution route for convincing people of the value of any system is probably the hard way to promote it:  If they can ignore the convenience of speed,  energy-saving,  congestion-curing, and cost comparisons of doing it any other way,  then pollution-saving is not going to convince them either.  A lot of people,  more and more every day,  are non-believers in Al Gore's campaign.   While I really think more people believe we have an energy problem,  I really don't expect any action until we actually have shortages....at the pumps,  home heating,  brownouts, etc. We are in a society now that seldom acts on foresight.  "Where is the proof?" is what you get from them.  Proof can only come from Hindsight.    Jack Slade --- On Tue, 9/20/11, Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [t-i] For Kirston

[eph]

Well, evidence is not enough.  Arctic sea ice is melting.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Al Gore didn't "invent" global warming or climate change, it's a man-made disaster that is world-wide.

My faith that politicians will do something useful and pro-active is certainly lacking.  I'd love to be surprised.  It does happen - sometimes.  In the 70s, Krauss-Mafei almost built a Maglev system with the help of the Ontario Gov't but the German gov't backed out and there were problems with the system that would have required more time and money to fix.

F.

[Jack Slade]

Again,  the polar regions are being subjected to high levels of UV radiation that they did not have before the holes were created in the ozone layer.  UV is Heat, not light,  so Co2 has nothing to do with what is happening up North.   We live halfway (45% deg)  from the Pole, and even here  our UV index often goes "extreme" in recent years.  Imagine what it might be at &% deg North.   Mr Gore is just getting rich, fewer people believe him every day, so lets just take this to another line.  Jack Slade --- On Tue, 9/20/11, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [t-i] For Kirston To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/MYZZPbJ2pa0J.

[eph]

To quote Al Gore: "bull$hit".

Do UV rays melt the polar ice caps?

No.
While shining intense UV light on ice will cause it to melt, that is not an important cause of the ice caps melting. First, there isn't so much UV light reaching the surface of the Earth (thanks to ozone in the atmosphere), and second there are other effects that are much more significant (greenhouse gases and the increasing average temperature of the earth for instance).

The thinning of the ozone layer that is referred to as the ozone hole, only occurs during the winter months above each pole. This means that even if UV-B did help melt ice, the issue would be nullified by a lack of sunlight during these periods. The hole repairs itself as soon as the sun is restored.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_UV_rays_melt_the_polar_ice_caps#ixzz1YXiR7YIp

I'm disheartened that the oil industry has brainwashed so many people.  The greed disease at work.

F.

On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 6:20:43 PM UTC-4, Jack Slade wrote:

Again,  the polar regions are being subjected to high levels of UV radiation that they did not have before the holes were created in the ozone layer.  UV is Heat, not light,  so Co2 has nothing to do with what is happening up North.   We live halfway (45% deg)  from the Pole, and even here  our UV index often goes "extreme" in recent years.  Imagine what it might be at &% deg North.   Mr Gore is just getting rich, fewer people believe him every day, so lets just take this to another line.

Jack Slade --- On Tue, 9/20/11, eph <rhap...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Jack Slade]

So Al Gore is an expert,  and the heat I feel halfway to the Pole is my imagination?  The high UV is only in the Winter?  The sun does not even shine in the Canadian Arctic during the Winter....six months of complete darkness, remember,  if you took science. Our UV rating in this Latitude used to be usually a Max of 7 on a scale of 10.  In recent years they have had to add another category,  Extreme,  because it was often going above 10.   And shining light on ice does not melt it? Even a kid in grade 8 would argue with him on that point,  and be right.  Also,  while non-scientific call UV 'light" ,  we can't see it,  therefore the proper term is "heat",  and I don't care about Wicki references because they are often inaccurate.  Only yesterday somebody tried to tell me that George Burns lived to be 113 years old....I called bullshit on that one too.   Jack Slade

--- On Wed, 9/21/11, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/Gko8Zoe46PkJ.

[Jay Andress]

Walt,

 

   We presented our freight container system to Executive Director of SCAG about 3 years ago. He really liked the idea but he retired about 4 months later. The ports eventually decided to provide financing to the truck owners to buy newer less polluting trucks, which does nothing to solve port congestion, road congestion, high costs of processing freight containers, and road safety. I think with the completion of the widening of the Panama Canal in 2014, Ports of LA will see a large drop in container traffic.

 

                                                                    Jay

[eph]

UV light does not account for recent polar ice melt.  We are causing that.

Infrared is the heat part of the spectrum, the lower frequencies.

Snow is really bright in sunlight, so most of it is reflected - if you want non-scientific reasons.

I'm not wasting more time countering oil company propaganda.

F.

[Jerry Roane]

Jay

I was directed to the technical guy for SCAG about 8 years ago at the high speed rail conference in Anaheim California.  I was snubbed on the phone with no one returning any of my calls after the head of SCAG at the time having me talk to the tech guy.  The tech guy later became the head so I am sure he would not appreciate my contribution based on his past.  

Tonight I attended the CAMPO public comment meeting in Williamson County.  I was the only person there for comment.  They are going to blow hundreds of millions of dollars on nothing projects just to be blowing federal money.  There are a bunch of sidewalks to nowhere that will be paid for by Kirston's taxes.  Much more money will be blown counting cars than moving cars in this one.  It was quite discouraging to see the winning proposals and how pathetic they were at meeting the stated goals.  I did talk politely to two planners at length since they were paid to be there and I was killing time.  My proposal was shelved instantly not because of content or meeting the stated goals or how it scored to the criteria but because the public entity sponsor backed out on the last day.  They backed out because of Bob Daigh formerly of TxDot "retired" but "working".  I was told I should find a sponsor over and over which blows my mind how in a democratic society a rich entity is required to come along to provide the matching funds.  Matching funds is their way to avoid advances in transportation.  It worked 100% in this case where hundreds of millions will be spent on essentially useless make-work projects.  

As I kid I can remember coming upon a hand laid rock wall in the middle of a big open field that made no sense.  It turns out that the CCC had built that wall as a make-work project back in the earlier depressed times.  All these projects appeared to me to be just like that rock wall in the middle of no where serving no purpose other than to be in the way for a hundred years.  It may have provided "jobs" for the rock laying trade for a short time but it was really a big waste of effort that could have been spent doing something of value.  Instead it made a monument to how stupid it was to build a rock wall in a field that would be in the way for generations.  There were CCC projects that were not totally useless as my high school building was built by the CCC (still standing and functional) but the rock wall will be like these bike/walking trails to no where from no where.  The information in my proposal was not read much at all but I did get the planners to defend their lack of reading it as they tried to make polite conversation.  I was able to hand feed them some of the information and perhaps peaked their curiosity some.  The younger planner was a more fertile field as he understood that oil would not be there for his generation and these hundreds of millions blown on highway widening would not have gasoline to power cars 40 years after the completion of construction.  He knew his generation was toast yet he was part of the scoring team for these loser funded proposals.  The scoring criteria had no trump cards like no gasoline past date ______ .  It had zero numerical analysis for air pollution yet it was a scoring criteria out of 9 categories.  Energy efficiency was one of the nine yet none of the allowed projects did anything for energy efficiency.  I had no words to say how insanely ignorant the process was we were all witnessing.  The workers where all about that is how it is and this is how it will remain.  No path out because they do what the federal mandate says blindly.  If the fed says matching funds then ----- If you are not rich beyond the .01% do not look their direction.  They are not interested and there is no appeal to an intellect or a judge.  The legislation is set by an act of congress and it will take an act of congress to change the matching fund concept.  I do not see any resolution for matching funds so all our projects will not be funded by the normal transportation channels.  There is no flexibility or decision maker that can take in data and produce change. 

As for air pollution I will keep hammering health effects of air pollution till the deaf (of mind) can hear it.  The-planet-is-melting is independent of car exhaust is hurting children.  Who knowingly wants to hurt children?  Who unknowingly hurts children?  CAMPO TxDOT SCAG you produce the alphabet soup.   Ignorance is not bliss it is just ignorance and light must destroy darkness.

Jerry Roane 

[Kirston Henderson]

On Sep 20, 2011, at 5:01 PM, eph wrote:

> Well, evidence is not enough. Arctic sea ice is melting.
> http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
>
> Al Gore didn't "invent" global warming or climate change, it's a man-
> made disaster that is world-wide.
>

I wonder if you are aware of the fact that te earth has experienced a
long series of warming and cooling for eons and long before man walked
the surface or that single volcanic eruptions have had far greater
climatic effect than this supposed man-made global warming that Al
Gore keeps talking about and is trying hard to make himself rich with
a company designed to buy and sell carbon credits if such are ever
imposed by the Federal Government. As the old saying goes, "follow
the money"

Kirston Henderson

[Jack Slade]

Frank:  The whole spectrum of solar radiation is heat;  only the part that we can see is what we called light.  I don't think I have ever heard any oil company say anything about this, a nd I would certainly take their word for gospel if they did.  If you want to counter my statement with scientific facts,  go ahead,  but not from just people who are trying to make money with their baloney.  Light does not melt snow?  Really!!  Have you ever wondered why the snowbanks on the North side of your street are melting more than the South side in late Februrary, on days when the temperature is still below freezing?  How can you believe anything from a person that can say this?

Jack Slade --- On Wed, 9/21/11, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [t-i] For Kirston

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/4cxFTrh4toQJ.

[eph]

Worst outbreak of wildfires in Texas history
http://www.marlindemocrat.com/news/article_f640c9e0-deee-11e0-91ad-001cc4c03286.html

So because a natural disaster has occurred in the past, it's OK for man to cause it again?


Look up your news fed denial answers here:
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics


Who Funds Contrariness on Climate Change?
Greenpeace is accusing one of the U.S.'s largest conglomerates of sowing confusion around scientific assertions behind climate change
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=who-funds-contrariness-on

I don't understand why science takes a back seat to propaganda here.

F.

[Jerry Roane]

F.

The cause of the tipping point for this fire was determined to be a pine tree that fell and shorted a power line.  Man did cause this start of the fire and nature set up the dry scenario with a day of particularly gusty winds that first day.  This year's drought combined with the last two years of drought are not that uncommon in the history of this region from the fossil record.  I would not use the Bastrop fires as proof.  There are other easy to photograph things that you might point to as proof but not so much this fire near here.  

I am a big proponent of protected power lines rather than lines that have no insulation at all on them.  Sure it costs more to bury or protect these open conductors but not if you count the cost of 1,600 homes toasted and two dead people.  Man-made fires on this one for the start of the flames because the common practice is not safe.  If power lines were enclosed inside a guideway or protective jacket this fire would not have started this way.  Perhaps a man-made cigarette could have done this based on the sever drought so in that sense I could buy part of your argument.  The weather has been tough this year as a high pressure dome just sat on us all summer.  

Jerry Roane    

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/BIo2p9jMgaQJ.

[eph]

The fires in themselves aren't "proof", but when you look at all the floods, hurricanes, droughts/fires you have to start wondering - what's going on?  And when it hits close to home (if you don't care about more vulnerable people in far off lands), you might start to think - what can I DO about it?

GHG emissions free transportation is a component of the solution.  Many of the systems here could make a huge difference in both decreasing our GHG output and preventing more in developing countries.

As to the man-made cause of the fire, did the pine tree fall because of a man with a chainsaw?  Regardless of what the spark was, the underlying dryness/drought is the possible symptom of climate change.  The fire just highlights it.

"Devastating wildfires across Texas in recent weeks have been the most visible evidence of a year-long drought that Texas officials have declared to be the worst on record. Behind the highly visible carnage caused by the fires, the drought also has inflicted a toll on the Texas economy that will have long-term ramifications across the state."
http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/river_oaks/opinion/drought-is-damaging-texas-economy-in-ways-that-recession-hasn/article_ec36e23f-b806-5ae0-bb07-620fcfb46d1b.html

F.

[Jerry Roane]

F.

The tree fell because of the gusty wind as far as I can tell from the news reports.  The fire raged longer than it should have because of government red tape getting fire fighting assets to the fire.  There was some bungling a few days into the disaster.  That said, this drought is on par with the dust bowl years that cleared the plains of top soil.  Again not proof positive either way but certainly bad for those affected.  

Regardless of the take on the global aspects of this fire it would have been less severe or not at all had the power lines been insulated in some way.  Just because it is common that does not justify leaving exposed wires all over the landscape.  If transportation accommodates the vast majority of power distribution wiring this short may have been prevented.  I think several systems on this list advocate for utility access being built as part of the transportation replacement.  

My personal farm income will be zero for this year so the drought hurt my pecan farm with 110 trees. All the nuts dropped.  

Jerry Roane 

F.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/fqk4gaViUQ4J.

[kirston henderson]

on 9/21/11 11:54 AM, Jerry Roane at jerry...@gmail.com wrote:

Regardless of the take on the global aspects of this fire it would have been less severe or not at all had the power lines been insulated in some way.  Just because it is common that does not justify leaving exposed wires all over the landscape.  If transportation accommodates the vast majority of power distribution wiring this short may have been prevented.  I think several systems on this list advocate for utility access being built as part of the transportation replacement.  

My personal farm income will be zero for this year so the drought hurt my pecan farm with 110 trees. All the nuts dropped.  

   Sorry about the pecan crop, Jerry.  Coming from a farming background, I can understand the situation because I have seen the same sort of thing first had.

   And by the way, how did this thread get named "For Kirston?"  Nothing in it really has anything to do with me.

Kirston Henderson

[eph]

Enclosed wires might go some way to making the grid more robust and safe.

It certainly is frustrating to see all these "natural" events damage crops, livelihoods and even take lives.  Makes me upset that we aren't doing anything serious about it.  It's only the beginning and Canada won't be doing it's part for at least another 4 years.

F.

[WALTER BREWER]

A somewhat more innovative and job stimulating National Act might be to underground all but the highest voltage lines in high risk areas.

 

One of San Diego;so big fires, was started by wind blowing down a power line.

 

Solution:  Warn customers near risk areas power will be shut off during high winds.

 

 

Another bigger venture in the innovative product category is a system to douse fires before they get out of control. Now it's picks, shovels and bulldozers.

 

40 years ago The Aerospace Corp showed the US Forrest Service how to detect very small fires using satellite IR detectors, set up command control and discrimination to get massive amounts of retardant to the site.

A small fire had started in wilderness in the mountains about 15 miles east of San Bernardino where Aerospace and the Air Force ballistic missile Div. had offices. The fire burned its way down the mountain for a couple day and destroyed about 100 homes.

 

The Air Force General wanted to develop missile delivery. Fast accurate, and very expensive to say nothing of thousands of pounds of wreckage.

 

The better approach was the Satellite, or high altitude aircraft detection and dispatch several large aircraft. We also showed how retardant could be delivered more accurately and with more uniform pattern.

 

The Forrest Service was glad to se their R & D budget increase a few $million. But no one was interested in putting up the big bucks to have such on standby during fire season even.

So back to reaction with picks, shovels, and bulldozers.

 

The losses from just two big subsequent fires in San Diego would probably justify the more proactive approach

 

A sidelight on the red tape side. 40 years ago at least, the State Governor had to declare an emergency before the dozens of aircraft in the Air National Guard could be used. We designed retardant pallets with high capacity pumps.

And the Air Guard General insisted he needed more aircraft, pilots, mechanics office space.

 

Walt Brewer

----- Original Message -----

From: eph

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 2:15 PM

Subject: Re: [t-i] For Kirston

Enclosed wires might go some way to making the grid more robust and safe.

It certainly is frustrating to see all these "natural" events damage crops, livelihoods and even take lives.  Makes me upset that we aren't doing anything serious about it.  It's only the beginning and Canada won't be doing it's part for at least another 4 years.

F.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/TEqoE6uvirsJ.

[eph]

Very good.  This reminds me that biochar and energy can be produced from forest waste.  This idea would need some research, but essentially, if the highly combustible matter like dead trees and dry leaves were removed from the forest and consumed by pyrolysis (converting the built-up hydrogen bonds to energy) the forest could be spared and the energy normally released by periodic forest fires could be tapped with the biochar returning to the forest or redistributed where needed.

Ecosystems would have to be monitored/studied, but clear-cutting and tree planting has already changed the ecosystems.  Managed forests might benefit from transportation systems to bring waste material to the processing plant.

Of course, on a macro scale, reducing climate change causing GHG would only make sense.

F.

[Jack Slade]

I started it initially,  with a msg that I thought might interest you,  and other people have changed it to belief in Al Gore, Greenpeace, and Liberals in Ottawa ( who fortunately are out of power for the next few years)  which is really of no interest to anybody unless it becomes a discussion about Bridgette Bardo's boobs.   That should end it....   Jack Slade

--- On Wed, 9/21/11, kirston henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> wrote:

Sorry about the pecan crop, Jerry.  Coming from a farming background, I can understand the situation because I have seen the same sort of thing first had.    And by the way, how did this thread get named "For Kirston?"  Nothing in it really has anything to do with me. Kirston Henderson

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

[kirston henderson]

on 9/21/11 9:02 AM, Jerry Roane at jerry...@gmail.com wrote:

I am a big proponent of protected power lines rather than lines that have no insulation at all on them.  Sure it costs more to bury or protect these open conductors but not if you count the cost of 1,600 homes toasted and two dead people.  Man-made fires on this one for the start of the flames because the common practice is not safe.  If power lines were enclosed inside a guideway or protective jacket this fire would not have started this way.

   Insulated power lines have some pretty large disadvantages.  For on thing, surrounded ground or metal conduits cause electrical losses that are much greater than lines surrounded by air.  In the case of buried lines in residential areas, the losses are tolerated in the interest of better tolerance to wind and less visual clutter.  In our own case, we intend to distribute 13-kv, 3-phase power of the same type used in residential areas inside our enclosed guideway routing areas for the reasons of weather protection and visual advantages.  In this case, the energy losses are not as great as when the wires are in contact with earth on all sides rather than only merely near metal on one side.

   However, the above approach is not practical in the case of cross-country high-tension lines which become very difficult to insulate and would involve intolerable energy losses.

[George Schrader]

In a vacuum doesn’t cold conduction become possible?

 

GLS...@gmail.com

[Jack Slade]

Only if you use a superconductor,  and only if you can maintain the super-cold temperature that current state of the art superconductors need.  However,  if A/C voltage is used, this would still have the same loss as other wires due to capacitive reactance.  This is the loss that occure when any fluctuating magnetic field induces currents in nearby conductors....and the Earth is a conductor.   The losses are tremendous in burried cable,  about 50% loss in 12 miles.  Kirston has it right: Even insulating a wire makes heat dissipation slower,  so you have to use bigger wires.   At one time this summer we had over 90 forrest fires burning in Northern Ontario at the same time,  all caused by lightning.  This is not new,  so I wish alarmists would stop blaming it on GHG,  or we may end up with Greenpeace people trying to climb the North Pole.   Jack Slade --- On Wed, 9/21/11, George Schrader <georges...@knology.net> wrote:

From: George Schrader <georges...@knology.net> Subject: RE: [t-i] rotected Power Lines To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

[Jerry Roane]

Kirston

Agreed that high voltage lines far above the tree height should be as they are.  I think the lines that may have started the Bastrop fires were lower and obviously under the height of the pine trees in what used to be called "Lost Pines" of Bastrop.  There are losses with direct burial wires both in cost to install and cost to operate but if we look at the cost of that historic fire the cost may not be as high as it first appears.  My neighborhood and subdivision is all underground.  New York City is all hidden so it can be done.  

If they run DC long distances the induced current is less.  There are a few stretches of DC high voltage lines in the US grid.  Both ends are expensive of course but the DC link allows timing to be separate East to West.  Power plants have to drop in to the line in phase or they blow up like they did in Dallas about 20 years ago when a manual switch was thrown out of phase.  The idea then was man was better than machine so they left the phase match up to the operator.  Multi-million dollar mistake.    

Jerry Roane

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

[eph]

"belief in Al Gore and Greenpeace" - lie.
Never mentioned Liberals in Ottawa.
Your discussion style is antagonistic.

Initial post was about diesel pollution which GHG reduction and use of electric transport addresses.

The cabal now forming our the federal gov't are some of the same bozos (Flaherty and Baird) who gutted Ontario when in office.  Good luck getting any innovative transport funding there.

F.

[Jack Slade]

Your previous posting said something like :  "This will not be possible in the next 4 years" .  If you didn't mean this is when the next election comes around,  then what did you mean?  I like to keep both politics and long environmental discussions on another list,  somewhere that they might be appropriate,  but if you dig at my preferences then expect a comeback.    I will not dig at anybody's proposals unless I feel there is a lack of common sense included in them.   Jack Slade

--- On Wed, 9/21/11, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [t-i] Thread Name? To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/7VsL9yzQkJgJ.

[Michael Weidler]

Give it up, Frank. As they say, "you can't fix stupid". Jack has made up his "mind" about this and there will be no dissuading him.

---

From: Jack Slade <skytr...@rogers.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 1:41 AM

Subject: Re: [t-i] For Kirston

[Michael Weidler]

The "government red tape" was the fact that your idiot governor & his Republican cronies decided to cancel funding for fire fighting. After all no taxes is much more important than public safety.

---

From: Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 11:54 AM

Subject: Re: [t-i] For Kirston

[Michael Weidler]

It started with something about the Port of LA.

---

From: kirston henderson <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 12:25 PM
Subject: [t-i] Thread Name?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

[Michael Weidler]

Frank, I'm surprised that you don't know that forests REQUIRE periodic burning to remain healthy.

---

From: eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 3:12 PM
Subject: [t-i] Forest fire management

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/WfAQo6BttC0J.

[eph]

I've lost the thread of this discussion, but I thought only certain types needed a periodic burn (to spread seed) others could be managed.  In Europe, some places have forests that are completely managed - planted and harvested periodically, so it can be done (in the extreme).  Pyrolysis is burning without oxygen, so instead of scorching the forest, the energy from "waste" would be used and the "slag"/nutrients returned to the forest floor - again, I'm not a biologist, so this may make no sense.

F.

[Richard Gronning]

September 21?
OK, I'm old. I just can't remember posts from that LOOOONG ago. After all this time, why comment? Where is the relevance?

[Jack Slade]

You can't fix senility,  either:  It begins to happen when you forget what you learned in science class,  and your powers of observation get all screwed up.   One good insult deserves another.  Give it up;  most people cannot learn with their mouth open.   Jack Slade --- On Sat, 2/11/12, Michael Weidler <pstr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Jerry Roane]

Jack and Michael

Please stick to transportation.

Jerry Roane Moderator

[Jeff Davis]

Have you guys ever thought of switching to decaf?  Seriously….

 

One would hope that professionals can disagree without becoming disagreeable.

 

So, if I think (hypothetically speaking) that PRT will never be as good as BRT should I just announce that all of those who disagree with this statement is a moron?

 

I didn’t join this group to bash anybody, or any specific technology.  Just wanted to enter into some healthy and positive debates.  If everybody who expresses a different opinion other than yours is just plain stupid, perhaps this isn’t the forum for me.

 

Jeff.

 

---

[Jeff Davis]

Jerry,

Did you by any chance read my email on this?

 

Jeff.

 

---

[Kirston Henderson]

On Feb 11, 2012, at 5:48 PM, Jerry Roane wrote:

Jack and Michael

Please stick to transportation.

Jerry Roane Moderato

Jerry,

Thanks for putting thee fellows in his place.  As for me, I am going to try to sit my spam filter to reject future messages from this Weidler fellow.  I don't believe that I should have to read his insults and would appreciate if others would not respond to his insults to me.

Kirston.

[Nathan Koren]

Hello Jeff, and welcome to the forum!

I am also a transport planning professional; although I have a long
history with PRT, I do not hesitate to recommend other modes to my
clients when that is what will work best for them. (Actually, my long-
term background is in architecture and urban design, and ultimately I
believe that the best form of transport isn't transport at all: it's
already being where you want to be. Therefore the first thing I do
with my clients is attempt to steer them towards high-density mixed-
use planning programmes which put people in close proximity to most of
their daily needs; transport systems are then applied as a remedial
solution to address the fact that even the best urban design can't put
every possible necessity of life within walking distance.)

Unfortunately, I have found that there are some unhelpful strong
opinions on both sides of what is a largely unnecessary "debate". Many
transport professionals -- apparently eager to defend the turf that
they know best, which doesn't include PRT -- have used disingenuous
arguments and outright fraudulent math to "disprove" PRT. Meanwhile,
many PRT advocates, frustrated by the slow adoption of the technology
-- despite the fact that this is completely in line with historical
norms for the uptake of new transport systems -- have succumbed to
David vs. Goliath fantasises of utterly crushing the establishment,
and often deride and mock all existing technologies and anybody who
works on them. Both attitudes are exceptionally unhelpful, and I've
been doing what I can to try to temper them. You may be interested in
reading my 2008 essay on the subject, which was largely addressed
towards the PRT activist community:

http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/Koren_PRT_Essay.pdf

With those preliminaries out of the way, you've asked some questions
which indicate to me that you are very new to this topic. Please
understand that there are many decades worth of literature about PRT,
as well as extensive experience operating numerous PRT test tracks, as
well as public installations at Masdar, Heathrow, and (to the extent
that it's quasi-PRT) Morgantown. So this is not just a subject for
theoretical musings.

To briefly address some of your questions:

1.) How do you know that PRT is more energy-efficient than other
modes?

There are two elements to understanding energy-efficiency in any
transport mode: the ratio of human mass moved to vehicle mass moved
(which is a function of both vehicle weight and vehicle occupancy),
and the physical efficiency of the system itself (which is a function
of the energy use profile, the motor efficiency, wheel friction,
aerodynamic drag, etc.). All PRT designs address the first issue in
the same way, while the second is addressed in many different ways by
different PRT designs.

To understand why the mass ratio of PRT is much higher than
traditional modes, you need to appreciate that PRT vehicles are able
to be far lighter-weight than trains or highway-capable vehicles, and
that they only operate on an on-demand basis. Therefore the occupancy
of a PRT vehicle is always at least 25% (that's one person in a 4-
person vehicle), excluding empty vehicle movements (EVMs) for managing
asymmetric demand patterns. These EVMs typically account for about 30%
of the vehicle-miles in a typical PRT network; on the other hand, the
natural group size is generally around 1.5, making for an average
occupancy of 26%. This compares to an average occupancy for urban
buses of 9% (in the US), so PRT wins dramatically on that front. Of
course you have to look at each application on a case-by-case basis:
where the demand patterns are such that they would produce average
occupancies above 35% for buses, then the energy balance may start to
tilt in their favour.

In terms of the physical efficiency of the system: urban buses and
trains must constantly start and stop as they pick up and drop off
people at every stop. This is highly energy-intensive, and is only
actually useful for passengers who are boarding or alighting at that
stop. Since PRT is nonstop from origin to destination, this type of
wasted energy is eliminated.

Different PRT systems may use different energy sources, drivetrains,
wheel types, etc., so the physical efficiency for each needs to be
considered on a case-by-case basis. But the above factors are enough
to state with certainty that in the majority of transport conditions,
PRT yields much higher energy efficiencies than other modes of
transport.

2.) What about upstream emissions?

To be honest, whenever somebody asks this question, it is because they
want to compare the well-to-wheel energy consumption of PRT vs. the
point-of-use energy consumption of some other mode. That is not a
useful conversation to have. If a PRT vehicle -- drawing energy from
the grid -- requires 1,300 BTUs per passenger-mile, and an LRT vehicle
-- also drawing energy from the grid -- requires 2,700 BTUs per
passenger-mile, then the PRT vehicle is 2 times more efficient, full
stop. No further analysis is needed. There's no point in going into
discussions of upstream emissions unless you're intending to do the
same for ALL modes (and keep in mind that for gasoline-powered
vehicles, that includes not just the energy & emissions at the point
of use, but at every step in the fuel extraction, refining, and
transportation process...) -- and you'll find that by doing so, you
arrive at exactly the same ratios that you had in the first place.

3.) How do you know that PRT is less stressful than BRT?

This should be self-evident: because you don't have to know the
schedule, don't have to know the route, don't have to run to catch the
vehicle, don't have to figure out where to transfer, don't have to
figure out if the line you're transferring to is on a schedule that
syncs with the line you're transferring from, don't have to figure out
if you're at the right stop, don't have to worry about whether or not
you'll be able to get a seat, etc. All you have to do is select your
destination, push the "start" button, and then kick back until you
reach your destination.

I don't have a car, so I use public transport fairly exclusively. It
can often be very stressful, for all of the above reasons. I'm also
one of the few people (thus far) who have had the pleasure of being
able to use a PRT system as part of my daily commute to the office
(when I was working at Heathrow), and can personally testify that it
is VASTLY less stressful than any other form of transport (including
driving, to be sure!).

Best regards,

Nathan

On Feb 12, 4:00 am, "Jeff Davis" <jeff.davi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Have you guys ever thought of switching to decaf?  Seriously..

>
> One would hope that professionals can disagree without becoming
> disagreeable.
>
> So, if I think (hypothetically speaking) that PRT will never be as good as
> BRT should I just announce that all of those who disagree with this
> statement is a moron?
>
> I didn't join this group to bash anybody, or any specific technology.  Just
> wanted to enter into some healthy and positive debates.  If everybody who
> expresses a different opinion other than yours is just plain stupid, perhaps
> this isn't the forum for me.
>
> Jeff.
>
>   _____
>

> From: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jack Slade
> Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 4:52 PM
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [t-i] For Kirston
>
> You can't fix senility,  either:  It begins to happen when you forget what
> you learned in science class,  and your powers of observation get all
> screwed up.
>
> One good insult deserves another.  Give it up;  most people cannot learn
> with their mouth open.
>
> Jack Slade
>

> --- On Sat, 2/11/12, Michael Weidler <pstran...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> From: Michael Weidler <pstran...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [t-i] For Kirston
> To: "transport-...@googlegroups.com"
> <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Saturday, February 11, 2012, 4:36 PM
>
> Give it up, Frank. As they say, "you can't fix stupid". Jack has made up his
> "mind" about this and there will be no dissuading him.
>
>   _____
>

> From: Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com>
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 1:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [t-i] For Kirston
>
> Frank:  The whole spectrum of solar radiation is heat;  only the part that
> we can see is what we called light.  I don't think I have ever heard any oil
> company say anything about this, a nd I would certainly take their word for
> gospel if they did.  If you want to counter my statement with scientific
> facts,  go ahead,  but not from just people who are trying to make money
> with their baloney.  Light does not melt snow?  Really!!  Have you ever
> wondered why the snowbanks on the North side of your street are melting more
> than the South side in late Februrary, on days when the temperature is still
> below freezing?  How can you believe anything from a person that can say
> this?
>
> Jack Slade
>

> --- On Wed, 9/21/11, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> From: eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [t-i] For Kirston
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2011, 1:28 AM
>
> UV light does not account for recent polar ice melt.  We are causing that.
>
> Infrared is the heat part of the spectrum, the lower frequencies.
>
> Snow is really bright in sunlight, so most of it is reflected - if you want
> non-scientific reasons.
>
> I'm not wasting more time countering oil company propaganda.
>
> F.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "transport-innovators" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/4cxFTrh4toQJ.

> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[Jack Slade]

Kirston:  the  Thread name "For Kirston"  was resurrected from an old conversation six months ago,  but the insult was aimed at me,  so I answered it.  Sorry if you thought it was meant for you,  and that you thought I was replying to your mail.  .....Jack S --- On Sun, 2/12/12, Kirston Henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> wrote:

From: Kirston Henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> Subject: Re: [t-i] For Kirston To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

[Richard Gronning]

I didn't notice if it was 2010 or 2011. Thanks!

[Jeff Davis]

Nathan,
Thanks for the responses. It is obvious that they were well thought out.
As I mentioned in a separate reply, forgive or overlook my newness to the
available literature regarding PRT Systems.

In regards to the fraudulent math to disprove PRT, I have some questions
about the physics, math, and analyses proposed by Ed Anderson in support of
PRT. For some analyses I can't determine the origin of some
equations/math/analyses (trying to be polite here). If you have time and
are willing, may I discuss this with you? Note that I review safe braking
distance and minimum achievable headway calculations and analyses on a
regular basis as part of my daytime job. On a regular basis we make vendors
prove why their system will not run vehicles/trains into other
vehicles/trains, objects (end-of-line-buffers), or switches.

I think that you are correct in that using an 'average passenger
mass/transit vehicle mass' type of analogy is useful. The difficulty seems
to be in determining the 'average passenger mass'. All transit systems
route empty vehicles/trains, including PRT. Therefore, I think a more
honest comparison would be to either include empty vehicles for PRT, or
exclude empty vehicles for the compared mode. Not saying PRT is better,
not saying its' worse. Just want an honest comparison. For instance, you
mention some statistics that end to support a PRT System having a higher
average passenger mass per vehicle mass ratio. Again, forgive my newness,
but based on what?

The non-stop trip from origin to destination has been mentioned quite a few
times. From my understanding of any transportation system, this premise is
only true for lightly loaded systems, i.e. the current headways are long in
comparison to the minimum headways. If a transportation network becomes
flooded with vehicles/trains, traffic tends to come to a standstill as
everybody is waiting for an available slot. And what about situations where
a passenger arrives at a destination and no berths are currently available?
I know that your statement was meant to address the situation where transit
vehicles/trains make multiple stops to drop off/pick up passengers. But I
also know that once the number of transit vehicles/trains begins to reach
the capacity of the various links in a network, traffic starts to stall in
that area.

As far as upstream emissions, my only point is that they must be considered.
Much of the available marketing/sales literature tends to not mention the
upstream emissions and make unfair comparisons, i.e. electrically powered
vehicles with no visible emissions carrying people around as opposed to
diesel fume belching busses. Looks like a 'good' comparison, except that
what's mentioned is that the electrically powered vehicles increase
emissions at the fossil fuel powered generators. Just looking for a fair
and even comparison. One possibility might be (paraphrasing what you wrote
below) "Diesel powered busses use XX amount of energy (or cause XX amount of
carbon emissions per passenger mass, whereas PRT only uses YY amount of
energy (or cause YY amount of carbon emissions) per passenger mass." To me
this seems more fair, assuming all factors are considered equally.

Also, if busses are to be considered, what about alternative fuel powered
busses? How do they stack up against PRT?

As far as 'less stressful' regarding a PRT being evident, I agree with the
points you raise. I ride public transportation all the time, US, Canada,
Asia, Europe (Eastern and Western). I also agree that if the transit system
is operating at or less than the capacity which would induce travel delays,
your point about not stopping between origin and destination is valid.

As far as Heathrow, I would be interested in knowing the total (real,
actual) annual cost of operating and maintaining (including all utilities)
the PRT System versus a dual lane shuttle that served both destinations.
The actual dual lane shuttle costs can be obtained from existing systems.

Finally, it appears that you tend to be a moderate, same as myself, and I
was serious about looking for someone to explain some concepts and positions
proposed by Ed Anderson in his papers.

Jeff.

[Richard Gronning]

On 2/12/2012 9:32 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> In regards to the fraudulent math to disprove PRT, I have some questions
> about the physics, math, and analyses proposed by Ed Anderson in support of
> PRT. For some analyses I can't determine the origin of some
> equations/math/analyses (trying to be polite here). If you have time and
> are willing, may I discuss this with you? Note that I review safe braking
> distance and minimum achievable headway calculations and analyses on a
> regular basis as part of my daytime job. On a regular basis we make vendors
> prove why their system will not run vehicles/trains into other
> vehicles/trains, objects (end-of-line-buffers), or switches.

Why don't you just write to Ed Anderson? Here is his email,
jea.p...@gmail.com
Ed is usually happy to answer questions, especially on math and equations.
(Warning! Ed can do calculus and diff. eq. in his head.)

> I think that you are correct in that using an 'average passenger
> mass/transit vehicle mass' type of analogy is useful. The difficulty seems
> to be in determining the 'average passenger mass'. All transit systems
> route empty vehicles/trains, including PRT. Therefore, I think a more
> honest comparison would be to either include empty vehicles for PRT, or
> exclude empty vehicles for the compared mode. Not saying PRT is better,
> not saying its' worse. Just want an honest comparison. For instance, you
> mention some statistics that end to support a PRT System having a higher
> average passenger mass per vehicle mass ratio. Again, forgive my newness,
> but based on what?

Ask Ed about this one too. The BIG difference is the size of the PRT
system. A smaller system could reposition a large number of vehicles. A
large system would reposition very few. It works for formulas for riders
as well. A small system has few stations. Therefore, the vehicles would
tent to hold more than one. For smaller systems, GRT would work. For
larger systems, there would be large numbers of stations, departure and
arrival points. This would mean that the riders per vehicle would tend
to go down, towards 1, the way that the auto is now. (1.3 per vehicle)

> The non-stop trip from origin to destination has been mentioned quite a few
> times. From my understanding of any transportation system, this premise is
> only true for lightly loaded systems, i.e. the current headways are long in
> comparison to the minimum headways. If a transportation network becomes
> flooded with vehicles/trains, traffic tends to come to a standstill as
> everybody is waiting for an available slot. And what about situations where
> a passenger arrives at a destination and no berths are currently available?
> I know that your statement was meant to address the situation where transit
> vehicles/trains make multiple stops to drop off/pick up passengers. But I
> also know that once the number of transit vehicles/trains begins to reach
> the capacity of the various links in a network, traffic starts to stall in
> that area.

The concept in PRT is called, wave-off. Also ask Ed about wave-off.
With large numbers of smaller stations, there is very little likelihood
of wave-off, although I don't have a number readily at hand. If you were
riding in a large system and your vehicle got waved off, the next
station might be only 4 blocks. Is it a nice day for a walk? Otherwise,
the vehicle would take the next guideway in the opposite direction and
return to the selected station.

> As far as upstream emissions, my only point is that they must be considered.
> Much of the available marketing/sales literature tends to not mention the
> upstream emissions and make unfair comparisons, i.e. electrically powered
> vehicles with no visible emissions carrying people around as opposed to
> diesel fume belching busses. Looks like a 'good' comparison, except that
> what's mentioned is that the electrically powered vehicles increase
> emissions at the fossil fuel powered generators. Just looking for a fair
> and even comparison. One possibility might be (paraphrasing what you wrote
> below) "Diesel powered busses use XX amount of energy (or cause XX amount of
> carbon emissions per passenger mass, whereas PRT only uses YY amount of
> energy (or cause YY amount of carbon emissions) per passenger mass." To me
> this seems more fair, assuming all factors are considered equally.

You seem to know about transportation and energy. It seems to me that
you should also know that electricity produced at stationary plants is
far more efficient and the emissions can be controlled far better than
any ICE.

> Also, if busses are to be considered, what about alternative fuel powered
> busses? How do they stack up against PRT?

What is the AVERAGE load on a bus? Do the math of pollution per average
passenger ride.

> As far as Heathrow, I would be interested in knowing the total (real,
> actual) annual cost of operating and maintaining (including all utilities)
> the PRT System versus a dual lane shuttle that served both destinations.
> The actual dual lane shuttle costs can be obtained from existing systems.

Wouldn't we all?

> Finally, it appears that you tend to be a moderate, same as myself, and I
> was serious about looking for someone to explain some concepts and positions
> proposed by Ed Anderson in his papers.
>

Again, just write to Ed.

Dick Gronning

[Benke]

Hi Jeff,

I think most of your questions are being taken care of quite well
here, but I would like to add a few things:

Regarding energy consumption actual figures for Heathrow and Masdar
systems are around 0.1kWh/km which compares favourably to
around 0.25 kWh/km for current electric cars. I think that this can
mostly be attributed to lower weight, lower speed and more constant
speed as these vehicles still use rubber tires on concrete. Our system
aims to reduce this further hopefully approaching 0.05 kWh/km..

When it comes to the congestion issues and their possible effect on
mean speeds computer simulations have been performed using different
programs with different algorithms over decades. I have for instance
simulated a complete rush hour for the city of Uppsala full buildout
network of 100 km and 150 stations. This network could handle 17000
person trips in the rush hour based on a two second headway
assumption. This simulation showed that congestion sets in at about 70
% of the "packed guideway" i.e. vehicles at constant minimum headway.
This number is fairly consistent on different network sizes. To handle
this each vehicle reports its decided route when the trip starts and
this information is compiled to a "congestion level" for each network
link. This information is used when succeding trips are started so
that heavy congestion can be avoided by "driving around it". I
implemented this in my simulator and the result was that link loads
were evened out (i.e. larger percentage of links got up to 70% load)
while trip times were only increased by 10-30 seconds for the typical
10 minute trip compared to the unloaded network. Obviously, it is also
possible to prevent congestion at the level where speed is
significantly reduced. This is in contrast with road traffic which to
date basically uses the drivers' intuition to avoid congestion. ITS
systems aim to improve the situation but we are very far from knowing
at time of departure which way each vehicle is aiming to take.

Regarding average passenger load there is a significant difference
between PRT and cars. Passengers are concentrated to stations before
starting their trips. For small suburban stations this won't make much
of a difference but in large stations it can, provided that people are
willing to share. Initial experience from Heathrow are encouraging in
this respect and it is also possible to incentivise by sharing cost
for the vehicle. One positive and important factor is that the
possibility to match people going to the same destination increase
with the amount of people waiting. It is very hard to estimate how
much this would gain as it depends on people's choices, but my
simulations show that considering only the possibilities to match
people you can get up to three average out of heavily loaded stations.
This would about double the capacity compared to no ride-sharing, A
more realistic number considering people's preferences could be a 50%
increase. The main advantage this offers is of course increased
capacity at heavily loaded stations, but it would also as a side
benefit reduce the average power consumption.

Bengt

On 13 Feb, 17:10, Richard Gronning <rgronn...@gofast.am> wrote:
> On 2/12/2012 9:32 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:> In regards to the fraudulent math to disprove PRT, I have some questions
> > about the physics, math, and analyses proposed by Ed Anderson in support of
> > PRT.  For some analyses I can't determine the origin of some
> > equations/math/analyses (trying to be polite here).  If you have time and
> > are willing, may I discuss this with you?  Note that I review safe braking
> > distance and minimum achievable headway calculations and analyses on a
> > regular basis as part of my daytime job.  On a regular basis we make vendors
> > prove why their system will not run vehicles/trains into other
> > vehicles/trains, objects (end-of-line-buffers), or switches.
>
> Why don't you just write to Ed Anderson? Here is his email,

> jea.p.e....@gmail.com

[Michael Weidler]

As far as I can tell, Nathan didn't respond to you on the group so....

---

From: Jeff Davis <jeff.d...@verizon.net>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Cc: 'Nathan Koren' <nko...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 9:32 PM
Subject: RE: [t-i] Re: For Kirston

Nathan,
Thanks for the responses.  It is obvious that they were well thought out.
As I mentioned in a separate reply, forgive or overlook my newness to the
available literature regarding PRT Systems.

In regards to the fraudulent math to disprove PRT, I have some questions
about the physics, math, and analyses proposed by Ed Anderson in support of
PRT.  For some analyses I can't determine the origin of some
equations/math/analyses (trying to be polite here).  If you have time and
are willing, may I discuss this with you?  Note that I review safe braking
distance and minimum achievable headway calculations and analyses on a
regular basis as part of my daytime job.  On a regular basis we make vendors
prove why their system will not run vehicles/trains into other
vehicles/trains, objects (end-of-line-buffers), or switches.

================
I am not going to attempt to address Ed's physics or math. There are however a few easy take-aways for the usual objections. 1) If you've ever driven a motor vehicle you have used PRT. 2) If easily distracted humans are capable of operating vehicles in excess of 60mph at less than 2 seconds headway, what makes makes you believe that computers won't be at least as capable on an exclusive segregated guideway? 3) PRT is always guaranteed a dry surface on which to brake. 4) Many systems do not even use traction brakes for routine stopping. They use electromagnetic systems.

I think that you are correct in that using an 'average passenger
mass/transit vehicle mass' type of analogy is useful.  The difficulty seems
to be in determining the 'average passenger mass'.  All transit systems
route empty vehicles/trains, including PRT.  Therefore, I think a more
honest comparison would be to either include empty vehicles for PRT, or
exclude empty vehicles for the compared mode.  Not saying PRT is better,
not saying its' worse.  Just want an honest comparison.  For instance, you
mention some statistics that end to support a PRT System having a higher
average passenger mass per vehicle mass ratio.  Again, forgive my newness,
but based on what?

===============
PRT vehicles are very light. Most weigh less than a compact auto. Some mass only a few hundred pounds. Average mass of a passenger is 180 lbs (must be some real skinny people out there somewhere). Tally up the number of passengers per vehicle multiply by 180 and then divide the weight of the vehicle by that product. Or are you asking for something else?

The non-stop trip from origin to destination has been mentioned quite a few
times.  From my understanding of any transportation system, this premise is
only true for lightly loaded systems, i.e. the current headways are long in
comparison to the minimum headways.  If a transportation network becomes
flooded with vehicles/trains, traffic tends to come to a standstill as
everybody is waiting for an available slot.  And what about situations where
a passenger arrives at a destination and no berths are currently available?
I know that your statement was meant to address the situation where transit
vehicles/trains make multiple stops to drop off/pick up passengers.  But I
also know that once the number of transit vehicles/trains begins to reach
the capacity of the various links in a network, traffic starts to stall in
that area.

=====================
Unless something major goes wrong there is no congestion "on" the system. What I mean by this is that PRT vehicles do not pile up on the guideway. Instead, passengers "pile up" waiting for a vehicle to ride.

If a passenger arrives at a destination and no berths are currently available, the vehicle circles until there is an opening. While that sounds bad, consider that PRT systems are designed in short loops, and that the control system is aware that a berth is needed at that particular station, and that as soon as an empty vehicle is created in that station the vehicle will be sent elsewhere making a slot for our waiting passenger's car.

As far as upstream emissions, my only point is that they must be considered.
Much of the available marketing/sales literature tends to not mention the
upstream emissions and make unfair comparisons, i.e. electrically powered
vehicles with no visible emissions carrying people around as opposed to
diesel fume belching busses.  Looks like a 'good' comparison, except that
what's mentioned is that the electrically powered vehicles increase
emissions at the fossil fuel powered generators.  Just looking for a fair
and even comparison.  One possibility might be (paraphrasing what you wrote
below) "Diesel powered busses use XX amount of energy (or cause XX amount of
carbon emissions per passenger mass, whereas PRT only uses YY amount of
energy (or cause YY amount of carbon emissions) per passenger mass."  To me
this seems more fair, assuming all factors are considered equally.

======================
I'd go with energy use. Some parts of the country - Seattle for instance - don't use coal. A diesel bus will always be a diesel bus. An electric vehicle can be charged or operated on any electric source - be it coal, wind, solar, or  rubbing two hamsters together.

Also, if busses are to be considered, what about alternative fuel powered
busses?  How do they stack up against PRT?

=========
Now we're back to the vehicle mass/passenger mass thing again and PRT would win again. In addition, PRT isn't clogging up the surface streets. Buses are certainly more flexible than PRT, but they are more flexible than street cars or LRT too.

> transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group
athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group
athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group
athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group
athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Jeff Davis]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. 

 

In regards to safe separation, yes I am aware of that PRTs have been compared to motor vehicles.  The comparison is somewhat unequal in that in vehicles operated by people, the safe separation is governed by direct visual contact with vehicles or obstacles ahead and the time it takes to react (apply brakes), and for automated systems leading vehicles must continuously communicate their position to following vehicles.  It’s this communications delay in fully automated systems that increases the safe separation.  Additionally, consider the design option of whether or not following vehicles should always apply emergency brakes (high brake rate), or normal brakes (low brake rate) due to vehicles or obstacles ahead.  While designing a system to run vehicles so close together such that all vehicles must apply emergency brakes to avoid collisions is an option, it does not provide acceptable ride comfort for passengers when things fail.

 

As far as suggesting some amount of time for a communications delay, I would prefer some sort of real world analysis based on actual operating systems as opposed to fictional times that have no basis in reality.

 

Jeff.

 

---

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

[Michael Weidler]

Are you saying that you trust the reaction time of a human over a computer?!? And why on earth would you have PRT vehicles constantly in contact with one another? I'd simply give each car radar and tell it not to hit anything. I'd have vehicles communicate with central control at particular spots - such as at a merge. I would give it an auxiliary method of contacting central control in the event of an emergency, so other cars would not continue to enter that section of guideway and create a traffic jam. Note that following cars will not run into the stalled car even if they never hear from central control.

---

From: Jeff Davis <jeff.d...@verizon.net>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Cc: 'Michael Weidler' <pstr...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 1, 2012 4:06 PM

that it's quasi-PRT) Morgantown . So this is not just a subject for

theoretical musings.

To briefly address some of your questions:

1.) How do you know that PRT is more energy-efficient than other
modes?

There are two elements to understanding energy-efficiency in any
transport mode: the ratio of human mass moved to vehicle mass moved
(which is a function of both vehicle weight and vehicle occupancy),
and the physical efficiency of the system itself (which is a function
of the energy use profile, the motor efficiency, wheel friction,
aerodynamic drag, etc.). All PRT designs address the first issue in
the same way, while the second is addressed in many different ways by
different PRT designs.

To understand why the mass ratio of PRT is much higher than
traditional modes, you need to appreciate that PRT vehicles are able
to be far lighter-weight than trains or highway-capable vehicles, and
that they only operate on an on-demand basis. Therefore the occupancy
of a PRT vehicle is always at least 25% (that's one person in a 4-
person vehicle), excluding empty vehicle movements (EVMs) for managing
asymmetric demand patterns. These EVMs typically account for about 30%
of the vehicle-miles in a typical PRT network; on the other hand, the
natural group size is generally around 1.5, making for an average
occupancy of 26%. This compares to an average occupancy for urban

buses of 9% (in the US ), so PRT wins dramatically on that front. Of

[Jeff Davis]

Michael,

No I am not saying that I would 'necessarily', or 'arbitrarily' trust the human response time over a computer.  The concept of software reliability, dependability, verification, and validation is a separate topic.  I acknowledge that the response time for humans is highly variable, depending on a number of factors, but I would not trust any control system, hardware and software, used in a safety, especially life safety application unless it has been subjected to an independent safety review.  So, it's difficult to respond to your comment as stated.

 

What I tried to point out in my response is that for automated transportation systems there is a communications and processing delay between lead vehicles and following vehicles that must be accounted for.

 

As far as reducing the communications delay using radar for collision avoidance, please advise of a land based transportation system with a network of vehicles that successfully uses radar for this function as you mentioned below. I am aware of recent attempts at using radar for collision avoidance on single vehicle trials, but not multi-vehicle systems.  Robbert mentioned that they are using LIDAR for collision avoidance for 2getthere.  I haven't had a chance to review the information he sent, but it seems plausible and based on the information provided works as required.  As far as using LIDAR, what I would like to review is how this system deals with curves in the track, including 'blind' curves that LIDAR would not be able to 'see' around.

 

You mentioned that you would have vehicles communicate with central control at particular spots, such as merges, but you did not provide an analysis to show the communications and processing time delay.  It would help if you could provide some type of engineering analysis for this delay, or at least real world examples.

 

As far as cars creating a traffic jam, this requires further explanation.  For example, for a single track system, what happens if one of the vehicles develops a problem and stops?  It would help if there were some type of operational analysis using either real world or hypothetical, but practical designs to review.

 

Jeff

 

From: Michael Weidler <pstr...@yahoo.com>
To: "transport-...@googlegroups.com" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: For Kirston

Are you saying that you trust the reaction time of a human over a computer?!? And why on earth would you have PRT vehicles constantly in contact with one another? I'd simply give each car radar and tell it not to hit anything. I'd have vehicles communicate with central control at particular spots - such as at a merge. I would give it an auxiliary method of contacting central control in the event of an emergency, so other cars would not continue to enter that section of guideway and create a traffic jam. Note that following cars will not run into the stalled car even if they never hear from central control.

 

[Kirston Henderson]

On Apr 13, 2012, at 1:00 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:

What I tried to point out in my response is that for automated transportation systems there is a communications and processing delay between lead vehicles and following vehicles that must be accounted for.

 

In a properly designed system, those communication delays are on the order of milliseconds.

Kirston

[Jeff Davis]

Kirston,

Thanks for your response. What is the basis for stating milliseconds as the delay time?  I would appreciate

 

Jeff

From: Kirston Henderson <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 6:42 AM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: For Kirston

[Jack Slade]

Radio pulses,  just like electricity,  travels at 5.23 nautical miles per microsecond( millionth of a second).  Millisecond is thousandths of a second.  Compared to a human being that thpically has a reaction time of

a half-second or more this will seem like instantaneous.

 

Jack Slade   

[Jeff Davis]

Jack,

Thanks for the response, but it is not complete.

 

You are correct in that the speed of light in a vacuum has been measured to be roughly 3 x 10^8 m/s, or about 19k miles per second.  This is only partially relevant to the total reaction time.  Can you elaborate on the total processing and communications time used or assumed to determine the total reaction time of milliseconds?

 

Also, you mentioned "Radio pulses, just like electricity".  Be careful about relating the speed of an electromagnetic wave in a vacuum, air pressure at sea level, and electrical conductors.  They are close, but not equal.

 

Jeff

[Dennis Manning]

Try more like 190k miles per second. Your decimal place is off.

[Jack Slade]

I will try, but first:  we don't live in a vacuum,  so we are only concerned with the speed here at ground level.  Light and radio speed does not vary enough,  vacuum or otherwise,  to make any substantial difference.  I would not try to use radio control for any system.  There are too many possibilities of outside interference,  random or intentional, that could make thing go very wrong.  Fiber-optics is the way to go,  in my opinion.

 

I can only tell you about systems that I know well.  When our radar picture in ATC was converted to a digital (computerized ) display,  35 microseconds was allowed for a combination of  processing time, transmittal of signal to our control room, and the placement of other information on our display.  If  microchip speeds have not improved in the 28 years that I have been retired,  this would mean that a car at 60 Mph would move less than one inch during this transmission delay.

 

If the signal was to activate braking there would be an additional variable in different systems,  but the half-second or greater human reaction time would nevertheless be avoided.  In my system the cars do not brake individually.  Any incident between any 2 stations requiring any car to brake would apply to all cars on that section,  as the guideway controls both power and braking.  The 35 microsecond delay would apply to the signal sent to preceeding stations to initiate the appropriate action on the sections of guideway controlled by them.

 

While I have not had enough computer training to program all this myself,  I know lots of people who do,  and I know what they can do.

[Jack Slade]

Not so.  Our technicians use a speed of 300,000 Kps,  and have for many years.  I am sure they were well trained.  Some of them taught me,  so if they are wrong so am I.

 

Jack Slade

[eph]

speed of light
 = 299,792 ,458 m / s
= 670,616,629 mph
 = 186,282.397 miles per second
according to google

But communication (between cars or roadway) is more limited by bits per second and initial delay.  Processing time depends on the algorithm and processing speed.


F.

[Jerry Roane]

F

You are right the processor speed is what takes the time but processors run at gigahertz speed these days

http://hothardware.com/News/IBM-Introduces-Worlds-Fastest-Processor-52GHz-Enterprise-Chip/

 and control software could be written with machine code and priority interrupts can be pulled on the processor to get the attention of the CPU in one machine cycle.  The routine for stop could be just a few lines of machine code or a few machine cycles.  Needless to say a fighter jet that is aerodynamically unstable is able to be flown with microprocessor or analog controls just fine.  The time delay between the fighter jet being stable and unstable is an example of the speed of an electronic control system that is modern.  Charging capacitance is the delay and those capacitances are tiny.  Machine code running on a 5.2 gigahertz processor could run a lot of code in a millisecond.  Grab your mouse and try to outrun it on your screen.  The mouse movement has a higher priority in the software and it moves hundreds of times for each movement of your hand.  Each incremental move of the mouse could be a stop the car command from the microprocessor.  The braking action is mechanical or ordinance and takes a microsecond or two also to apply the brake hardware.  In battle it has been demonstrated that you can shoot a bullet out of the air with an ordinance curtain using electronic tracking and intercepting controls.  Bullets are pretty dang fast yet they can be melted from a shower curtain of hot stuff from above on a Hummer.  

When a microprocessor gets an interrupt it usually has to load up the memory stack then service the routine so it can return to where it was.  For an emergency stop there is no need to fill the stack or keep track of where things were before the service interrupt.  It can just go to stop!!!  On a non-merged guideway if all cars stop things are safe and the slow down is in harmony.  You could do a priority interrupt and jam on the brakes of all cars and not have to return to the radio setting feature the computer was working on before the emergency condition.  At 5.2 gigahertz that is not an issue if you run the numbers.  You will see that machine time is an eternity compared to physical world motion.  

Jerry Roane 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/JJumPSOG-RYJ.

[eph]

google just trashed my message...again.

Didn't say it can't be done, just that processing and communication speed is slower than the speed of light.


F.

To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

Jack Slade
To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Jeff Davis]

F,

You are absolutely correct regarding processing time, and when you can get this point across to others, please let me know how you were able to do it.

 

Jeff 

From: eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Jack Slade <skytr...@rogers.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: For Kirston

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/JJumPSOG-RYJ.

[Jeff Davis]

F,

Once again, you are correct.

 

Also, comparing the processing time of a single complete unit (such as on a modern aircraft or automobile) with all sensors hardwired to the main control system, to a system of units (such as a fleet of aircraft or automobiles) interconnected by radios (wireless) is incorrect.

 

Jeff 

From: eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: For Kirston

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/zEgREeloJOkJ.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

[Jack Slade]

Jeff:  I think your conversation almost falls into the category of "picking on small faults".  The speed of processors,  even 30 years ago,  makes any normal motion done by humans appear as if we are standing still.  Even the small one in the average car is analyzing inputs from about 100 different sensors,  and doing it at least 1000 times every second.  In addition to this, it is also directing spark plugs to fire at a precise time depending on RPM and throttle load,  and doing the same for fuel injectors,  as well as doing a few other things that I am not even aware of.

 

To argue whether a car moves .437 or .478 inches while something important happens is just ridiculous. 

And the signals Inside a Processor do move from point to point within the processor at the speed of light,  along printed circuits of real metal...they just have to move to many different parts of the processor and back again.  If the total distance of these trips total 17 inches,  then the delay is the time it takes light to travel 17 inches.  If it is 117 inches,  big deal.  How long does it take light to travel 10 feet?  The answer is that these differences,  while they look big in print,  is of no consequence to vehicle control,  unless you are talking of future vehicles that travel close to the speed of light.

 

Jack Slade 

From: Jeff Davis <jeff.d...@verizon.net>
To: "transport-...@googlegroups.com" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

[eph]

So, here is part of what google trashed:

At 100 MBits/s  (common 100 base-T), sending a message has a bound described by the length of the message plus headers in bits over speed.
e.g. a tweet is 144 characters, a few more bytes for headers, we're up to 160 say.
160*8/100,000,000 bits/s ~= 13 us (micro seconds).

A keep-alive signal sent from each vehicle on a segment would occupy this time/space.  So multiply by the max. # of vehicles on a segment and multiply by the number of missed keep-alive responses before action is take, add processing speed (decide to stop or slow down or whatever based on an unknown algorithm (perhaps involving other sensors))  and it gives you an idea of the time involved.  If we limit platoons to 8 cars and segments never overlap with other platoons, we would get 8x plus maybe 3x for signal faults.

We are up to 13*8*3+ (unknown computing time) = about 1 ms (1/1000 s) as a lower bound with no special hardware.  In reality, message collisions occur when many computers try to put messages on the same wire and resend algorithms repeat the messages after a varying delay making the throughput lower than a straight transmitter/receiver scenario so that also eats into the lower bound.

1/1000th of a second seems like a very workable bound in theory, reality always bites.


F.

To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.

[Jeff Davis]

F,

Good response, and good beginning of an actual, real world communications analysis.

 

Jeff 

From: eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Cc: Jack Slade <skytr...@rogers.com>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: For Kirston

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/ekgntXGUeiwJ.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.