History of Magneplane

The development of maglev

In the late 60s it was recognized that the speed of wheeled railroads is limited to 150-200 mph. No amount of engineering can make steel-wheeled vehicles go faster economically because of the stress and wear limitations of steel itself.

Alternatives to the wheel were being pursued seriously. Air cushion levitation was pursued in England, France, and the US, but was ultimately ruled out as being unworkable. Magnetic levitation, or maglev is credited as being invented by Jim Powell and Gordon Danby at Brookhaven Laboratories, on Long Island, in New York, but there is a patent as early as 1902 for using attractive magnets to reduce the friction of trolley cars.

The German Transrapid system is basically a maglev train. A train, especially a 2000 ton train, can not accelerate fast enough to be useful at high speeds for anything other than long trips. If you want to go from Hamburg to Berlin along with a thousand other passengers, Transrapid is perfectly acceptable, but it is not feasible to make any or very many stops along the way. It is noted that the TR08 has been reduced in size to as few as two vehicles, each carrying 60 first class passengers and each weighing only 188 tons, but the acceleration is one fifth that of the magneplane and it requires the mechanical movement of a section of track to provide switching, which severely limits the speed and increases the spacing between vehicles. The grade climbing capability is half that of the magneplane, which can climb a 20% grade.

The magneplane

A radically new type of transportation, the magneplane, was invented which uses small 45, 100 or 140 passenger vehicles, operating along a guideway, which combines the features of an airplane, a train, and a car. It is really a bus that goes 300 mph, is fully automated, goes where you want to go, and when you want, with dynamic scheduling. Due to it's relatively low speed compared to a jet airplane, and relatively high air friction compared to a jet airplane, the magneplane is not expected to compete with air travel for trips of 300 miles or more.

The magneplane was invented in 1969 by Henry Kolm and Richard Thornton of MIT, and developed by Magneplane International, Inc. with support from MIT, Raytheon, United Engineers, Avco, Alcoa and 3M. Additional funding was supplied later by the National Science Foundation.

When the Magneplane corporation was dissolved, the word "magneplane" became a public domain word, which can not be trademarked or used as a company name. A new, private company, Magplane Technology, Inc., was formed to continue the development of the magneplane concept.

Today

Magplane Technology is expecting to complete an operational engineering prototype sometime in the next several years, using exclusively private funding.

Funds to develop the magneplane prototype were authorized by the US 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, but have not been appropriated yet. In 1998 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, authorized funds to use towards deploying a maglev system in the United States. These funds will also need to be appropriated.

It is estimated that the development, construction and testing of a magneplane prototype would cost $250,000,000 and take approximately six years. Guideways are estimated to cost $15 million per mile, and require an almost zero area of right of way other than the existing highway rights of way. Stations (magports) can be conveniently located in shopping centers, residential areas, office parks and at entertainment centers.

Rather than focusing on what it will cost, it is better to focus on what the magneplane will provide - easy access to locations which otherwise are mired in traffic, both in the sky and on the ground. Almost every city in the world can be used as an example of impossible transportation systems. In New York City the average speed of traffic is now 7 miles per hour, and decreasing. Rollerblading is popular because it is twice as fast as taking a taxi. A magneplane on the other hand goes 5 miles a minute, meaning that instead of it taking an hour to go cross town it would take less than a minute. Getting from your office to the airport which in most cities means leaving your office two to three hours before your scheduled departure time would take three to five minutes, and if you are going somewhere less than 500 miles away, taking a magneplane the whole way would probably take less total time than flying.

Due to the aerodynamic advantage of a jet flying at 30 to 40 thousand feet and due to the higher speed of a jet versus a magneplane, it is more practical to fly in an airplane than it is to use a magneplane for trips beyond 500 miles in length.

For information, including information on a brochure and video, write to info@magneplane.com

Return

Copyright © 1998-2001

Zimbabwe Whispers

For the second time in two days, the leader of Zimbabwe's political opposition was arrested for a minor offense as President Robert Mugabe warned that the election campaign between them next year would be "total war." Morgan Tsvangirai was charged with possession of an unlicensed radio in what his Movement for Democratic Change called an attempt to "dampen his spirits [and] get him thinking for his own safety." Meanwhile, Mugabe, in winning the unanimous nomination of his ruling ZANU-PF movement for reelection, urged his followers to "move like a military machine."

Evacuated Tube Transport

This is a discussion group open to everyone interested in learning about or contributing to the Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT) knowledge base. This group is not moderated and is open to anyone. Attachments are removed, so post any files in the files section.

ETT eliminates friction; making 4000mph possible, or 300mph on human power! A typical ETT system comprises: Evacuated tubes along a travel route for both directions. Capsules to transport occupants or cargo within the tubes. Equipment providing continuous transfer to tube while preserving vacuum. Capsule suspension that eliminates drag. Coordinated acceleration apparatus. Energy recovery braking. Vibration control structures. Tube alignment devices. automatic capsule switch and synchronization. Automated operation, inspection, and maintenance. Methods of construction. Redundant data, safety and security systems. Low and high technology embodiments are comprehensively disclosed. Possibilities include replacement or augmentation of: vehicles, power lines, energy storage devices, power plants, heaters, air conditioning, water and sewer pipes, and communication cables and satellites. ETT provides continuous, environmentally benign, sustainable, local and international travel. Aerodynamic limitations, weather exposure, and obstacles are essentially eliminated; The system enables a quantum improvement in safety, speed and efficiency.

Sustainable transportation is paramount.

Is a site for advanced transportation links, and file sharing. Make sure your link and important files are there. Anyone may join and add links, files, or photos. A database is also available, as is a calendar and polls for voting on any advanced transport issue you dream up.

This site is for those who want to add to the advancement of transportation technology. Add to the site till the limit of 20meg is reached, then we can collectively vote on what to throw out.

Water helps more than plants grow

Ventura County Star December 16, 2001 By William Fulton

In about a month, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors will once again consider the Newhall Ranch project -- the largest single development project ever proposed in the nation's largest county.

Newhall is back before the Board of Supervisors largely on the question of water. The 21,000-home development project -- to be located on 12,000 acres stretching from Magic Mountain west to the Ventura County line -- expects to get water from a variety of sources, including purchase of water rights from farmers in Kern County and use of some groundwater in the Santa Clarita area. Los Angeles County originally approved the project three years ago, but in mid-2000, a judge in Bakersfield ordered the county to redo some of the environmental analysis, especially regarding the water supply. The judge was skeptical about the county's analysis of the area's hydrology, which, he said, was based on assumptions rather than on facts.

Now, Newhall Land & Farming and the county have redone the environmental analysis. The Newhall project has already sailed past the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission the second time around, and the Board of Supervisors will likely do the same next month.

But the water issue isn't over yet for Newhall. Because, when it comes time for the company to build specific housing tracts, it is going to have to comply with a new state law. Starting Jan. 1, cities and counties around the state will be prohibited from approving big residential development projects like Newhall Ranch unless the local water district is convinced that a reliable water supply exists for the project.

This new law is the latest in a series of steps designed to tie water planning and land-use planning closer together. But what will it do? Will it stop growth because there's no water? Will it simply induce developers to pay for new water projects? Or will it simply generate new reams of paper about the question of whether sufficient water exists or not?

Up until a few years ago, there was no requirement at all that cities and counties take water supply issues seriously when approving development projects. Water districts often had to provide a "will serve" letter -- a letter saying they "will serve" the project with water -- but that was usually pro-forma. Then, in 1995, the law changed. Local governments were required to "consult" with water districts to assess whether water would be available for large housing projects, and that analysis had to be included in the environmental impact report. J

Just because a law is passed doesn't mean that people follow it, however. Last spring, the East Bay Municipal Utility District -- a water agency in the Oakland area that had pushed for the 1995 law -- did a study examining how rigorously the law had been enforced by local governments doing EIRs on new housing developments. The agency's conclusion: Of 119 projects subject to the law, only two did "a thorough assessment of what happens to existing water customers during extended drought."

Armed with these alarming facts, East Bay MUD went back to the Legislature last year -- specifically to influential Sen. Sheila Kuehl, who represents Agoura Hills and Westlake Village and will represent much of southern Ventura County after next year's redistricting. Well-known for championing environmental causes, Kuehl pushed the new bill.

Environmentalists like the law because they think projects get approved without available water. Water districts like it because it gives them more leverage. Local governments and developers went along with it because they saw that water was becoming more of an issue in development projects.

East Bay MUD's lobbyist calls the new law "an invitation for developers to bring their checkbook." In other words, if it's necessary to find new water to serve a big housing project, the developers can help foot the bill. This doesn't mean big developers building dams in Northern California so we can have more houses in Southern California -- those days are over. Rather, it usually means buying water from farmers or finding creative ways to "bank" groundwater in wet years. (Newhall Ranch used both these approaches, by the way; it was the method of banking groundwater that the Bakersfield judge found fault with.)

Of course, environmentalists want things to work out somewhat differently under the new law. They don't really want new water projects of any kind -- even if it means moving water around, rather than damming new rivers. Instead, they want to argue that there just isn't as much water out there as we think, and therefore we must either shut down new development or impose stronger conservation measures. And so the biggest impact of the new law may simply be to shift the debate to the following question:

When water officials say there's enough water out there to support a new development project, should we believe them? At a recent water policy conference in Los Angeles, longtime Santa Barbara water activist Carolee Krieger said she fears the use of "paper water" -- water that is theoretically available but doesn't really exist -- to comply with the new law.

Which brings us back to Newhall Ranch. Much of the water used by Southern California comes from the State Water Project -- that is, water that is sent south via the state aqueduct. A lot of this water is also used by farmers in the Central Valley, which is why some farmers have extra water, at least theoretically, to sell to Newhall and other Southern California developers.

But the State Water Project has never been completely built, and it doesn't send as much water southward as it's supposed to. So, a lot of farmers and water districts have "contracts" for water that isn't really available. This is what the environmentalists call "paper water." The enviros are worried that developers and water districts -- as well as local governments -- will rely on this "paper water" in deciding that a project should be approved under the new law. Indeed, Krieger contends that some of the water Newhall bought from Kern County farmers falls into this "paper water" category.

As a result of the new law, it is likely that Krieger and others will push for more documentation of which water is "paper" and which is not. The end result of all this, of course, may be more paper, period -- not just in additional environmental analyses, but also in more lawsuits over whether "water exists" or not.

Of course, maybe there's a better answer. The end result may actually also be more creative problem-solving -- as developers, water districts and local governments work together to replenish our groundwater basins and institute conservation measures so we can do more with less. And that would be good for everybody.

-- William Fulton of Ventura is president of Solimar Research Group (www.solimar.org) and editor and publisher of California Planning & Development Report (www.cp-dr.com).

December 16, 2001