Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Technology => Topic started by: Hoggart on 01/11/2015 18:08:09
-
My invention is a new form of transport. Absolutely clean and safe. I called it Urbamobile.
Urbamobile replaces the automobile, saves the environment and returns freedom of movement to people. The solution is here!
Urbamobile is not science fiction. Urbamobile can make your life better! Today!
Urbamobile is full automatic, efficient, and incredibly comfortable. Stay connected with the Internet on board. No traffic jams, no accidents or injuries. And no driver!
Urbamobile is a universal vehicle of the future, but it’s available now.
Urbamobile is round, safe, and environmentally friendly!
See for yourself and decide whether to breathe or suffocate, be stuck in traffic jams or move freely, have no prospects ahead or realize that human mind can overcome fatal despair.
You can see that URBAMOBILE means hope, opportunity, and result!
[ Invalid Attachment ]
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
A few initial reactions:
- The drag coefficient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient)/fuel economy doesn't look very good.
- The ground clearance looks too low, and the center of gravity too high. It will probably flip over the first time it hits a speed bump
- Oh... and there's that little hoverboardy thing that we haven't invented yet...
-
The silly season seems to be in full swing, let us get back to some serious science and technology.
-
A few initial reactions:
- The Drag coefficient /fuel economy doesn't look very good.
- The ground clearance looks too low, and the center of gravity too high. It will probably flip over the first time it hits a speed bump
- Oh... and there's that little hoverboardy thing that we haven't invented yet...
Thank you for "a few initial reactions" but to make it clear how it «looks» let’s solve a simple exercise:
Diameter of the Urbamobile - 2.5 m. Height - 2.0 m. The ground clearance - 0.1 m.
Question 1: At what height should be the center of gravity of urbamobile to be turned over at arrival on the speed bump, which height is 0.1 m.?
Question 2: What should be the height of the speed bump that at the location of the front edge of urbamobile from point-blank range on the surface of such speed bump the vertical, built from the center of gravity of urbamobile went beyond the area of its support, even if we assume that the center of gravity of urbamobile is "higher than you can imagine" - at the center of it’s roof?
Question 3: And generally: Is there a practical connection between the ground clearance and probable rolling over at arrival on the speed bump due to alleged "too high" center of gravity?
- “Oh ...” what is this about?
-
The silly season seems to be in full swing, let us get back to some serious science and technology.
Do not worry. "Let us get back to some serious science and technology" - for example, see post # 1. [:)]
-
The global road death toll has already reached 1.24 million per year and is on course to triple to 3.6 million per year by 2030! (According to Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting). Time for serious science and technology to do something about it.
-
The global road death toll has already reached 1.24 million per year and is on course to triple to 3.6 million per year by 2030! (According to Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting). Time for serious science and technology to do something about it.
This slaughter could be and should be stopped!
-
Natural death rate is about 110,000,000 per year. Interesting that road deaths account for 1% globally but only 0.25% in the UK, which is one of the most densely populated and vehicle-congested areas of all, with the highest speed limits of any civilised country.
-
Every percent means real people that loose their life or health in road accidents. And there is no technological solution offered to eliminate those casualties. But if the Urbamobile could be such solution isn’t it something we should develop and support?!
-
Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death for young people aged 15–29. (World Health Organization Global status report on road safety 2013). I bet those people would have changed something if they were given a choice.
-
Mostly, they way they drive. Face it, under-15's don't drive, and over-30's tend to move slower, so we aren't talking about vehicles mowing down pedestrians, but drivers killing themselves and their passengers through bad driving.
But we are also looking at bad statistics. If you have survived to the age of 15 you probably aren't undernourished or suffering from a lifethreatening infectious disease. Under the age of 30, you won't be a serious statistical candidate for heart disease, liver failure or cancer. In fact there is very little (apart from war) that kills 15 - 29 year-olds, so "the leading cause of death" doesn't need to claim many victims to take the gold medal, and the fact that more young adults die from a voluntary, pleasurable and economically useful activity than anything else is, if anything, a sign of a mature civilisation.
-
Anyway, back to the question. What powers this vehicle? What steers it and what makes it stop? How much CO2 is emitted in its production? If it doesn't get stuck in traffic jams, what have you done with all the other people (every vehicle in a jam contains at least one person)? It seems to be considerably wider than a large car - how many historic streets do you have to demolish to make way for it, and where are you going to park it? And who the hell wants to "stay connected to the internet" instead of looking at real scenery?
-
«In fact» - judging by situation - more and more «young» (and adult!) people die not «from a voluntary, pleasurable and economically useful activity» but from the foolishness. Therefore, it will be better for all if transport is not to be driven by people but by the System. And that, if you will, looks more like «a sign of a mature civilization».
For the car - with its unpredictable complex forms, tending to absolute unsuitability for any calculations and the need to maintain minimal spacing between different cars - it is almost impossible! But for Urbamobile - which round shape and some other technical features allow you to make necessary calculations of the object by single point, to drive in the simplest way and to move in contact with the other Urbamobiles – is optimal to drive in the System.
-
Anyway, back to the question. What powers this vehicle?
The most eco-friendly is electric drive, but the mass use of it in the cars is primarily prevented by the high cost of batteries that have certain performance characteristics, and the impossibility of «filling» the car by simply replacing the battery, first of all - because of the practical impossibility of organizing the cars in optimally managed system. For the Urbamobile these problems do not exist. Why so? - See the previous reply.
What steers it and what makes it stop?
Better to see once (or not once) and hear everything:
Everything should be clear.
How much CO2 is emitted in its production?
CO2 is not the biggest problem (take a deep breath!), more so, as it is known, - the electric motors produce neither CO2 nor any other harmful exhaust gases.
If it doesn't get stuck in traffic jams, what have you done with all the other people (every vehicle in a jam contains at least one person)?
There could be not one but more people inside, however, it is quite possible to place everyone individually
(See:
It seems to be considerably wider than a large car - how many historic streets do you have to demolish to make way for it
When it “seems” or “looks” – see the reply # 3. 2.5 m. - is narrower than a standard lane for an ordinary car. So there is no need to demolish anything.
and where are you going to park it?
See HOW - and
HOW and hope it will become clear WHERE – anywhere! – unlike the car!
And who the hell wants to "stay connected to the internet" instead of looking at real scenery?
At least those for whom «the fact that more young adults die from a voluntary, pleasurable and economically useful activity than anything else is, if anything, a sign of a mature civilization» - is not the best perspective. They would be obviously happily joined by those who still have something to do «staying connected to the Internet» instead of simply «looking at real scenery».
-
CO2 is not the biggest problem (take a deep breath!), more so, as it is known, - the electric motors produce neither CO2 nor any other harmful exhaust gases.
Making vehicles of any sort generates a lot of CO2. About 2 tonnes of carbon dioxide per tonne of raw steel, plus maybe another 0.5 tonnes in the manufacturing process. Obviously you won't use steel, 'cos it's heavy and oldfashioned, so you will use aluminum, which requires about 3 times as much CO2 to make the same vehicle. And then you have to generate the electricity to power your car. The cleanest way to to do that is to make a nuclear power station, but that needs concrete and steel: for the first 5 - 10 years of its life, a nuke is only paying back the fossil energy used to make it!
So let's ignore the weight of the elephant for a moment and turn to my simple questions. I now see that it has two wheels which are either tiny (in which case you need a very smooth road) or have been spookily eliminated from the drawing of the interior of the vehicle. The Segway works because the weight of the driver is transmitted through a platform below the axle, so it is stable. This means that the wheelbase must be wider than the occupants. I think you will have a job to make a stable vehicle narrower than a Fiat 500 or MkI Mini, and if it is going to carry between 1 and 4 people with or without luggage, you will need at least one more wheel to provide pitch stability without making everyone vomit, so why not stick with a Fiat 500 or Smart Car?
-
An ugly in dynamics version of the Sinclair, no different in design than a child's electric car, no one would want to make this, no one would to buy this for general use. However you may sell a few to a few of the large fun parks, they would be fun to ride around park in like a glorified golf trolley.
-
When it “seems” or “looks” – see the reply # 3. 2.5 m. - is narrower than a standard lane for an ordinary car. So there is no need to demolish anything.
Any vehicle wider than 2.55 m requires advance police approval and an escort for movement on public roads in the UK. In the USA the limit is narrower, at 8 ft = 2.44 m, for most roads. This is not an urban runabout, more like a heavy goods truck or a bus, and would require similar skill to operate it. Passing in most UK cities would be impossible.
That's why we have buses and underground trains for urban transport. And some of them even have the beloved internet!
-
What has caused such emotions? The idea of Urbamobile - is brilliant!
-
There was plenty of emotion in the video clip, but engineering realities tend to interfere with such dreams.
I don't see why a large, unstable, circular car with magic wheels is more brilliant than the small, stable rectangular ones that we already have. If you add autopark (which already exists) and collision avoidance (ditto) to a G-Wizz or similar vehicle, you have an economical city car that any idiot can drive. If you don't like driving, join the other 50 people on a double-deck bus - no problem with parking, recharging, maintenance, or taking up unnecessary amounts of road space.
-
Engineering realities – see on the site about urbamobile.com
Urbamobile does not look like a «dream». The author finds the optimal technical solution to the backlog of transport problems. And thank him for this invention!
-
OK, now I've seen the second video. Tiny wheels, and probably four of them to prevent pitching. So you need to resurface all your roads and ensure that they are kept completely free of leaves, snow, mud, cigarette ends, and all the other stuff that a 13-inch wheel can roll over.
If you want to be taken at all seriously you will need at least 2 inches of tyre wall to provide sufficient wall heat dissipation and flexion, giving you a minimum wheel diameter of about 6 inches overall. From this, we can work out a whole lot of interesting construction and performance data if we just begin with the intended cruising speed and acceleration parameters.
Any offers for these numbers?
-
I found the video to be not the best-put-together, information-wise. However, reading between the frames, I conclude that what the system is is an assembly of fully-automatic transportation modules that, apparently, are not owned by any specific driver, but that can be summoned like a taxicab, used, and then released. And that they are not driven by their occupants, but move on the basis of some manner of automatic control, being so designed that traffic conflicts are automatically prevented. Conceptually, this is actually a brilliant idea, and could well represent the future of transportation, having the effect of combining the convenience of the personal car with the efficiency of transit. However, the engineering details appear to be not well worked out in the video. It is unclear whether each such vehicle will be self-managed, or will be managed by a central city control. There are engineering advantages to having them centrally controlled. A central computer can look over the entire city traffic situation, all the current destinations desired, and calculate the most efficient routes for all the vehicles. As for the design of the vehicles themselves: Rubber bumpers surrounding each may or may not be an essential feature; nor would I consider the round shape to be essential. What is essential is that there be a high level of automation and technology. I would say that the auto industry today is taking the first tiny steps toward this sort of thing with the new accident-avoidence systems such as lane-departure warnings, automatic braking for a slow vehicle ahead, and even self-driving cars. The natural evolution of this technology is, I believe, toward something like the Urbamobile; but I tend to think that the round shape is by no means inevitable or even necessarily the best option. Regardless of what form the ultimate vehicles may obtain, I would envision that eventually, people would often choose not to own cars, but would simply summon one via their smartphone when needed, and it would automatically arrive, and then the people would enter their desired destination into a keyboard (or select it from an on-screen map), press a button, and then sit back and have coffee, read the Kindle, or sleep until the vehicle automatically arrived at the chosen destination. The whole thing would operate through a centrally controlled automatic traffic system. There are certain issues, however, that need to be addressed. One is that people may have varying needs. One person may simply be commuting to work. Another may be going to the grocery store and have to haul a lot of groceries back. Another may be taking a bunch of kids to some game and may have sports equipment that must be hauled. For these reasons, a one-size-fits-all Urbamobile will not be satisfactory. Various different types will be needed. As for the design of the vehicles themselves: I don't think this is well worked out in the video. The two-wheel design has clear maneuverability advantages; however there is a big question in my mind as to stability. You have to have some way of keeping the thing upright; and that will require somehow dealing with the balance of the load. Also, braking quickly could be a problem. Also, the system must be prepared to deal with emergency road conditions other than other Urbamobiles. This could include errant bicyclists or pedestrians. Again, fast braking may be required at times, which argue for more than two wheels. Do we lose maneuverability if we have more than two wheels? Not necessarily; if all the wheels are involved in steering, extreme maneuverability is still possible. I am unsure however whether we truly require this level of maneuverability. Already, cars have been built that can parallel-park themselves, having the conventional arrangement of two nonsteering and two steering wheels on the ground. As for extreme maneuverability in traffic, that too may be unnecessary if the traffic flow is managed in detail by a central computer. So in my opinion, the two-wheel, circular design proposed is by no means necessary to gain most of the advantages of this sort of transport.
-
And one more thing that requires attention is how the system would deal with bad weather or emergencies such as a power outage.
-
It's positive, when people manage to end empty disputes.
If not so, I wanted to offer the following bet: if the opponent can really (using scientific arguments, i.e. based on the existing patent, normative, regulatory documents) substantiate ALL figures and calculations that have been stated in his Replies - I'm ready to admit vain my hopes on Urbamobile and ready to pay to the opponent’s account a symbolic $ 1,000 I lost in the above bet.
Otherwise - the opponent would have to admit that his judgements about Urbamobile were carelessness and incorrect and in support of Urbamobile - for example - make a contribution in the amount of the same symbolic $ 1,000 lost by opponent in the above bet in support of the project «Urbamobile replaces the car» on Indiegogo.
Concerning the model of Urbamobile and assessing its realism: if the diameter of Urbamobile - 2.5 m., height - 2.0 m., the ground clearance - 0.1 m., then the diameter of the large wheels is taken as 0.3 m., width - 0.2 m., diameter of smaller wheels is taken as 0.2 m., the width - 0.1 m.
The mentioned above parameters of Urbamobile do not need to make more severe rules and requirements for roads neither in Europe nor in the USA. And the above parameters of Urbamobile do not force you to particularly care about the absence of cigarette ends and packing on the roads. More than that – to throw rubbish on the roads is not good in principle.
-
More than that – to throw rubbish on the roads is not good in principle.
True, but any car I drive has to work in practice, not just in principle. I have an MRI machine that regularly stops working because the cooling air inlet is in the sidewalk and gets clogged with cigarette ends!
http://www.tatasteelconstruction.com/en/sustainability/carbon-and-steelSteel is manufactured predominantly using two methods. Both methods of production require a significant input of scrap steel. The primary route uses 13.8% scrap, with emissions of 1.987 tonnes of CO2/tonne of steel.
http://www.calsmelt.com/energy-environmental.htmlTherefore, CO2 emissions per tonne of aluminium produced can range from approximately 16 tonnes CO2 (if coal is used), down to 5.7 tonnes CO2 (if natural gas is used).
UK/Europe law:
The maximum width for all is 2.55 metres.19 Sep 2012
Moving goods by road - Detailed guidance - GOV.UK
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/moving-goods-by-road
And the US Federal regs (there are state-by-state exceptions for agricultural vehicles)
ops.fhwa.dot.gov/FREIGHT/publications/size_regs_final.../index.htmThis Act provided a maximum vehicle width of 96 inches (2.44 meters) on the ...
Nuclear power energy payback is a bit more difficult to assess but:
neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/.../energy-payback-times-for-nuclear.html4 Apr 2008 - A nuclear power plant takes so much water and energy to build, it has to run for 15 years to offset its carbon footprint,
The figures are all from "industry" sources so are probably minima.
I don't think I quoted any other figures that aren't obvious - you can look at a small car tyre for yourself and read the numbers molded into it.
Your $1000 will be most welcome - why not make a Paypal donation to Naked Scientists? , and at $4000 per hour, I'm happy to play this game with anyone. You will find my fees a lot less than trying to maintain a patent for a machine that doesn't work.
-
What sense is hidden in the above mentioned cryptic sentence?
May be the author is dreaming about «trying to maintain a patent» for example for the machine «that regularly stops working because the cooling air inlet is in the sidewalk and gets clogged with cigarette ends», - the device that doesn't work? I hope not …
And if we talk about information on Indiegogo concerning the project «Urbamobile replaces the car», - it contains a quite clear suggestion for all people to understand that Urbamobile is the only one real prospect of development of transport, to promote the well-being of which can and should every sane person.
-
It's really bad when people can't stop empty disputes.
But, I have made it clear: it’s not in my habit to abuse the confidence in correctness of information, amount of knowledge and appropriate qualification. Especially when instead of a serious scientific discussion someone demonstrates totally inappropriate hostility and rather doubtfully uses the "experience", not very similar to the truth, and random information from the Internet, which looks like childish prattle. Unfortunately, feeling of infantilism is further enhanced after another clumsy "teenage" attempt of citation:
And the US Federal regs (there are state-by-state exceptions for agricultural vehicles)
ops.fhwa.dot.gov/FREIGHT/publications/size_regs_final.../index.htmThis Act provided a maximum vehicle width of 96 inches (2.44 meters) on the ...
follow the link:
ops.fhwa.dot.gov/FREIGHT/publications/size_regs_final_rpt/index.htm
and read in the beginning something about Citations: «The regulations in this brochure are found in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 23 CFR Part 658.»
Then – in full compliance not only with the rules of scientific citation, but also with elementary common sense, refer to the original source (for example here: gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2007-title23-vol1/pdf/CFR-2007-title23-vol1-sec658-17.pdf) which clearly states:
§ 658.15 Width. (a) No State shall impose a width limitation of more or less than 102 inches, or its approximate metric equivalent, 2.6 meters (102.36 inches) on a vehicle operating on the National Network, except for the State of Hawaii, which is allowed to keep the State’s 108-inch width maximum by virtue of section 416(a) of the STAA. (b) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section do not apply to special mobile equipment as defined in §658.5. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section or any other provision of law, a State may grant special use permits to motor vehicles, including manufactured housing, that exceed 102 inches in width. [49 FR 23315, June 5, 1984, as amended at 59 FR 30419, June 13, 1994; 67 FR 15110, Mar. 29, 2002; 72 FR 7748, Feb. 20, 2007]
From which it follows that the only supposedly fatal contradiction with Urbamobile (model with a diameter of 2.5 m) from the side of "the US Federal regs (there are state-by-state exceptions for agricultural vehicles)" (this – just no comment!) in fact DOESN’T EXIST EITHER, because even in the same brochure "Federal Size Regulations for Commercial Motor Vehicles" (ops.fhwa.dot.gov/FREIGHT/publications/size_regs_final_rpt/index.htm) next, - in black and white - for those who at least knows how to read - is written the following:
«WIDTH REQUIREMENTS
The maximum width limit for CMVs on the NN and reasonable access routes was originally established at 102 inches, except for Hawaii where it is 2.74 m (108 inches). (See discussion of Reasonable Access on page 12.) To standardize vehicle width on an international basis, the 102-inch width limit was interpreted to mean the same as its approximate metric equivalent, 2.6 meters (102.36 inches) (Figure 1).
and even – probably for those who can't read – is drawn the following:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fops.fhwa.dot.gov%2FFREIGHT%2Fpublications%2Fsize_regs_final_rpt%2Fimages%2Ffig1.gif&hash=cfe8be44f413f19b60c06ab196a819b0)
Figure 1. Commercial Motor Vehicle Width Limits
Instead of this, it seems so that our hapless opponent prefers to limit himself with information in accordance to his own, forgivable in this situation only to irresponsible teenager, confessions:
The figures are all from "industry" sources so are probably minima.
I don't think I quoted any other figures that aren't obvious - you can look at a small car tyre for yourself and read the numbers molded into it.
So – it perceived completely childish, unfortunately wrong in the sense and chaotic in shape (the children sometimes tangle thought and speech because of feeling of unexpected joy) – naive jubilation:
Your $1000 will be most welcome - why not make a Paypal donation to Naked Scientists? , and at $4000 per hour, I'm happy to play this game with anyone. You will find my fees a lot less than trying to maintain a patent for a machine that doesn't work.
As the result:
If the opponent is naive and irresponsible teenager, stupidity, aggression, and maximalism of which are – I want to believe – an interim result of continuing education, I'm certainly willing not to take all the above seriously and forgive the child if he (or she?) promises not continue to behave outrageously, but study hard and obey the adults.
If it was adult and completely responsible person, to save the reputation and avoid remorse he (or she?) should more closely examine all the information relating to Urbamobile, and understand that introduction of Urbamobile - is really very important and necessary for all Mankind. Everyone should do his best and exert maximum efforts to help the widespread introduction of Urbamobile Transportation System and to involve to this process as many supporters in all countries and worldwide as possible.
-
introduction of Urbamobile - is really very important and necessary for all Mankind.
No, only for those few who wish to sit in a capsule in urban traffic, travelling on very smooth roads that have not yet been built.
(a) No State shall impose a width limitation of more or less than 102 inches, or its approximate metric equivalent, 2.6 meters (102.36 inches) on a vehicle operating on the National Network,
True, but Interstate and Federal highways are not urban byways. And this contraption doesn't appear to be suitable for travel on major highways.
You would do well to study the Japanese regulations if you want to sell into a really congested milieu where it might actually be useful. Vehicles are taxed by width in Japan, so the Urbamobile might attract the same tax as an articulated truck.
-
I am appealing to all who is following the above discussion: what do you think about this strangeness?
-
Two questions: how fast do you envision the urbamobile going? and how heavy do you expect it to be?
-
And a few more. Can we see the seating plan for 4 people? Range of the vehicle? Will it be privately owned, a public asset (like a train or bus) or rented per journey (like a taxi)? Can it share the road with other vehicles (trucks, bicycles, ordinary cars)?
It seems to me that you could realise almost any sensible specification by fitting an existing electric or gasoline vehicle with suitable colllision avoidance, which already exists in the form of autopark, lane warnings, etc., and thus save the huge expense of designing and certifying a completely new chassis.
The problems arise when sharing road space between vehicles with widely different performance and differing degrees of automation. I am in a sports car on the right, wanting to turn left, and you are on the left in an electric delivery truck. If there is space ahead, I will overtake, if not, I will drop back. But this assumes I have a good idea of what you are likely to do. If we always drop back to change lanes, this means that all the vehicles in the right lane must go slower than the slowest vehicle in the left lane. But suppose you want to turn right? That means that all the vehicles in the left lane must go slower than....and everything stops. So we make sensible judgements of what is around us. Which means that a driverless vehicle must be able to recognise a pushbike, a motorbike, a truck, and a sports car, and modify its tactics accordingly. I think this is beyond the capability of any affordable system apart from a human being (which costs nothing to make and very little to program) and will keep the accident lawyers in business for ever.
-
May be you at least read the section “Presentation” on URBAMOBILE.COM? – there are answers not only to all your questions, but still a lot of very useful information about Urbamobile.
More than that on the URBAMOBILE.COM there exist the section “Docs” where you can find, for example, the following materials urbamobile.com/files/RU2014151853inv-dfa-eng.doc APPLICATION FOR INVENTION RU № 2014151853 – where there is even more detailed information, and some questions are explained so thoroughly that seem to be divided on the “cogs”.
-
Just read it. Plenty of words, no information. Why not answer the important questions that have been asked here?
The "docs" seem to be patent applications but a patent should describe a means of doing something, not an advertisement for a product.
-
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO PAY ATTENTION TO IT.
First:
« Reply #24 on: 09/11/2015 17:43:09 »
And the US Federal regs (there are state-by-state exceptions for agricultural vehicles)
Quote
ops.fhwa.dot.gov/FREIGHT/publications/size_regs_final.../index.htmThis Act provided a maximum vehicle width of 96 inches (2.44 meters) on the ...
Your $1000 will be most welcome - why not make a Paypal donation to Naked Scientists? , and at $4000 per hour, I'm happy to play this game with anyone. You will find my fees a lot less than trying to maintain a patent for a machine that doesn't work.
And later:
« Reply #27 on: 12/11/2015 13:59:37 »
Quote
(a) No State shall impose a width limitation of more or less than 102 inches, or its approximate metric equivalent, 2.6 meters (102.36 inches) on a vehicle operating on the National Network,
True, but Interstate and Federal highways are not urban byways. And this contraption doesn't appear to be suitable for travel on major highways.
You would do well to study the Japanese regulations if you want to sell into a really congested milieu where it might actually be useful. Vehicles are taxed by width in Japan, so the Urbamobile might attract the same tax as an articulated truck.
SORRY. BUT I AFFIRM THAT IT ALL LOOKS INDECENT.
NO DOUBT, - EVERYONE IS WAITING FOR CLARIFICATION.
In connection with this there is a question to Global Moderator: aren't you ashamed?
And one more.
Concerning another one «cryptic sentence»:
«No, only for those few who wish to sit in a capsule in urban traffic, travelling on very smooth roads that have not yet been built.»
And some more questions to Global Moderator: are you really not ashamed to behave such a way?
You really don't understand, for example, all the immorality of the statement that
« Reply #10 on: 05/11/2015 23:36:32 »
“the fact that more young adults die from a voluntary, pleasurable and economically useful activity than anything else is, if anything, a sign of a mature civilization” ?
You don't really understand that a vital necessity – exactly for all mankind – is the replacing cars on Urbamobiles?
Now - as to the concrete things.
If carefully and conscientiously read the materials on urbamobile.com it is impossible not to understand:
First: the organization of Urbamobile Transportation System eliminates such a phenomenon as traffic jams in principle;
Secondly: on the model it is evidently that in the cabin of Urbamobile (that with some clearly negative implication has been called by the opponent as «capsule») is more ample space and more comfort than even in the limousine of a representation class;
Third: the design of Urbamobile, in principle, implies not only different magnitudes of clearance, but also use, for example, not wheeled, but many other movers, however, no «very smooth roads that have not yet been built» and for the considered model of Urbamobile (the ground clearance – 0.1 m) - is clearly not required. Because a ground clearance of modern compact city car without load, i.e. without passengers and baggage, - about 0.12 – 0.13 m., however their design is such that under load the ground clearance of modern compact city cars inevitably will be ABOUT OR EVEN LESS than 0.1 m. - as the abovementioned model of Urbamobile has, because one of the unique features of the abovementioned model of Urbamobile is that under the load the ground clearance is almost constant and remains for the considered model at about 0.1 m.
Forth: for the considered model let’s take the speed up to 150 km/h, and the total weight of the vehicle up to 2000 kg.
And finally: no special roads width or their conversion for Urbamobile is not required, more than that - the design of Urbamobile is such, that Urbamobile needs less place for parking and less space for maneuvering than a car.
And for very narrow streets, including towns with historical areas and exhibits, it is quite possible to apply special divided into parts modules, - the length and the width of self-propelled parts of which allows you not only to move in very narrow streets (that are not available for movement of the smallest car), but even to move indoors, - for the disabled people, for example. About all that, in particular, you could have read earlier and still have the opportunity to read now on urbamobile.com in the section "Presentation":
«Universality of urbamobile transportation system, features of the system operation, the urbamobiles modular layout allow the use urbamobile transportation system to deliver appropriate user units not only to buildings or inside the buildings with the respective roadways, but also by continuing to move, for example respective user unit separate directly on the required floors or spaces in the placements by, for example creating an elevator systems in which placement of the cab or the cabin function executes separated from the rest of the urbamobile passengers user or any other urbamobiles user unit; these lift systems can be connected in a single system with stopping places for urbamobiles (on the roadway, inside the building, and so on); thus, for example may be provided the separation of the users block inner part, in which can be located one user with the ability to move in remote automatic or with any participation by users control to the movement of which is enough the standard minimal dimensions of appropriate doorways and corresponding indoor spaces, such as in the form of a detachable part of the user unit - self-propelled device for placing the user (sitting, reclining, lying, etc.) similar to those used for independent movement of persons who do not have a proper normal natural physical features (the sick ones, persons with disabilities, the elderly).»
When you read the above – it is clear that people are thinking not about themselves, but about making the world a better place – for everyone!
And this is a great honour: for each and everyone – not sparing anything – to participate in such useful and necessary work!
-
Forth: for the considered model let’s take the speed up to 150 km/h, and the total weight of the vehicle up to 2000 kg.
At last, a specification! Now in order to maintain 150 kph the aerodynamic drag will be
F = ½ρv2CA
where ρ = air density = 1.23 kg/m3
v = speed = 42 m/s
C = drag coefficient = 1 for a stub cylinder
A = frontal area = 6.25 m2
= 6780 N
so power required in cruise = 6780 x 42 = 285 kW. You can just get this from a 5 litre petrol engine: 10 times the size of current "urban" vehicles. An aircooled electric motor of this power, or a watercooled unit with pump and radiator, would weigh about 1000 kg plus batteries.
At 2000 kg, the vehicle is rather heavier than a Mercedes 500, which uses a 5 litre engine, is 50 cm narrower (better for city streets) and incorporates automatic braking, lane control and autopark. The Merc also goes a lot faster.
So it's a neat idea, just 10 years too late and not as efficient as the competition.
-
You really don't understand, for example, all the immorality of the statement that
“the fact that more young adults die from a voluntary, pleasurable and economically useful activity than anything else is, if anything, a sign of a mature civilization” ?
Would you prefer the majority to die from an activity that was involuntary, distasteful, or economically damaging? Plague, jihad, starvation....? you name it. Then convince me that modern western society is morally worse than your neolithic preference.
-
You gave no explanation of your previous false reports concerning Urbamobile, and at the same time - you are continuing to distribute the new ones, - also false.
Why are you doing this? Do you think that the Forum is read by foolish people?
P. S. As far as I can see, your have lost in the bet, according to your own calculation, in amount = $ 1000 + $ 4000 per hour, and that amount has not been paid yet (anyone can verify this, and also that your stated above calculations - are again false).
P.P.S. Concerning evidently inappropriate reasoning of the opponent about “preferred types of deaths” etc., - we can see that Urbamobile has been invented exactly for that people do not die in different accidents. And that topic - is really interesting for discussion!
-
Moderator here:
I would like to take this opportunity to remind both new and old members to read the forum acceptable use policy, wherein we state:
"The site is not for the promotion of business interests, or other personal ventures. The only exception to this is where the advertisement is supplied by the owners of the forum to further their own business interests.
The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory. It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable."
It is also inappropriate to offer or request payment of any kind in this forum.
-
In the UK, about 5000 15-29-year-olds die every year, 10% in road accidents. Rather more than half of these are cyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists. So we are looking at a death toll for all car occupants of around 250 per year. Half of these occur on non-urban roads, so if Urbamobile eliminated all car deaths in towns it would save about 125 lives per year in this age group. Compare this with an annual toll of 1000 suicides aged 15 - 29, and estimate the cost per life saved by replacing all cars with Urbamobiles, on the one hand, or having an effective suicide intervention service on the other.
-
You gave no explanation of your previous false reports concerning Urbamobile, and at the same time - you are continuing to distribute the new ones, - also false.
Why are you doing this?
I have not "reported" anything. Until reply #34 I was asking questions about the specification of the project, and in #34 I presented a calculation based on the performance figures given. It turns out that from simple aerodynamics, an existing luxury gasguzzler takes up less road space and goes faster for the same fuel consumption, which suggests that the fundamental engineering concepts need revision.
Why do I do this? Because this is the engineering section of a science forum. It's what we do.
-
one of the unique features of the abovementioned model of Urbamobile is that under the load the ground clearance is almost constant and remains for the considered model at about 0.1 m.
Whilst it is unlikely that an urban road will have many obstructions > 10 cm on the roadway itself, it is important that a vehicle used in a congested environment can be driven onto the sidewalk for parking or unloading. The embarrassing "Top Gear" episode in which a Pagani Zonda suffered damage simply emerging from a garage onto a roadway, showed the importance of a steep chamfer from the leading edge of the bodywork (which must be at the US regulatory fender height) to the point of contact of the leading wheel. Not a great problem to overcome in this project but it will mean that the "skirt" must be reshaped or the wheels repositioned.
"Sideways" parking has always been an attractive proposition but difficult to achieve in practice. In this design it seems we have two wheels that can turn through 180 degrees to steer the car at +/- 90 degrees to the roadway. But in doing so you will have to scrub the other two tyres sideways, which is most undesirable and will lead to early failure. The problem was solved many years ago by "bubble cars" such as the Goggomobil, with a front-opening door and a square wheelbase: you can just park nose-on to the sidewalk. Great for a 2-seater but not feasible for a 4-seater. The Urbamobile has a front-opening door, so no need for +/- 90 degree steering, but we still haven't seen a seating layout for a 4-seater. Four Economy aircraft seats takes up 75 inches abreast so I guess it's feasible but already as wide as a Ford Focus without adding any bodywork.
-
Moderator here:
I would like to take this opportunity to remind both new and old members to read the forum acceptable use policy, wherein we state:
"The site is not for the promotion of business interests, or other personal ventures. The only exception to this is where the advertisement is supplied by the owners of the forum to further their own business interests.
The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory. It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable."
It is also inappropriate to offer or request payment of any kind in this forum.
You should not have bothered yourself posting the above reminder, because it apparently applies to your colleague, who should be acquainted with it - without doubt - as well as you.
-
No problem for me. I haven't offered any new theories or products, just simple statements of fact and basic calculations based on what we have been shown and told. And when payment was offered, I suggested it should be made to the forum.
-
I found the video to be not the best-put-together, information-wise. However, reading between the frames, I conclude that what the system is is an assembly of fully-automatic transportation modules that, apparently, are not owned by any specific driver, but that can be summoned like a taxicab, used, and then released. And that they are not driven by their occupants, but move on the basis of some manner of automatic control, being so designed that traffic conflicts are automatically prevented. Conceptually, this is actually a brilliant idea, and could well represent the future of transportation, having the effect of combining the convenience of the personal car with the efficiency of transit. However, the engineering details appear to be not well worked out in the video. It is unclear whether each such vehicle will be self-managed, or will be managed by a central city control. There are engineering advantages to having them centrally controlled. A central computer can look over the entire city traffic situation, all the current destinations desired, and calculate the most efficient routes for all the vehicles. As for the design of the vehicles themselves: Rubber bumpers surrounding each may or may not be an essential feature; nor would I consider the round shape to be essential. What is essential is that there be a high level of automation and technology. I would say that the auto industry today is taking the first tiny steps toward this sort of thing with the new accident-avoidence systems such as lane-departure warnings, automatic braking for a slow vehicle ahead, and even self-driving cars. The natural evolution of this technology is, I believe, toward something like the Urbamobile; but I tend to think that the round shape is by no means inevitable or even necessarily the best option. Regardless of what form the ultimate vehicles may obtain, I would envision that eventually, people would often choose not to own cars, but would simply summon one via their smartphone when needed, and it would automatically arrive, and then the people would enter their desired destination into a keyboard (or select it from an on-screen map), press a button, and then sit back and have coffee, read the Kindle, or sleep until the vehicle automatically arrived at the chosen destination. The whole thing would operate through a centrally controlled automatic traffic system. There are certain issues, however, that need to be addressed. One is that people may have varying needs. One person may simply be commuting to work. Another may be going to the grocery store and have to haul a lot of groceries back. Another may be taking a bunch of kids to some game and may have sports equipment that must be hauled. For these reasons, a one-size-fits-all Urbamobile will not be satisfactory. Various different types will be needed. As for the design of the vehicles themselves: I don't think this is well worked out in the video. The two-wheel design has clear maneuverability advantages; however there is a big question in my mind as to stability. You have to have some way of keeping the thing upright; and that will require somehow dealing with the balance of the load. Also, braking quickly could be a problem. Also, the system must be prepared to deal with emergency road conditions other than other Urbamobiles. This could include errant bicyclists or pedestrians. Again, fast braking may be required at times, which argue for more than two wheels. Do we lose maneuverability if we have more than two wheels? Not necessarily; if all the wheels are involved in steering, extreme maneuverability is still possible. I am unsure however whether we truly require this level of maneuverability. Already, cars have been built that can parallel-park themselves, having the conventional arrangement of two nonsteering and two steering wheels on the ground. As for extreme maneuverability in traffic, that too may be unnecessary if the traffic flow is managed in detail by a central computer. So in my opinion, the two-wheel, circular design proposed is by no means necessary to gain most of the advantages of this sort of transport.
And one more thing that requires attention is how the system would deal with bad weather or emergencies such as a power outage.
This is a more serious conversation. However - I hope you won’t deem this remark offending - it seems that you saw only one video - "Urbamobile replaces the car":
Because, for example, a careful review of the video "Urbamobile has become a reality":
as well as a comprehensive review of other images and videos, as well as with all documentation and detailed descriptions of the Urbamobile and the Urbamobile Transportation System on urbamobile.com, - as I became certain after examining all of the mentioned above myself, - should not leave any ambiguity, vagueness or unclearness concerning the questions that you asked.
Moreover, it seems quite clear that there is a real possibility in the near future to abandon cars completely and use henceforth only the Urbamobiles – friendly to environment, Internet-compatible, fully automatic, ideal for all digital technologies, functioning without a driver systematic individual universal transport, eliminating traffic jams and parking problems, which does not need traffic lights, signs, road markings, etc., the functioning of which won't need the police services, it will get rid of traffic accidents and related deaths or injuries. Also in principle The Urbamobile does not allow using transport in illegal purposes, for example - for street riots, crimes or terrorism actions.
There are detailed developments, including the patent for utility model, various applications, computer modeling, and other objective justifications and materials, which are quite comprehensible to non-specialist and which are offered for the public attention on urbamobile.com, and also on Indiegogo (campaign “Urbamobile replaces the car”).
It would be logical and correct to read all above, understand, and determine: if this is really possible - so let's get started moving in the direction of the Urbamobile, and the sooner - the better.
At least because every 10 seconds in the world one man dies in a road accident, and every 1-2 seconds another person gets injured in a road accident. The reason is - the human factor. Therefore, it would be better FOR ALL if the transport is not managed by people but is managed by the system.
But for the car - with its unpredictable complex forms, tending to absolute unsuitability for calculations and necessity to maintain minimum spacing between cars - the above is practically impossible.
On the contrary, for Urbamobile - which inventively constructed round shape allows you to shortchange it using only one point and permits driving in the simplest way with the possibility of contiguity - it is optimal.
It also seems that in the public interests is to maintain control in respect of the Urbamobile so that through transition to the national phase of patenting in PCT-members countries (that allows approaching to it until December 28, 2015) use patent law in the interests of consumers and to prevent the transformation of the Urbamobile into an instrument of unjust enrichment.
-
At least because every 10 seconds in the world one man dies in a road accident, and every 1-2 seconds another person gets injured in a road accident. The reason is - the human factor. Therefore, it would be better FOR ALL if the transport is not managed by people but is managed by the system.
But for the car - with its unpredictable complex forms, tending to absolute unsuitability for calculations and necessity to maintain minimum spacing between cars - the above is practically impossible.
On the contrary, for Urbamobile - which inventively constructed round shape allows you to shortchange it using only one point and permits driving in the simplest way with the possibility of contiguity - it is optimal.
I agree with your big-picture arguments, for the most part. There is a lot of room for improvement in the transportation industry, and making small improvements can have profound effects on society as a whole.
However, it is not clear to me why this new design would be safer than present technologies. Having several feet of crushable car in front and behind provides a significant layer of protection that would be very hard to achieve in a vehicle of your design.
I agree that having AI guide the vehicles (of whatever shape) will likely eventually be safer than having people drive (especially if the vehicles can talk to each other), but you still need to have a physically safe and robust system because it isn't all the human factor, for instance:
If there were a crash, or the need to go from 150 kph to a complete stop ASAP, how stable is the new design. Does it have good airbags/seatbelts?
I also question the circular footprint as the optimal shape. In addition to crashability and aerodynamics, elongating the vehicle in the direction of travel improves control (this is partly why boats, cars, bikes, planes, helicopters, rockets, and blimps are all elongated; compare the maneuverability of a blimp to that of a hot air balloon with a propeller. And sure, a unicycle can turn on a dime, but I would never think of it as being more maneuverable than a bike). Also, having 10 cm clearance and going 150 kph sounds very scary (you should see the potholes we get, not to mention the snow and ice in winter...)
-
Also in principle The Urbamobile does not allow using transport in illegal purposes, for example - for street riots, crimes or terrorism actions.
Now that is worth a patent: a device that can tell whether the gun I am carrying is for shooting good guys or bad guys. Never mind urban transport, let's get that into production immediately. Or do you really want your car controlled by the Thought Police?
-
Also in principle The Urbamobile does not allow using transport in illegal purposes, for example - for street riots, crimes or terrorism actions.
Now that is worth a patent: a device that can tell whether the gun I am carrying is for shooting good guys or bad guys. Never mind urban transport, let's get that into production immediately. Or do you really want your car controlled by the Thought Police?
Equipping weapons with the system of objective video recording of any circumstances of its use in combination with the remote control and blocking, for example – when there is an attempt to be used by terrorists – is worth a patent.
Such production of a vehicle of circular shape that enables the vehicle to be operated in the simplest way – using rotation with the possibility of contiguity – like the Urbamobile – is worth a patent.
Based on unique advantages of the Urbamobile the Urbamobile Transportation System, effectively does not allow using transport in illegal purposes, for example – for street riots, crimes or terrorism – is worth a patent.
All of this – specifically in the public interests – would be of great benefit to be implemented not just immediately, but even earlier.
-
Equipping weapons with the system of objective video recording of any circumstances of its use in combination with the remote control and blocking, for example – when there is an attempt to be used by terrorists – is worth a patent.
Your suggestion of means for the universal and automatic retrofitting of every Kalashnikov with this wondrous device would be interesting. Who decides whether it is being used by a terrorist or a legitimate freedom fighter? When you have solved the problem for guns, you might move on to knives and home-made explosives.
And a device that automatically records and broadcasts the effect of using a weapon is every terrorist's dream - it releases the cameraman from his duties, doubles the available killing manpower, and guarantees the best viewpoint for the world audience.
-
Equipping weapons with the system of objective video recording of any circumstances of its use in combination with the remote control and blocking, for example – when there is an attempt to be used by terrorists – is worth a patent.
Your suggestion of means for the universal and automatic retrofitting of every Kalashnikov with this wondrous device would be interesting. Who decides whether it is being used by a terrorist or a legitimate freedom fighter? When you have solved the problem for guns, you might move on to knives and home-made explosives.
And a device that automatically records and broadcasts the effect of using a weapon is every terrorist's dream - it releases the cameraman from his duties, doubles the available killing manpower, and guarantees the best viewpoint for the world audience.
“Legitimate freedom fighter” - who is this?
Obviously the one for whom the Thought Police will establish the absence of the following dream:
“And a device that automatically records and broadcasts the effect of using a weapon is every terrorist's dream - it releases the cameraman from his duties, doubles the available killing manpower, and guarantees the best viewpoint for the world audience.”
By the way, where does such awareness of “legitimate freedom fighters”, their arms and even about their dreams come from?
-
I agree with your big-picture arguments, for the most part. There is a lot of room for improvement in the transportation industry, and making small improvements can have profound effects on society as a whole.
However, it is not clear to me why this new design would be safer than present technologies. Having several feet of crushable car in front and behind provides a significant layer of protection that would be very hard to achieve in a vehicle of your design.
I agree that having AI guide the vehicles (of whatever shape) will likely eventually be safer than having people drive (especially if the vehicles can talk to each other), but you still need to have a physically safe and robust system because it isn't all the human factor, for instance:
…
If there were a crash, or the need to go from 150 kph to a complete stop ASAP, how stable is the new design. Does it have good airbags/seatbelts?
I also question the circular footprint as the optimal shape. In addition to crashability and aerodynamics, elongating the vehicle in the direction of travel improves control (this is partly why boats, cars, bikes, planes, helicopters, rockets, and blimps are all elongated; compare the maneuverability of a blimp to that of a hot air balloon with a propeller. And sure, a unicycle can turn on a dime, but I would never think of it as being more maneuverable than a bike). Also, having 10 cm clearance and going 150 kph sounds very scary (you should see the potholes we get, not to mention the snow and ice in winter...)
Transport safety, in fact, is achieved only by its systematic and fully automatic organization. For the car - it's impossible. For the Urbamobile - which inventively constructed round shape allows you to shortchange it using only one point and permits driving in the simplest way with the possibility of contiguity - it is optimal. In principle - we are talking specifically about the universal size and shape of the perimeter and the characteristics of its outer surface, the presence of which in the Urbamobile makes it possible to create a fully automatic universal Urbamobile Transportation System. For cars and any other transportation systems it is practically impossible.
It is the systematic organization of transport that could make it possible, in principle, to exclude the possibility of a collision with a wild animal, or car body full of cows tilting over toward you.
Even a fall of a boulder on Urbamobile could be less dangerous because the physical durability of the Urbamobile’s interior that has a cylindrical shape is certainly much higher than that of the car.
It is the cylindrical shape of the interior that ensures optimum installation of seatbelts and airbags.
It is the cylindrical shape of the interior that ensures optimum activation of seatbelts and airbags.
This being said, the speculations concerning the allegedly excessively high aerodynamic drag actually look pretty prejudiced, nonobjective, and clearly aren’t aimed at comprehensive analysis of all the positive and negative aspects of the problem.
As for the maneuverability of unicycle, it is certainly higher than that of a bicycle with two wheels. To dispel apprehensions about the fact that “having 10 cm clearance and going 150 kph sounds very scary (you should see the potholes we get, not to mention the snow and ice in winter...)”, I recommend to analyze, for example, the technical characteristics of LAMBORGHINI cars. Taking into account that “the potholes we get, not to mention the snow and ice in winter ...” are sometimes found even in Italy, not to mention the other - the more northern - countries where cars that have the mentioned above characteristics, as judged by their popularity are also quite successfully used.
So it turns out:
“I agree with your big-picture arguments, for the most part. There is a lot of room for improvement in the transportation industry, and making small improvements can have profound effects on society as a whole.”
I agree too. But this is not enough to “have a profound impact on society in general”. The arguments justifying the feasibility of replacing cars with Urbamobiles are obvious. So it is necessary to do it. And the sooner - the better.
At the same time, I encourage everyone who is interested in this forum to more actively continue the critical discussion of Urbamobile and the Urbamobile Transportation System, so that the understanding of the fundamental correctness of this solution won’t be perceived as propaganda of a somebody’s pet idea, advertisement of a product or someone's business project.
-
“Legitimate freedom fighter” - who is this?
Way off topic, but a good question. When the mujahadeen were fighting the soviet army in Afghanistan, they were legitimate freedom fighters - otherwise the USA would not have supplied them with intelligence and weapons. Of course as soon as they won, they became fanatical oppressors - otherwise the USA would not have sent soldiers in to fight them. Quite unlike the IRA, who were disgraceful terrorists until they won seats in a power-sharing executive in Stormont, and are now respectable politicians. Chechen rebels, Che Guevara, Mao Tse-Tung, and indeed almost anyone who promotes a political ideal with a gun, may be a legitimate freedom fighter or murderous scum depending on the prevailing fashion among the chattering classes.
By the way, where does such awareness of “legitimate freedom fighters”, their arms and even about their dreams come from?
Newspapers, radio, television, and occasional conversations with earth people including some who have fought with and against such individuals.
It now seems that the Metropolitan Police are apologising for infiltrating ecological protest groups. My advice to a budding transport engineer is not to allow politicians to switch your vehicles on or off.
-
This being said, the speculations concerning the allegedly excessively high aerodynamic drag actually look pretty prejudiced, nonobjective,
No, they come from elementary textbooks on aerodynamics. In the immortal words of Scotty "Ye canna fight the laws of physics, Captain."
-
Back to road engineering for a moment. A Routemaster bus is narrower (2.44m) and carries up to 72 passengers. That's 18 times as many people in only 3.5 times the road space. Seems like a better solution, and you can buy one today. Some even have wi-fi!
-
« Reply #50 on: Today at 01:02:20 »
Say ThanksQuote (selected)
Quote from: Info-drops on 20/11/2015 15:49:04
“Legitimate freedom fighter” - who is this?
Way off topic, but a good question. When the mujahadeen were fighting the soviet army in Afghanistan, they were legitimate freedom fighters - otherwise the USA would not have supplied them with intelligence and weapons. Of course as soon as they won, they became fanatical oppressors - otherwise the USA would not have sent soldiers in to fight them. Quite unlike the IRA, who were disgraceful terrorists until they won seats in a power-sharing executive in Stormont, and are now respectable politicians. Chechen rebels, Che Guevara, Mao Tse-Tung, and indeed almost anyone who promotes a political ideal with a gun, may be a legitimate freedom fighter or murderous scum depending on the prevailing fashion among the chattering classes.
Quote
By the way, where does such awareness of “legitimate freedom fighters”, their arms and even about their dreams come from?
Newspapers, radio, television, and occasional conversations with earth people including some who have fought with and against such individuals.
It now seems that the Metropolitan Police are apologising for infiltrating ecological protest groups. My advice to a budding transport engineer is not to allow politicians to switch your vehicles on or off.
« Last Edit: Today at 10:46:54 by alancalverd »
Children can afford thinking such a way.
However, growing up, you realize that the world is becoming less compatible and increasingly close – mistakes made by people in one place, have a strong impact on other areas.
The more urgent becomes the creation of systems in which the role of human factor will be minimized. To such systems belongs undoubtedly the Urbamobile Transportation System!
It is a pity that instead of discussing ways of gradual introduction of this invention and urgent places of its application on the Earth, the opponent enough only for ironic comments.
-
« Reply #51 on: Today at 01:05:54 »
Say ThanksQuote (selected)
Quote from: John-H on 20/11/2015 15:57:45
This being said, the speculations concerning the allegedly excessively high aerodynamic drag actually look pretty prejudiced, nonobjective,
No, they come from elementary textbooks on aerodynamics. In the immortal words of Scotty "Ye canna fight the laws of physics, Captain."
No. Unfortunately, - as said the hero of another series - “You just don't know how to count, our little Generalissimo ...”.
If by the time when must be born Scotty people stubbornly do not accept the new because they just don't understand it, we will have no “star treks” but will sit on Earth in a very long, endless traffic jam - literally and figuratively.
-
It is a pity that instead of discussing ways of gradual introduction of this invention and urgent places of its application on the Earth,
And there you have shown another weakness. You can't gradually introduce a product that is incompatible with everything else on the road. Take a simple, passive annoyance like a speed hump. The regulation height is 10 cm, so a 10 cm ground clearance will just suffice as long as the vehicle has absolutely rigid suspension and solid tyres - most uncomfortable. With the diamond layout you show for the wheelbase, you can't avoid hitting the speed hump,so the whole machine will oscillate vertically and scrape its bottom on the hump.
Since the urbamobile has colllision avoidance, how does it manage in heavy traffic? Does it nudge its way forward until it is almost touching the vehicle in front? OK, let's allow that. Now the bloke in front realises that there's a problem - there's an ambulance or police car trying to cross the traffic flow, so he decides to reverse. Does the urbamobile reverse too, or does it think the bloke in front is deliberately trying to ram you (it makes a good fake insurance claim) and just sit tight and call the police? So let's try something different: in slow traffic we will stay 1 metre behind the car in front. Now a pedestrian walks into that space: do we try to reverse to retain 1 m clearance? How does the machine know the difference between stationary traffic (1 m clearance) and parking (no clearance required if the vehicle in front is an urbamobile, but 30cm is a minimum if the guy in front wants to unpark an ordinary car).
Now let's move to an ordinary road. Some twit has just overtaken the urbamobile and wants to pull in ahead of it. How does the urbamobile know this? Does it always give way? There's an ambulance coming towards us on the other side of the road: common sense tells me to give way and let the overtaker in quickly even if he isn't signalling that intention: does the urbamobile slow down every tme someone goes past, just in case he might need to pull in? That really won't please the people behind, will it?
But before we get to these engineering questions, you still haven't answered the basic ones: will the machine be privately owned, rented for the journey, or what?
So far, all you have shown us is a picture of something that looks like the disabled toilet on a train, told us that it is the answer to a problem that we don't actually have, and ignored the fact that there are better machines already in use. Now you want everyone to make way for it. That's no way to sell a product.
-
Back to road engineering for a moment. A Routemaster bus is narrower (2.44m) and carries up to 72 passengers. That's 18 times as many people in only 3.5 times the road space. Seems like a better solution, and you can buy one today. Some even have wi-fi!
Do not worry, Scotty. There are more «Seems like a better solution». For example, a double-deck railway wagon of a train.
Reasonable and responsible person here: At the same time,
« Reply #37 on: 15/11/2015 22:58:05 »
I would like to take this opportunity to remind both new and old members to read the forum acceptable use policy, wherein we state:
In the scientific discussion we should not be like some “legitimate freedom fighters” who know how to break, but do not know how to make.
We shouldn’t reason about what else could be said or suggested simply for debates going on.
We should worry about what else must be said or suggested so that as many as possible people could really participate in making the world better. For example, - by supporting in every possible way the popularization of the idea of a speedy replacement of cars by Urbamobiles and full and widespread transition to application of Urbamobile Transportation System.
After all, neither car, nor bus, nor railway, nor any other modern transport can provide people with such advantages and opportunities that are offered and are given by the Urbamobile.
-
After all, neither car, nor bus, nor railway, nor any other modern transport can provide people with such advantages and opportunities that are offered and are given by the Urbamobile.
So far, you haven't shown any advantages or opportunities. You have drawn a large, clumsy and inefficient vehicle that is not compatible with other traffic, and told us nothing about who owns it, how it works, how much it costs....
-
After all, neither car, nor bus, nor railway, nor any other modern transport can provide people with such advantages and opportunities that are offered and are given by the Urbamobile.
So far, you haven't shown any advantages or opportunities. You have drawn a large, clumsy and inefficient vehicle that is not compatible with other traffic, and told us nothing about who owns it, how it works, how much it costs....
… you haven't shown any advantages or opportunities. You have drawn....
- who do you mean by saying “You”? After all, it is obvious that EVERYONE is interested in speedy implementation of Urbamobile!
a large, clumsy and inefficient vehicle that is not compatible with other traffic
– and in this case what are you talking about? Surely it is obvious that it doesn’t and can’t apply to Urbamobile.
told us nothing about who owns it, how it works, how much it costs
All of the above questions are described and shown in detail on urbamobile.com.
-
Posting under multiple names is against forum policy...
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Please only post as Hoggart from now on, or you may risk being banned.
-
After all, it is obvious that EVERYONE is interested in speedy implementation
no, only yourself, however many psudonyms you may assume. Certainly nobody else in this forum.
-
Quote from: alancalverd on 24/11/2015 23:53:09
a large, clumsy and inefficient vehicle that is not compatible with other traffic
– and in this case what are you talking about? Surely it is obvious that it doesn’t and can’t apply to Urbamobile.
Well, it takes up twice as much road space as a Smart Fortwo and requires five times the engine capacity to drive it, according to your figures. Which makes it large, clumsy and inefficient compared with a car that has been in fullscale production and sold around the world for the last 15 years. They have now sold over 1,500,000 units, including a narrower version to meet Japanese tax rules (see my posting some time back).
The Fiat 500, Mini, and a dozen other small cars, all substantially outperform the urbamobile in about the same amount of road space, and have sold umpteen millions since the 1960s.
-
Posting under multiple names is against forum policy...
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Please only post as Hoggart from now on, or you may risk being banned.
My dear Watson!
I've also decided to scout out at leisure a little - and that's what I found out:
[ Invalid Attachment ]
A good thing there was not enough impudence (or stupidity) to write “Please only post as Holmes from now on, or you may risk being banned.”
It wouldn’t have been good then!
Sincerely yours, Sherlock Holmes!
-
Is it possible to implement smoking cessation with the ongoing sale of tobacco?
Is it possible to take measures to reduce alcohol consumption without introducing of the “dry law”?
Is it possible to fight the spread of drugs without strict punishment, including introducing the death penalty, for drug addiction and distribution of drugs?
AND IS IT REALLY NECESSARY TO DO SOMETHING, AT LEAST?
After all, some say, in particular:
the fact that more young adults die from a voluntary, pleasurable and economically useful activity than anything else is, if anything, a sign of a mature civilisation.
So far we have not heard any arguments from which it would follow that the introduction of the Urbamobile is impossible.
The law - does not prohibit. Physics - allows. Calculations - make it impossible to deny.
If the ground clearance is small, it will be difficult to drive...
No problem, - the ground clearance can be increased!
And in order to stop the enslavement by cars, it is not so difficult to tolerate some temporary inconveniences.
I do not understand the other thing, - where are at least those few thousand readers that has got acquainted with information about Urbamobile, but -
REMAIN SILENT?
THE PLANET EARTH – OUR COMMON HOME – DIES – “BURNS”, AND YOU ARE REFUSING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FIRE EXTINGUISHING, THINKING THAT DISTRIBUTION OF BUCKETS WITH WATER - IS SOMEONE’S “BUSINESS PROJECT”?
WAKE UP, PEOPLE!
BEFORE ALL IS NOT LOST!
-
Is it possible to implement smoking cessation with the ongoing sale of tobacco?
Is it possible to take measures to reduce alcohol consumption without introducing of the “dry law”?
Is it possible to fight the spread of drugs without strict punishment, including introducing the death penalty, for drug addiction and distribution of drugs?
AND IS IT REALLY NECESSARY TO DO SOMETHING, AT LEAST?
After all, some say, in particular:
the fact that more young adults die from a voluntary, pleasurable and economically useful activity than anything else is, if anything, a sign of a mature civilisation.
So far we have not heard any arguments from which it would follow that the introduction of the Urbamobile is impossible.
The law - does not prohibit. Physics - allows. Calculations - make it impossible to deny.
If the ground clearance is small, it will be difficult to drive...
No problem, - the ground clearance can be increased!
And in order to stop the enslavement by cars, it is not so difficult to tolerate some temporary inconveniences.
I do not understand the other thing, - where are at least those few thousand readers that has got acquainted with information about Urbamobile, but -
REMAIN SILENT?
THE PLANET EARTH – OUR COMMON HOME – DIES – “BURNS”, AND YOU ARE REFUSING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FIRE EXTINGUISHING, THINKING THAT DISTRIBUTION OF BUCKETS WITH WATER - IS SOMEONE’S “BUSINESS PROJECT”?
WAKE UP, PEOPLE!
BEFORE ALL IS NOT LOST!
I don't think anyone here is saying that it would be impossible to manufacture and use a vehicle as described above. The consensus, however, appears to be that there has not been any evidence presented to show that it would be significantly better (or even as good as) currently employed technologies...
-
In case you actually can build it I wish you success. But friend it will take a while until the common class society will be receptive to drive a top-hat like car!
-
Is it possible to implement smoking cessation with the ongoing sale of tobacco?
Is it possible to take measures to reduce alcohol consumption without introducing of the “dry law”?
Is it possible to fight the spread of drugs without strict punishment, including introducing the death penalty, for drug addiction and distribution of drugs?
All these have been tried and failed. Fact is that the law is incapable of preventing a fit, healthy, sane adult from killing himself by any means he wishes. It does, however, prevent anyone from helping a terminally sick patient from ending his life in a dignified manner and at a time of his own choosing.
But that is a matter for a different forum.
-
Is it possible to implement smoking cessation with the ongoing sale of tobacco?
Is it possible to take measures to reduce alcohol consumption without introducing of the “dry law”?
Is it possible to fight the spread of drugs without strict punishment, including introducing the death penalty, for drug addiction and distribution of drugs?
All these have been tried and failed. Fact is that the law is incapable of preventing a fit, healthy, sane adult from killing himself by any means he wishes. It does, however, prevent anyone from helping a terminally sick patient from ending his life in a dignified manner and at a time of his own choosing.
But that is a matter for a different forum.
Thank you that you are trying to understand the true meaning and idea of Urbamobile and the Urbamobile Transportation System.
It is a pity, however, that many people can not realize the above mentioned understanding properly.
Indeed, Urbamobile can and should drastically improve people's lives.
And to do that we have all the technological capacities available now.
At the same time – discussing the idea of Urbamobile – we should not analyze the extreme assumptions or emotional manifestations,
which are not in reality the necessary conditions for introduction and using of Urbamobile.
-
Urbamobile can and should drastically improve people's lives.
Please explain how buying (renting? hiring?) a bigger, thirstier, aerodynamically unstable car that stops and starts when it wants to rather than when I want it to, is going to improve my life. Or anyone else's.
-
« Reply #68 on: 05/12/2015 15:08:23 »
Say ThanksQuote (selected)
Quote from: John-H on 05/12/2015 14:23:24
Urbamobile can and should drastically improve people's lives.
Please explain how buying (renting? hiring?) a bigger, thirstier, aerodynamically unstable car that stops and starts when it wants to rather than when I want it to, is going to improve my life. Or anyone else's.
“I have the advantage of knowing your habits, my dear Watson,” -
«a bigger, thirstier, aerodynamically unstable car that stops and starts when it wants to rather than when I want it to» - THAT IS a MODERN CAR IS, - of course can not «going to improve my life. Or anyone else's.»
Automobile (a car) - is a deadlock of transportation industry.
In fact, a car - is the same thing as an individual carriage or wagon, whose power (speed) and comfort (tonnage) is no sense to increase.
If you want not to waste time and want to feel comfortable in modern conditions, you need quite another.
You need to optimize using of space and computing capacity through automation and systematization.
But automobile (a car) is not intended for solving such tasks at all.
Therefore, a car may and must to be replaced on Urbamobile, - that is opposite intended for optimizing usage of space and computing capacity through automation and systematization.
That is why:
«Urbamobile can and should drastically improve people's lives.»
-
I give up. Your rhetoric is now completely incomprehensible and you have not shown how your proposed device can solve any actual problem that has not already been solved by Fiat, Mercedes, Daihatsu, G-Wizz, Messerschmitt,.....
-
« Reply #70 on: Today at 16:44:02 »
Say ThanksQuote (selected)
I give up. Your rhetoric is now completely incomprehensible and you have not shown how your proposed device can solve any actual problem that has not already been solved by Fiat, Mercedes, Daihatsu, G-Wizz, Messerschmitt,.....
«I give up.» - it is about yourself, obviously? Do not get excited! And it is not necessary to “give up” – Urbamobile is not an enemy!
«Your rhetoric is now completely incomprehensible» - whom do you mean in that case?
«you have not shown how your proposed device can solve any actual problem that has not already been solved by Fiat, Mercedes, Daihatsu, G-Wizz, Messerschmitt,.....» - and what do you mean saying so?
I once again urge all who care about our future, - carefully read the information on urbamobile.com.
And, please, try to understand, how important that information is.
And, at least, start thinking and not stay silent!
-
I don't think anyone here is saying that it would be impossible to manufacture and use a vehicle as described above. The consensus, however, appears to be that there has not been any evidence presented to show that it would be significantly better (or even as good as) currently employed technologies...
And I think that neither you, nor your friends and colleagues who attribute to Urbamobile nonexistent shortcomings and completely ignore the available unique advantages of Urbamobile, nor many other readers of this forum have yet found time to get acquainted with the information about Urbamobile on urbamobile.com.
Or do you really think that at least even this:
is not the evidence that all those little cars of type “mini”, your colleague likes to extol, are in no way comparable with Urbamobile?
Or do you really think that at least even this:
is not the evidence that there are no – even hugely expensive – modern cars that are in any way comparable with Urbamobile?
Or do you really think that at least even this:
is not the evidence that Urbamobile is really the uncontested choice?
Also have a look at urbamobile.com, on indiegogo.com/projects/urbamobile-replaces-the-car--2#!
Stop talking nonsense “just to keep the conversation alive”, for example:
- about the “tons of CO2”, which during the manufacturing process of Urbamobile in reality could not be emitted in bigger quantities than during the manufacturing process of those little cars of type “mini”, not to mention the other cars;
- about some incredible “space on the road”, which in reality is less needed for Urbamobile than for those little cars of type “mini”, not to mention the other cars;
- about some “enormous aerodynamic drag”, which reduction for Urbamobile is very easy, and, in fact, even for the proposed model of Urbamobile it is much smaller than it is counted by those that don’t know how to count properly;
- about some supposedly obstructive to anything and everything, but in reality – only proposed for consideration as a possible option - a “small ground clearance” of 0.1 m, the size of which for Urbamobile – is an absolutely nonessential conditionality;
- about some supposedly “inextricable” difficulties with the operation of Urbamobile on initial stages of implementation, along with cars,
although in reality -
THERE IS NOT ONE USEFUL QUALITY AVAILABLE FOR THE CAR THAT IS NOT EVEN MORE AVAILABLE FOR URBAMOBILE!
but - for those who after all will got acquainted with the information on urbamobile.com or at least on indiegogo.com/projects/urbamobile-replaces-the-car--2# –
it must be absolutely clear, also that –
CAR, ANY OTHER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND ANY OTHER MODERN TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGIES, ARE IN ANY WAY COMPARABLE TO THE UNIQUE ADVANTAGES PROVIDED BY URBAMOBILE AND URBAMOBILE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM!