The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can we construct this?  (Read 13627 times)

Offline John-H

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #25 on: 09/11/2015 23:14:59 »
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.
 

Offline VIC

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #26 on: 11/11/2015 11:50:33 »
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)
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 ...

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:

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.
« Last Edit: 11/11/2015 13:19:38 by VIC »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #27 on: 12/11/2015 13:59:37 »
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.

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.
 

Offline VIC

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #28 on: 12/11/2015 23:00:32 »
I am appealing to all who is following the above discussion: what do you think about this strangeness?
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1867
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #29 on: 12/11/2015 23:10:52 »
Two questions: how fast do you envision the urbamobile going? and how heavy do you expect it to be?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #30 on: 13/11/2015 18:07:23 »
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.
 

Offline Gerard-MAX

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #31 on: 14/11/2015 21:46:10 »
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”.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #32 on: 14/11/2015 23:19:54 »
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.
 

Offline John-H

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #33 on: 15/11/2015 12:50:08 »
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!
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #34 on: 15/11/2015 14:36:57 »
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.


« Last Edit: 17/11/2015 07:43:54 by alancalverd »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #35 on: 15/11/2015 16:00:14 »
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.
 

Offline John-H

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #36 on: 15/11/2015 18:41:36 »
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!
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1867
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #37 on: 15/11/2015 22:58:05 »
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.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #38 on: 15/11/2015 23:51:58 »
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.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #39 on: 16/11/2015 00:00:46 »
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.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #40 on: 16/11/2015 10:16:55 »
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.
« Last Edit: 16/11/2015 10:37:53 by alancalverd »
 

Offline John-H

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #41 on: 16/11/2015 12:21:39 »
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.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #42 on: 16/11/2015 12:51:17 »
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.
 

Offline VIC

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #43 on: 16/11/2015 16:57:32 »
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.
« Last Edit: 16/11/2015 17:04:14 by VIC »
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1867
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #44 on: 16/11/2015 17:43:11 »
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...)

 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #45 on: 17/11/2015 07:35:03 »
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?
 

Offline Info-drops

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #46 on: 17/11/2015 17:21:14 »
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.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #47 on: 19/11/2015 00:51:47 »
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.
« Last Edit: 19/11/2015 09:27:08 by alancalverd »
 

Offline Info-drops

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #48 on: 20/11/2015 15:49:04 »
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?
 

Offline John-H

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #49 on: 20/11/2015 15:57:45 »

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.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Can we construct this?
« Reply #49 on: 20/11/2015 15:57:45 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums