0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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...
The silly season seems to be in full swing, let us get back to some serious science and technology.
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.
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?
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.
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.
More than that – to throw rubbish on the roads is not good in principle.
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 ...
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,
And the US Federal regs (there are state-by-state exceptions for agricultural vehicles)Quoteops.fhwa.dot.gov/FREIGHT/publications/size_regs_final.../index.htmThis Act provided a maximum vehicle width of 96 inches (2.44 meters) on the ...
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.
introduction of Urbamobile - is really very important and necessary for all Mankind.
(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,
« Reply #24 on: 09/11/2015 17:43:09 »
« Reply #27 on: 12/11/2015 13:59:37 »
« Reply #10 on: 05/11/2015 23:36:32 »
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.
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” ?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also in principle The Urbamobile does not allow using transport in illegal purposes, for example - for street riots, crimes or terrorism actions.
Quote from: alancalverd on 16/11/2015 12:51:17Also 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.
Quote from: Info-drops on 17/11/2015 17:21:14Equipping 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.
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...)