<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.bnet.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on China developing 600 mph airless maglev high-speed train ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-24T04:59:34-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: China developing 600 mph airless maglev high-speed train]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-89730]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[When the world stop spending trillions of $ a year on useless weapons, those billions of $ spent on a superfast maglev will be obvously a good investment for conserving planetary resource.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-89730]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Edwina Lee]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2013 18:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: China developing 600 mph airless maglev high-speed train]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-89217]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[NY to LA in 45 minutes???Here is one of the answers.Wikipedai says:Vacuum tube trainFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaA vactrain (or vacuum tube train) is a proposed, as-yet-unbuilt design for future high-speed railroad transportation. It is a maglev line run through evacuated (air-less) or partly evacuated tubes or tunnels. The lack of air resistance could permit vactrains to use little power and to move at extremely high speeds, up to 4000, 5000 mph (6400, 8000 km/h, 2 km/s), or 5, 6 times the speed of sound (Mach 1) at sea level and standard conditions.[1]]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-89217]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tsgtshn]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2013 05:58:57 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[NY to LA in 45 minutes???]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-89232]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Here is one of the answers.Wikipedai says:Vacuum tube trainFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaA vactrain (or vacuum tube train) is a proposed, as-yet-unbuilt design for future high-speed railroad transportation. It is a maglev line run through evacuated (air-less) or partly evacuated tubes or tunnels. The lack of air resistance could permit vactrains to use little power and to move at extremely high speeds, up to 4000, 5000 mph (6400, 8000 km/h, 2 km/s), or 5, 6 times the speed of sound (Mach 1) at sea level and standard conditions.[1]]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-89232]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tsgtshn]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2013 05:56:09 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Low Cost Mobility]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-79105]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The designers of transport system have to now settle down to a practical level and have to be present to the ground reality. They got to give the people what the people want. People do not want fancy transport systems. The people want an efficient, convenient and cost effective system. With mobility becoming a fundamental right the new technology needs to fit into the budget of the common man. The transport system is no longer important, what is important is affordable mobility which is fast, clean, cheap, comfortable, safe &amp; green. What people are looking for is doorstep delivery. People are looking for a uni-modal system which saves time &amp; effort. High Speed Trains have very few stations and these stations are far away from the places where the people live &amp; work. It is time for a technology which will replace cars and save energy and will give the people the mobility they desire.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-79105]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ilajnaaneem]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:39:39 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: China developing 600 mph airless maglev high-speed train]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-35087]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It is entertaining reading what nay-sayers imagine ET3 to be!  It is easy to &quot;prove&quot; there are problems that ET3 cannot surmount if one redesigns ET3 to be what they imagine instead of what it is!   The article has one reference, et3.com, and mentions the the technology is patented.  One can find the patent and download it for free at:http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5950543.htmlA little more study (actually reading the ET3 patent) should let the nay-sayers know that ET3 is not the expensive train they imagine it to be!  For instance ET3 does not use train switching imagined by DamienY.  ET3 uses car/freeway type of independent switching controlled by the vehicle -- not the outmoded train type of switch. Those who dig deeper will find et3.net and that the ET3 consortium is over 95 strong, and includes SWJTU in China, and is several years into the development phase!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-35087]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Daryl Oster]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:21:28 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: China developing 600 mph airless maglev high-speed train]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-30593]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[These responses are sick, Maglev is the best thing ever.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-30593]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[DamienY]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 07 Nov 2010 00:24:25 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: China developing 600 mph airless maglev high-speed train]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-26452]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[New York to Los Angeles in &quot;x&quot; minutes?  What if I want to go to Boise, Idaho instead?  How about Seattle?  Does anyone have the faintest idea how to build a network of such tube trains and not spend the treasuries of every nation on Earth?Real-world trains on rails use a gadget called a &quot;switch&quot; to change from one rail line to another to go to different destinations.  It's relatively easy to do in the air when one doesn't have to also deal with maintaining a vacuum.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-26452]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[phil8192]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:21:47 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: China developing 600 mph airless maglev high-speed train]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-25559]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Hmmm...that's a funny video! I love how there are absolutely *NO* lines anywhere!Look..the problem with super fast trains is that they are only good for point-to-point operation! We have an Accella train in the united states that's capable of about 200mph on regular train tracks..but it can never reach that speed because on the way to New York from Washington DC, it has to stop half a dozen times and because of that, it never goes above 90-mph!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-25559]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[tech_ed@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:01:31 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: China developing 600 mph airless maglev high-speed train]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-25498]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[@dhaysi only really care about mistake that change thwe context of the arguement.as for claustrophia... thats purely a psychological condition... general cause via truama and the avoidance of the cause of of similar things to thats which caused the trauma... the fact of the matter is the tube is required for increasingly high speed trains (because it removed air resistance, thusly greatly reducing the required energy input), this method has been talked about being used over long distance at several thousand km/h. if people can't get over that  they can use another method of travel.as for the view, the tube can be made of some kind of glass or clear plastic, and there you go very high speed trains IN A TUBE with a view, not exxactly much of a problem... though at that speed there not much point to a view unless your atleast few hundred or thousand feet of the ground (or 32,000ft; cruise altitude for most commecial airliners), at that speed at ground level a view would likely be disorienting to many people.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-25498]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Daryl420]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:21:15 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: China developing 600 mph airless maglev high-speed train]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-25366]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The problem I see with getting from New York to Los Angeles in 45 minutes is that the maximum safe acceleration for a bus or train is 0.1g, At that rate of acceleration, the minimum time in which a bus or train can cover 2462 miles is a shade under 68 minutes. To achieve that timing the vehicle needs to achieve a maximum speed of 4400 mph.Even over medium distances, though, the train is already faster than the plane. You can travel 400 miles centre to centre from Edinburgh to London in 4 hours 0 min by train. Doing the same journey by plane takes about the same length of time, thanks to the time spent at the airport of departure.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-25366]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[k.r.johnson]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:45:13 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: China developing 600 mph airless maglev high-speed train]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-25265]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Daryl420:There are a lot more typos than that in your posting, misspelled words, misused words all make it hard to read.  It would take a lot of time to point them all out.  It should have been proofread before you posted it.We should quit worring about the politics and get moving on building a high speed train, above or below ground.  I don't like the idea of being in a tube underground for long distances--anyone ever heard of claustrophobia?  I enjoy the scenery from an airplane's window, or a train's window.  If we were to go this route, we would be hurtling at high speed in something with no windows to guess where we are or see the mountains, rivers, lakes of our magnificent country.  In my case at aq height of 6' 7&quot; to many transports are made for shorter people.  There are may of us out here that are over six and a half feet tall, where do they travel or what do they drive?  I drive a full sized pickup and one of the reasons is LEG room, which is nonexistant on many airlines, and in many cars, we bought our Ford Five-Hundred three years ago, specifically for its leg room, I am hoping someone will still have a vehicle with rear seat leg room, when we have to replace it.  I am not sure it exists today in the 2011 season of vehicles.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-25265]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dhays]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 08:01:17 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[typo in part 8 of my comment]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-25159]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot; look it doesn't matter when they built their existing mag lev train or not.&quot;when should be whether.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-25159]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Daryl420]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 15 Aug 2010 06:19:11 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: China developing 600 mph airless maglev high-speed train]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-25158]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[its no wonder were at least 100 years behind whats possible most people are ludcirisly sociallly and technology conservative... news flash this is the 21st century, not the 19th century... people, start acting like you know what century it is.issues:1) terrorism... the perfect fantasy reason to do nothing... look if terrorism was really a concern democracy, capitialism/socialism/communism would all, all mass transportation and energy generation (esspecially of nuclear oil or coal) would cease to exist... instead its used as an assine reason to stall social and technology progress and to entrech with mindless rederick which embraces technologies that caused most of the environmental and social problems of today's world in the first place.2) disaster scenerio, its all fine an well to plan for the what if's but when you say how something can't be done or shouldn't be done, you better have  damn sound reasoning as at that point YOUR blocking progress for the whole of society and indirectly the whole of the global society... infact unless you have some kind of work around idea, in that case, your strictly part of the problem... underwater/underground transportation isn't a new thing, building earthquake resistant structures can be built (its usually not done as a result of cost, which is the same reason the US infrastructure is in decay, in many case in extreme decay), china though is less concerned about cost (their economy isn't in shambles, nor even on shakey ground) and more in modernizing their country and becomming leading nation on international stage, which they are quickly becomming.3) their calculation being off... this is a MINOR details thats being treated as if its a major flaw, its not... its  still MUCH faster than ANY other mode of travel and thats the relevent point.4) it not being green power, it is, the problem is that the bulk of their electricity generation, much like that of the US, is stuck in 19th and early 20th century technology, hence much of the power than gets to the train wasn't generated by a green source but the train is still green itself, unlike other trains, airplanes,  cars/trucks, hell its more green than travel by horse, because at the end of the day (figuritively speaking, of course) it itself isn't putting out any pollution, and tghusly is green and an be powered 100% by green sources.5) it not being possible, or otherwise being a fantasy... look... FLYING is a fantasy... but the wright brother didn't agree.. now nearly a century later we have tens of (if not hundreds of) MILLIONS of people engaging in whaty was a fantasy at the time.. and BTW this was also around the time maglev technology was conceived... and i'm sure they thought it was pure fantasy then too, and guess what?, in 1992 the german government proved what short sighted fools they were even 18 years ago, much less of the people that think so now.6) why only 600mph?... because its a work in progress under the venus project they like to see international transport (via EXACTLY this method vacuum tube mag lev trains; check out &quot;future by design&quot; for the venus projects' vision) of they they say up to or exceeding 20,000km/h, which every decade becomes closer and closer to realityand while 20,000km/h might not ever be acheived (i think over a long enough distance it certianly can be even for passenger carrying trains), its really a matter of energy input (which is ever-increasing), magnetic power efficently (which is constantly improving  via being able to apply more power to electromagnets or the manfacturing other super-magnets which are naturally stronger), resistance (which unless they can create a perfect vacuum, which they likely wont, will form some kind of barrier of air resistences, as this ability continues to improve so too will the efficency of such mag lev trains) and lastly biological physical tolerances (people can only physically tolerate so much g-force, to work around this you would either need a long relatively slow acceleration or something to dampen the effects of g-force.. a long slow acceleration is the easiest and most economical... if the distance were great enough i have no doubt this specific mag lev train concept could easily hit 1000km/h, if not exceeding even that.7) impractical/ signifigant amounts of energy... obviously this person missed the memo, its uses 1/4 (or 25%) of the energy that flying does, WHY? because their no friction and little air resistance.... hence it require LESS energy. hence the energy burden is LESSENED not increased...and no coal (and oil) is the long term solution to nothing, except making a quick buck at the expense of the environment and the global society, nuclear i have less of a problem with, aside from the fact that even nuclear power is 60 years behind whats actually possible, can be significantly more powerful and at the same time a MUCH greener technology.. buts it not economical... so we don't have it, thats how backwards society... we can do better, we know better than to keep doing things the way we do and yet we choose not to because the profit motive isn't there... thats a flaw of western society if ever there was one, our society is like that one completely moronic person in society (school or adult life) thats just smart enough to know that getting hit in the head is bad for his health, yet is dumb enough to keep letting people much him in the head for a quarter.we haven't NEEDED oil or coal power in the last 60 years AT ALL, but we haven't taken green tech seriously until the mid 90's and even now its still barely taken seriously, by anyone except though that are rather cognicent of global warming which many people still think is some kind of scam, and doesn't exist, or even if it does that we have no influence on it; which is assine, when you consider we have a greater CONSTANT effect than volcanoes do, on average more than 200 times greater, yet we know beyond all doubt that volcanos alter the climate (albeit generally in a more balanced way via also having alot of sulphur dioxide emissions).... and nuclear power become a scary thing  for the west in the cold war, mostly via propaganda up till 1970 nuclear power was making great strides, including nuclear power super-freighters,  i think only 3 were built, despite them being superior in virtually every way, but were scaped as a economic plan because most countries ports refused to let them dock out of fear of a nuclear attack.8) the anit-chinese progressionists, look it doesn't matter when they built their existing mag lev train or not... they comissioned it, they own it... they use it.... thats all that really matters...also it doesn''t matter that maglev can do this same speed above ground... WHY? because when you remove, or dramatically reduce air resistance from the equation you can reduce the power input thats required to run the train, hence making it significantly more energy efficent.. not to mention it opens up the possibilty of the same technology being expanded well beyond 1000km/h using this practical proof of concept, much like the first  maglev train built in 1992 by germany was.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-25158]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Daryl420]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 15 Aug 2010 05:40:32 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: China developing 600 mph airless maglev high-speed train]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-25054]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[As one of these highly traditional Brits, I rather like trains.  No doubt this thing will need some development and there are obvious questions about what happens when the tunnel springs a leak etc, but 600 mph sounds doable in (say) 5 or 10% of atmospheric pressure with minimal fuel costs (potentially renewable).  If it does heavy freight at that speed or it's technically feasible to go supersonic, the airlines may be history ...]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-25054]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jw@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2010 08:02:39 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: China developing 600 mph airless maglev high-speed train]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-24908]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Don@ has a valid point that the power generation technologies we use today don't make either conventional transport infrastructure, or MAGLEV trains a clean technology, we have simply removed the source of the pollution from the actual transport infrastructure itself and transferred it to central power generation plants, which today are mainly dirty. However, that does not negate the development of &quot;clean&quot; transport infrastructure powered by electricity, MAGLEV or otherwise. Migrating our Transport infrastructures to electrically, centrally powered systems means that as we do develop clean power generation technologies, we only have to replace the central power generation plants with clean technologies, not the entire transportation infrastructure.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-24908]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[idtchris]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:03:21 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: China developing 600 mph airless maglev high-speed train]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-24905]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Many said trains could never exceed 22 MPH, even if in this discussion we are talking about conventional trains regularly going in excess of 300 MPH. Many said human flight was impossible, but we take it for granted today. Many said supersonic flight was impossible but after some 35 years of Mach 2 service, Concorde was retired. Many said we could never land on the moon, but we have. For everything we do today, many said beforehand it could not be done. If we listened to such people we would still be living in caves.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-24905]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[idtchris]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:47:55 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: China developing 600 mph airless maglev high-speed train]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-24703]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[What with this great love affair with everything Chinese, sorry the Maglev running from Shanghai to its airport is not Chinese at all, it is German designed, built and made. If the author would have done even the smallest amount of research he would have found that above ground Maglev can probably reach speeds in excess of 600 MPH but the restriction is the sonic boom. Another problem with Maglev is that they need fairly level tracks, though some work in the roller coaster field has shown that Maglev can be made to climb sharp inclines. But for the example NYC to LA, tunnels when you are pushing something through them near the speed of sound would build a humongous pressure wave which would probably lift the train off its tracks. For a NYC to LA track that would mean tunneling through the western divide. Another thing the higher the speed the straighter the track, you have to remember the passengers and g-forces both lateral and longitudinal. You wouldn't want to arrive at either end and the passengers suffering a variety of broken bones. If a lot of curves are involved the speed is lowered so it is hard to compete against high speed rail. Another erroneous statement is the power requirement, the trains themselves provide their own power with turbine generators, so their is carbon based fuels used. Then there is the main power requirement, depending on speed the track below and anywhere from 2 km to 20 km must be electrified, yes their savings in only the immediate vicinity of a train must be electrified but where is that electricity coming from. The US doesn't have a guaranteed supply of clean electricity because you refuse to build nuclear power plants on tectonically stable land so the few you do have are on land not suitable such as islands, river deltas and earthquake zones. In the north, hydroelectric systems are small as the river systems are shared with another country in most locations. So 75% of US power production comes from coal and hydrocarbons. At best a Maglev would require a power station every 100 miles or so, it wouldn't have to be large but it would have to be available all the time. Here the Chinese will probably provide the earliest figures on requirements as they are now talking a Maglev connection from Shanghai to Beijing a distance of approximately 650 miles. I do know the German company that built Shanghai's Maglev has been hired to study the feasibility and requirements of said link. There is no reason an above ground track cannot achieve 600 mph on its own, it has nothing to do with air friction, it does have to do with the speed of sound and restrictions most countries have placed on commercial flights breaking the sound barrier over land, this would apply equally to trains. As for tunnels unless someone comes up with a whole new technology, absolute vacuum is impossible so any air could build a pressure wave that would lift the train from its track. If the Chinese experiment is successful, then Maglev might get built for quick commutes NYC to Washington, DC, LA to SF, LA to Vegas, Ottawa to Montreal or Montreal to Toronto and Ottawa to Toronto, all straight line runs on pretty even terrain.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-24703]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Rndmacts]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:46:41 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: China developing 600 mph airless maglev high-speed train]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-24702]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[As a follow-up ? I believe the overall concept of this type of transportation has been around for a long time.  But, like anything else, cutting edge ideas sometimes come years before there is practical technology to implement them.  Overall all however, the concepts put forth in the article are now practical and I suspect we have already developed most of the needed technologies.  So it looks to me like this is now a &quot;practical implementation&quot; problem; a problem that probably should be taken in a few steps to what ever the more-or-less final version of the concept maybe.  It is also true significant electrical energy to support this kind of infrastrucure will be needed and in many locations...including a number of levels of redundancy.  It is also true this type of project goes hand-in-hand with electrical generation development (including energy policy development).  I think it is pretty clear, whether we like it or not, a combination of advanced coal and nuclear driven power plants is the longer term solution for the energy needs of these kinds and projects, as well as the only way we are going to substantially free ourselves from foreign oil in the next 25 to 40 years.  I know almost every practical energy-source option has it detractors, but once again, if we wait too long to move forward with advanced energy development, and pick up on leading the way in infrastructure and industrial development, it going to be &quot;too late.&quot;  Dr. Raymond C. Rask]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-24702]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[raymondrask]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:10:16 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: China developing 600 mph airless maglev high-speed train]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-24701]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[As a follow-up ? I believe the overall concept of this type of transportation has been around for a long time.  But, like anything else, cutting edge ideas sometimes come years before there is practical technology to implement them.  Overall all however, the concepts put forth in the article are now practical and I suspect we have already developed most of the needed technologies.  So it looks to me like this is now a &quot;practical implementation&quot; problem; a problem that probably should be taken in a few steps to what ever the more-or-less final version of the concept maybe.  It is also true significant electrical energy to support this kind of infrastrucure will be needed and in many locations...including a number of levels of redundancy.  It is also true this type of project goes hand-in-hand with electrical generation development]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-24701]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[raymondrask]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:08:34 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Another terrorist's dream-technology...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-24692]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Yes we all know that this idea has been batted back and forth over the net for a while now. And it is attractive -- and should work as portrayed.But in a world under increasing threat from terror actors, is it wise to put all our eggs in the single basket of a transportation system that is so vulnerable? To wit:All you need to do, to bring down at least one train full of people, is a lump of C4 placed on the outside of the tube, and timed to blow the envelope when a train is in that section. Air rushes in, a 600 miles-per-hour train hits the side of the tube and disintegrates, or runs into a sudden pressure wave rushing down the tunnel, and all one has left of the 300 or so people and hi-tech, is a smear along the inside wall of the tube.Needless to say this could put a major cramp into the continuance of the idea.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-3876-24692]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Lightning Joe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:09:23 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

