I agree with the people who are upset about Design News posting something like this, whether it's in a blog or not. Design News is a technical magazine, read by professionals. It's not some college student's web site where he wants to impress his friends and have fun. As an engineer, I expect Design News to keep me up to date with new equipment, new technologgy, things that might be useful in my applications at work.
This blog article has really detracted from the credibility and reliability of Design News. As a result, I will not be paying much attention to the stuff that comes across my computer screen from this source. I'll stick to the magazine, where childish foolishness likely will not occur.
As for ZERO EMMISSIONS, what about all of the ADDED magnetic fields that will be produced? What are the side efects of being constantly surrounded by high power magnetic fields. It doesn't mater what we do, there will always be some form of emmission to deal with.
To call a new technology ECO friendly or ZERO emmission is misleading. EV cars aren't as ECO friendly as people think because of all of the environmental issues that are forgotten about in their production. It's just that these problems are created somewhere else, so people conveniently forget that they even exist.
I agree that Maglev is a neat idea, but not practical. It would take forever to get the planet restructured so that it could be used everywhere. Too bad it wasn't thought of and implemented 150 years ago. It might have had a chance then.
While I haven't taken the time to read all 39 blog entries as of this writing, for me this is a ridiculous undertaking! It's fine to have a maglev @ DISNEY or some other theme parks, but in reality for many of us, it is an exercise in frustration dealing with the local gov't agency responsible for filling potholes. It seems to me based on previous efforts around the globe that to develop this alternative form of transportation, it would take massive REVOLUTION in our road infrastructure, not evolution.
And, one more thing editorials & bloggers have posed the dilemma regarding EV's. While operating one may be considered environmentally friendly, etc. and reduce our dependency of fossil fuel resources, WHERE does the original energy come from to charge these vehicles? By the same token, WHERE does the massive amount of electrical energy come from to power these magnets, etc.? HUH???
As a diehard sci-fi fan since age 11, I watch almost every science fiction movie that comes out. My husband and I used to make a game of pointing out what's created with CGI in a given film, not based on whether the thing itself was improbable (ocean waves, wolves, or aliens), but because the CGI wasn't good enough. But sometime back, it started getting a lot harder (first ocean waves, then animal fur) and recently, in Disney's John Carter, we could not tell at all, except by the unreality of the event or object being portrayed, like this one.
Stuff like this really make me feel dumb. Since it occured in this publication, I believed this was just a highly edited. actual experience. Now I feel like the poor shlub who has been duped by a carnival barker. I agree with an earlier poster who felt Design News should not publish things such as this without a disclaimer.
Am I the only one to recognize the REAL reason for this development. The Communist Chinese obviously know how bad American drivers are and figure this is a better way to conquer. First they buy everything in the U.S. and then kill the population with these things.
What they don't realize is that had they first come out with the HoverCar they could just wait and let our bad drivers wipe out the population and then just walk in and take over when were all dead from auto/hover accidents. Obviously at a much cheaper price than having to build up their Navy/Army/and what-ever-else-they-have militaries.
On the other hand, just think of the road infra-structure costs we could save by just killing half of our drivers on the road now.
Robots that walk have come a long way from simple barebones walking machines or pairs of legs without an upper body and head. Much of the research these days focuses on making more humanoid robots. But they are not all created equal.
The IEEE Computer Society has named the top 10 trends for 2014. You can expect the convergence of cloud computing and mobile devices, advances in health care data and devices, as well as privacy issues in social media to make the headlines. And 3D printing came out of nowhere to make a big splash.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.