The late co-inventer of maglev Gordon Danby (left) and James Powell
http://riverheadnewsreview.timesreview.com/2016/08/75464/gordon-danby-co-inventor-of-maglev-and-ally-of-wading-river-community-dies-at-86/
Brookhaven National Laboratory news release, April 18, 2000
Brookhaven Lab Retirees Win Benjamin Franklin Medal for Their Invention of Magnetically Levitated Trains
UPTON, NY - James Powell and Gordon Danby, both retired researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory, will be awarded the 2000 Benjamin Franklin Medal in Engineering by The Franklin Institute "for their invention of a novel repulsive magnetically-levitated train system using superconducting magnets and subsequent work in the field."
One of five Franklin medals awarded annually, the engineering medal will be presented to Powell and Danby on April 27, 2000, at an awards ceremony in the rotunda of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in The Franklin Institute of Philadelphia. The Franklin medal winners will also be involved in a series of lectures, symposia and informal discussions planned for the week of April 24.
In 1961, when he was delayed during rush hour on the Throgs Neck Bridge, Powell thought of using magnetically levitated transportation (Maglev) to solve the traffic problem. Powell and his friend Danby, in their spare time, jointly worked out a Maglev concept using static magnets, which are typically superconducting, mounted on a moving vehicle to induce electrodynamic lifting and stabilizing forces in specially shaped loops on a guideway. They obtained a patent on the technology in 1968.
In 1987, U.S. Senator Patrick Moynihan from New York chaired the U.S. Senate's Energy and Public Works Committee's Maglev Task Force, on which Powell and Danby served as co-chairmen. This initiative brought about renewed interest and some new funding from the federal government and some state governments for Maglev research.
Today, Powell and Danby are part of a consortium called "Maglev 2000," which plans to complete a half-mile Maglev test track in Titusville, Florida, by 2002. Eventually, the consortium plans to build a 20-mile Maglev track between the Kennedy Space Center in Port Canaveral and the Titusville Regional Airport. A separate Maglev project in Japan has demonstrated the electrodynamic concepts of Maglev and plans are underway to build a 300-mile track from Tokyo to Osaka.
Powell first came to Brookhaven Lab in the summer of 1952 to work as a research assistant, while he was an undergraduate student at the Carnegie Institute of Technology. He received a B.S. in chemical engineering in 1953, and a Sc.D. in nuclear engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1958. He officially began his 40-year career at Brookhaven in 1956 as an assistant nuclear engineer, and he was eventually promoted to head of the Laboratory's Reactor Systems Division.
Powell's work was innovative and wide-ranging. He made contributions in such areas as advanced nuclear reactors, nuclear waste transmutation, ball lightning, fusion reactors, superconductivity, and space and defense systems. Powell retired from Brookhaven in 1996.
A native of Canada, Danby received a B.S. in physics and math from Carleton University in 1952, and a Ph.D. in nuclear physics from McGill University in 1956. He joined Brookhaven in 1957 as an assistant physicist, assisting in the final design and construction of the Laboratory's largest particle accelerator at the time, the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron. Danby was eventually promoted to senior physicist in 1980, and, in 1992, his outstanding contributions to accelerator physics and magnet technology were acknowledged by Brookhaven Lab's giving him its Distinguished Research & Development Award. Danby retired from Brookhaven in 1999.
In work unrelated to his mission at Brookhaven Lab, Danby's research in magnetic technology led to the open Magnetic Resonance Imaging machines. A Fellow of the American Physical Society, Danby was also honored with the New York Academy of Sciences Boris Pregel Award for Applied Science and Technology, in 1983.
Founded in 1894, The Franklin Institute awards medals annually in recognition of the recipients' genius and civic spirit and in memory of the Institute's namesake, Benjamin Franklin, who exhibited those same qualities. Some noted past recipients of the Franklin Institute medals include Alexander Graham Bell, Pierre and Marie Curie, Thomas Edison, Neils Bohr, Max Planck, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. In the twentieth century, 91 Franklin Institute laureates have also been honored with 93 Nobel Prizes.
https://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Summer03/maglev_3.pdf
Norm48327 Wouldn't it make more sense (and save dollars and cents) to let the Japanese develop the technology then reverse engineer it?
Wouldn't it make more sense (and save dollars and cents) to let the Japanese develop the technology then reverse engineer it?
The Washington-Baltimore mag-lev makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps there are other places that could serve as cost-effective proofs of concept, but (as a Maryland resident) I see no compelling need for travel between Baltimore and Washington that isn't already served by MARC, Amtrak and commuter bus. My suspicion is that the enthusiasm for mag-lev is a shiny object to distract from discussion of feasible but costly improvements needed for Maryland commuting. Why improve or expand existing infrastructure (to include the NEC and DC's Metro) when we're "investing" on mag-lev?
Other concerns, including NIMBYs led to the Shanghai-Hangzhou line's cancellation. A good HSR runs today instead.
(Wiki) "Media reports on 26 May 2007 said the Shanghai city government announced that the project had been suspended, citing "radiation concerns", despite an environmental assessment by the Shanghai Academy of Environmental Sciences saying the line was safe and that it would not affect air and water quality, and noise pollution could be controlled. An environmental assessment report released 2 January 2008, for citizens to comment on until 15 January, says the link would have minimal impact on the local environment. In January and February 2008, hundreds of residents demonstrated in downtown Shanghai against the line being built close to their homes. The residents were reportedly concerned with potential health hazards, noise, and loss of property value. The Shanghai scheme has a buffer zone around the track that will be 22.5 m wide, which compares unfavourably with German standards that require houses to be 300 m away from the line. Representatives of the residents filed a formal request to demonstrate with the Shanghai Public Security Bureau, which was rejected. In October 2010 an HSR was opened that brought the travelling time between the two cities down to 45 minutes. An official revealed that the Maglev link was to be shelved."
https://www.rt.com/news/158116-china-super-maglev-train/
A newer, experimental technology.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
chrisjmiller Mag-levs suffer from the same problem as monorails, switches (points in the UK) are very bulky and particularly difficult in a system where the 'rail' needs to be a continuous conducting surface. This is why all the implementations of these systems have been either a single loop (sightseeing lines, such as Seattle and Sydney, or airport shuttles) or a simple point-to-point (like the Shanghai mag-lev). There are (AFAIK) no complex networks based on monorails.
Mag-levs suffer from the same problem as monorails, switches (points in the UK) are very bulky and particularly difficult in a system where the 'rail' needs to be a continuous conducting surface. This is why all the implementations of these systems have been either a single loop (sightseeing lines, such as Seattle and Sydney, or airport shuttles) or a simple point-to-point (like the Shanghai mag-lev). There are (AFAIK) no complex networks based on monorails.
I've always liked the fact that, as 'buslist' alluded to above, the first commercial mag-lev system in the world...was replaced by cable-cars.Birmingham Maglev/AirRail Link. So in this case, I guess "Cable Cars: The future of railroading?"
I'm not altogether sure which maglev people you're quoting, but the arguments I've seen all involve strictly economic concerns in the other direction -- that the large capital investment in land and infrastructure and subsequent careful maintenance to allow high running speeds don't come anywhere close to being justified by any level of additional freight revenue. If the Super C, running with existing cars and power over an existing railroad, couldn't justify its higher fuel costs, why would anyone expect that a dedicated lane with required intermodal transshipment at any point, and restrictions on consist composition, would do any better?
About the best that you'd get would be some amplification of M&E carried on passenger maglev trains. I note that the French ran dedicated trains of this type on the LGV early on ... but I don't think these are still run, even the dedicated postal stuff.
FedEx and other express services would probably use it for some of the traffic between points, since even FedEx express overnight uses trucks for many short-haul lanes (anywhere the overhead of accessing an airport and then going to the central Memphis facility and back would require greater time or uncertainty), and there should be adequate volume in some of those lanes (Washington-New York being one) to justify incorporating M&E of some kind in a maglev 'second spine' or whatever. But outside that, both the capital and maintenance costs would eat any reasonable profit motive alive. And freight railroads are responsible to their stockholders to justify where scarce development and maintenance money will be spent.
I get the impression that Mag-Lev proponents want 'their' system to be too complex to be 'corrupted' by freight operations.
Mag-Lev people look a present day US railroads and believe they have been ruined by their emphasis on freight transportation and the need for private enterprise to turn a profit on their investment in plant and equipment. Mag-Lev will be 'pure' and not have to rely on evil private money but will be glorious when operated with 'good' public money (tax monies extracted from every person, living or dead).
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
And doing it on the scale needed for maglev [edited] probably is easlily discoverable and contrary to many trade agreements.
[the edit was I meant to say "probably is" instead of "might not be"]
Mind you, I'm not arguing one way or another about if it's worthwhile for anyone to invest in maglev, just about the appropriateness for a government to invest in its reasearch and their justifiable legal ability to get compensated if someone tries to use the research's results.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Reverse engineering someone else's work might not be what you'd consider ethical either.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Reverse engineering is not as easy as it would seem. Some years back, "Air and Space: Smithsonian" had an interesting article about the effort involved by the Russians in reverse-engineering the B-29 into the Tu-4.
Um, I assume you mean that the Chinese government is investing in developing technology and expect to be able to get some return on that investment when they are able to export it and get paid?
Um, is there something wrong with it?
gardendance Please explain what funding do you think would not be a big waste of taxpayer funds? You replied "yes" to Norm's suggestion for the United States to let the Japanes develop it, but do you think he's suggesting that the Japanese are going to use only private investors' money? I bet their government is the most likely funder. Regardless of what foreign entity invests in it, wouldn't they rightly expect to get paid something if anyone else uses proprietary technology that comes out of their investment?
Please explain what funding do you think would not be a big waste of taxpayer funds? You replied "yes" to Norm's suggestion for the United States to let the Japanes develop it, but do you think he's suggesting that the Japanese are going to use only private investors' money? I bet their government is the most likely funder. Regardless of what foreign entity invests in it, wouldn't they rightly expect to get paid something if anyone else uses proprietary technology that comes out of their investment?
Um, have you not been watching the Chineese modus operandi?
Norm
No matter the O-D pairs - for any transportation medium the biggest obstical is getting a route. Mag-Lev currently has no route between any O-D pair, securing the real estate in established areas will most likely exceed the cost of elementary construction and could exceed the cost of construction as well as equipment acquisition. Then you will also have the 'asthetic NIMBYS' who do not want the vista of a Mag-Lev structure to spoil their view of the world. Then we come to supplying the electrical power demand for Mag-Lev - power is not free and in major metro areas additional power generation capacity will most likely have to be constructed.
Mag-Lev will require as much, if not more right of way than do existing rail lines.
Please explain what funding do you think would not be a big waste of taxpayer funds? You replied "yes" to Norm's suggestion for the United States to let the Japanese develop it, but do you think he's suggesting that the Japanese are going to use only private investors' money? I bet their government is the most likely funder. Regardless of what foreign entity invests in it, wouldn't they rightly expect to get paid something if anyone else uses proprietary technology that comes out of their investment?
Yes Federally funded maglev development, definitely including Balt. Wash., is one big waste of taxpayer funds, in my opinion.
Recently a nearly $28M grant was awarded for a study of Mag-Lev for the Baltimore-Washington corridor.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-maglev-grant-20151107-story.html
Mag-Lev has been the future for many years now... and that future as gone nowhere. I love reading all my old Populr Mechanics, Popular Science, Mechanics Illustrated, ect magazines from the 70s- early 90s. There was always an article every few months on new mag-lev trains and other transporations technoligies that, as we know now, just never caught on. As most have stated money has been the big issue. Either there has a lack of money to continute development or the money has run out to continue opperation. Back in 1999 Old Dominion University partnered with American Maglev Technogies to build a mag-lev system on the campus. By 2011 14 million had be spent and the project had not gone far. Durring some of their first test runs on the compleated section their technolgy failed and the car can to a stop on top of the rail causing some extensive damage to the system. Since that time the partnership has been dissolved and the project had not gone far. There have been a few test runs that were successful but with glitches. Back in 2010 parts of the rail system that had never been used were scrapped so ODU could reinvest the moeny into their mag-lev train but little has been done since that time. And so this system sits idle needing money for repairs & continued research and for some and eye sore (or black eye) for the campus.
TG3 LOOK ! LISTEN ! LIVE ! Remember the 3.
IMHO it will not be practical in our lifetime for cost, energy consumption and reliabilty reasons. It works as long as you get to play with an unlimited supply of OPM, but the real world doesn't work in a vacuum and those real world caused glitches will be intolerable to most.
M636C I don't think Mag Lev will happen now. The Japanese test track keeps being publicised, but it is suggested as the successor to the present Shinkansen owing to capacity constraints. Adding two more Shinkansen tracks, maybe on an improved alignment, is a better solution. The trains can already run at speeds only slightly less than the Mag Lev at a fraction of the cost. Need more capacity - add more of the trains that have worked for many years. The best chance of success was in China, and even there where billions were being invested, it cost too much for the capacity delivered. Look at photos of the switches in Shanghai.... huge flexible beams in place of simple turnouts. It is never going to be cost effective. It will be like the monorail in Seattle that it resembles in appearance - an alternative way of doing things that never caught on. M636C
I don't think Mag Lev will happen now.
The Japanese test track keeps being publicised, but it is suggested as the successor to the present Shinkansen owing to capacity constraints.
Adding two more Shinkansen tracks, maybe on an improved alignment, is a better solution. The trains can already run at speeds only slightly less than the Mag Lev at a fraction of the cost. Need more capacity - add more of the trains that have worked for many years.
The best chance of success was in China, and even there where billions were being invested, it cost too much for the capacity delivered.
Look at photos of the switches in Shanghai.... huge flexible beams in place of simple turnouts. It is never going to be cost effective.
It will be like the monorail in Seattle that it resembles in appearance - an alternative way of doing things that never caught on.
M636C
i'm not so sure about that. JRCentral is quite focused on Maglev for the next line to Osaka and has received permission to move forward.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/10/17/business/corporate-business/tokyo-nagoya-maglev-line-go-government-tells-jr-tokai/#.VnMFMexOKJI
If the Maglev speed record becomes a sustainable speed, it would represent a considerable reduction in travel time compared to the current Shinkansens.
So far, mag-lev has been used in high-speed passenger applications. I think we can all agree that mag-lev for freight will never get off the ground. Literally.
schlimm Paul of Covington A few years ago there was a story in TRAINS about the trains in China. I kinda remember that the author rode the maglev and said the ride was rough, which surprised me since I always get the impression that a smooth ride is an advantage touted by those promoting maglev. I rode the Shanghai demonstration maglev. Very smooth. The costs are too high and it has enviromental problems. Consequently, China cancelled the proposed section from Shanghai to Hangzhou, which was part of a line to stretch to Beijing. Conventional HSR was built instead to both Hangzhou and Beijing and is running very sucessfully.
Paul of Covington A few years ago there was a story in TRAINS about the trains in China. I kinda remember that the author rode the maglev and said the ride was rough, which surprised me since I always get the impression that a smooth ride is an advantage touted by those promoting maglev.
A few years ago there was a story in TRAINS about the trains in China. I kinda remember that the author rode the maglev and said the ride was rough, which surprised me since I always get the impression that a smooth ride is an advantage touted by those promoting maglev.
I rode the Shanghai demonstration maglev. Very smooth. The costs are too high and it has enviromental problems. Consequently, China cancelled the proposed section from Shanghai to Hangzhou, which was part of a line to stretch to Beijing. Conventional HSR was built instead to both Hangzhou and Beijing and is running very sucessfully.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.