Assuming you know you will loose your case for sure if you go into details. Do you prefer:
a) to produce your evidence and eventually loose
b) to get your case dismissed for a "technical" reason ?
The main advantage of (b) is that your case is not judged. Thus you can start prosecuting somewhere else in the world, until you find a technology-agnostic judge who lets you win.
On this older review http://www.arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/dy namo/dyn amo-1.html HP labs showed that interpreting code which could even have been executed natively can actually improve performance. The idea is that many optimizations can not be done at compile time because of non-static variables; on the other hand the run-time engine can "discover" that said boolean is always false an drop a jump that a static compiler could not have ignored.
Note in particular that the Caml language is often found to be as fast, if not faster than C (even though it is intrinsiquely interpreted) for this reason.
I firmly disagree with your statement. The TGV did travel at 500km/h with 200 people onboard, and it was a standard one (although shorter) which still travels today (it is the TGV nr 325). It has a very effective pneumatic suspension system.
Do not forget the Maglev will be *just as sensitive* to vibrations and small bumps. It is a falsehood to believe that the magnetic sustentation make it "fly", the electromagnetic is very strong and incompressible indeed at those high speeds.
On the other hand you have a point on the "no moving parts" argument. But the only benefit of it is that these trains are less noisy at low speeds. This is why magnetic trains are considered for intra-urban underground near Taipeh where they will be relatively quiet.
One last point: conventional railways capable of sustaining heavy trains at 300km/h cost about $150 000 per km. A Maglev track costs between 10 times to 100 times more. And a passenger in a TGV costs the equivalent of 1 gallon of gas per km (at 300 km/h).
So I am eager to travel in a Maglev. But I still believe it is economically ineffective.
It always has to be repeated all over again: there is no special advantage in using magnetic sustentation over classical rail/wheel contact.
You get no better comfort since the magnetic fiels are very heavy; you get no lower resisting force since it is almost exclusively due to aerodynamics forces. It just "looks" sci-fi.
Seing the incredibly high cost of the "railway", I firmly believe that magnetic trains will (or at least should) remain a sci-fi dream.
Please recall that the french TGV (a classical train) was capable of 515,3km/h with 200 people onboard in... 1989 !
The cost per kilometer just dooes not do it. Magnetic trains are hardly faster, have fewer seats, are extremly complicated, and cost so much more. So what ?
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming you know you will loose your case for sure if you go into details. Do you prefer: a) to produce your evidence and eventually loose b) to get your case dismissed for a "technical" reason ? The main advantage of (b) is that your case is not judged. Thus you can start prosecuting somewhere else in the world, until you find a technology-agnostic judge who lets you win.
On this older reviewy namo/dyn amo-1.html
http://www.arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/d
HP labs showed that interpreting code which could even have been executed natively can actually improve performance. The idea is that many optimizations can not be done at compile time because of non-static variables; on the other hand the run-time engine can "discover" that said boolean is always false an drop a jump that a static compiler could not have ignored.
Note in particular that the Caml language is often found to be as fast, if not faster than C (even though it is intrinsiquely interpreted) for this reason.
I firmly disagree with your statement. The TGV did travel at 500km/h with 200 people onboard, and it was a standard one (although shorter) which still travels today (it is the TGV nr 325). It has a very effective pneumatic suspension system. Do not forget the Maglev will be *just as sensitive* to vibrations and small bumps. It is a falsehood to believe that the magnetic sustentation make it "fly", the electromagnetic is very strong and incompressible indeed at those high speeds. On the other hand you have a point on the "no moving parts" argument. But the only benefit of it is that these trains are less noisy at low speeds. This is why magnetic trains are considered for intra-urban underground near Taipeh where they will be relatively quiet. One last point: conventional railways capable of sustaining heavy trains at 300km/h cost about $150 000 per km. A Maglev track costs between 10 times to 100 times more. And a passenger in a TGV costs the equivalent of 1 gallon of gas per km (at 300 km/h). So I am eager to travel in a Maglev. But I still believe it is economically ineffective.
It always has to be repeated all over again: there is no special advantage in using magnetic sustentation over classical rail/wheel contact. You get no better comfort since the magnetic fiels are very heavy; you get no lower resisting force since it is almost exclusively due to aerodynamics forces. It just "looks" sci-fi. Seing the incredibly high cost of the "railway", I firmly believe that magnetic trains will (or at least should) remain a sci-fi dream. Please recall that the french TGV (a classical train) was capable of 515,3km/h with 200 people onboard in ... 1989 !
The cost per kilometer just dooes not do it. Magnetic trains are hardly faster, have fewer seats, are extremly complicated, and cost so much more. So what ?