Linear Induction Motors

Found this document while browsing on a search engine; haven't had time to peruse it. From the Sandia Laboratories website.

www.sandia.gov/seraphim/Documents/SAND95.pdf

I just scanned it. Only question I can think of is:

What problem does this solve?

And that's pretty serious - the French, Germans, Japanese have all shown that conventional wheel drive/motor arrangements are just fine at 200mph. adhesion's an issue for emergency braking, but beyond that, even with locomotives (i.e., few powered axles), the TGV has no trouble reaching beyond 300mph, and 200mph seems to be a natural for new comercial services.

Looks like the FRA should stop plying the NIH game and get real about HSR, already.

And, once again, a bias to the failed gas turbine concept. Will they ever learn?

Even if there were no FRA there will never be HSR in USA.
We got nimby's to stop all progress.

Can't blame it all on NIMBYs. The Rahway Valley RR in Union County, New Jersey wouldn't be open right now if NIMBYs were universally powerful. Same goes for all the new asphalt ribbons all over the place.

There's no political will for HSR funding in this country. That's unrelated to NIMBYism.

med-train wrote:You are still talking about wheels. They are moving parts and might start to "hydroplane" or whatever the word should be for air.

I was reading about the sport of hydrofoiling(similar to waterskiing) and thought of a completely new idea if you want to keep infrastructure but remove the wheels from the track. Sorry for getting off topic and reallity, but this uses LIM and existing track. Perhaps you can embelish.
The stator is placed high above existing track so it doesn't intefere with existing service. Running along the stator is a carrier that pulls a line to tow a gliderlike vehicle. The glider's lift removes pressure from the carrier and the supporting structure does not have to be designed to support as heavy a load. Such a structure might be able to be simplified to something like the catenary? It would have to be routed over all obstructions unless there was an easy way for the glider to detach, soar and reattach. Of course the ability to detach and land would be desirable in the case of any derailment. Since the carrier would be much smaller than a train, this would make it easier for vehicles to pass each other.
It sure would be nice to see a vehicle with speed comparable to an aircraft and efficiency comparable to a train. However, it would be a pain to have to deal with both the FAA and FRA at the same time.

<i> It sure would be nice to see a vehicle with speed comparable to an aircraft and efficiency comparable to a train. </i>

Wait for another generation of commercial aircraft. Right now, they're getting darn close to automotive efficiency, i.e. flying your butt from NY to LA uses almost as little fuel as driving it would. The A380's supposed to hit the magic crossing point, and presumeably the A350, 787, etc.

With weight on US rail equipment spiralling out of control, and aircraft design/engines getting better with every generation, you may soon see the two meet. Bypass ratios are going up, geared turbofans may happen and give yet another boost, relaxed stability might become commercially aceptable, bleed air's on the endangered list, and composites might soon be ready for prime time (though IMHO, they're not yet).

European and Japanese rail equipment's a lot better, but in the US, the air/rail enegry consumption divide may soon dissapear or even flip in favor of air - all those 1 and 2% improvements that Boeing, Airbus, Pratt, GE and Rolls have been making in the last 20 years are starting to really add up...

This isn't 1965 where a 1.2:1 bypass ratio, steel turbine blades, pushrod controls, severe overbuilding, and lack of FADECs made flying inefficient at best...

Certainly over longer distances , airplane energy use may become comparable to rail at comparable speeds . but on the short haul runs , the energy to get the plane up in the air will always be higher . plus the problems with punching holes in the ozone layer .
So high speed rail for the short haul routes , linking to air for the cross country routes etc .

Wait for another generation of commercial aircraft

Oil prices won't...and countries that have HSR already aren't.