|
|  |
| |
|
| | The Innovation Network Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts | | whatever happened to the Snow Motor ... ? | Views: 1469 | | Nov 14, 2009 3:02 pm | | whatever happened to the Snow Motor ... ? | # | 
James Booth | | .
- http://www.flixxy.com/snow-vehicle-concept.htm
.Private Reply to James Booth | | Nov 14, 2009 3:32 pm | | whatever happened to the Snow Motor ... ? | # | 
Mike Fesler BizHarmony | | Never happen !!
Too practical.
Too much common sense applied.
Too many applications to be utilized in.
Flat out too good of an idea !!
Sheesh !!!???
And they call this the land of opportunity?
Someone bought it and buried it.
Too much of a threat.
M.
Private Reply to Mike Fesler BizHarmony | | Nov 14, 2009 7:53 pm | | re: whatever happened to the Snow Motor ... ? | # | 
Ken Hilving | | There is an interesting write up on screw propelled vehicles at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw-propelled_vehicle Private Reply to Ken Hilving | | Nov 14, 2009 11:08 pm | | re: re: whatever happened to the Snow Motor ... ? | # | 
Ron Sam | | The Russians have them all. (See historical perspective.)
But you can get a RC Terrain Twister from Tyco, see bottom vid:
http://fulgerica.com/en/2007/07/04/in-soviet-russia-cars-screw-you/Private Reply to Ron Sam | | Nov 14, 2009 11:47 pm | | re: re: whatever happened to the Snow Motor ... ? | # |
James Booth | | .
The Tyco model needs more weight, to prevent slippage.
Text of fulgerica.com page says, in part:
"I found out that the original screw propulsion vehicle was designed in 1944,
during WWII, by Johannes Raedel, a member of the German Army and
veteran of the Eastern Front with Russia."
Apparently the author was not aware of the Armstead Snow Motors Company designs using Fordson tractor and Chevrolet auto, circa 1924, so I wonder who did originate the idea ?
Probably Leonardo, I would think.
He goes on:
"I also found that americans developed their own screw vehicle:
Chrysler Marsh Screw Amphibian (1964)"
... and I give him a break because I never heard of this concept until today, myself.
"On hard pavement the only way to operate was to roll side ways but not at the same
speed as the DAF"\
Doing that would require reversing one cylinder, would it not, since normally they turn opposed to each other ?
JBPrivate Reply to James Booth | | Nov 15, 2009 12:02 pm | | re: re: re: whatever happened to the Snow Motor ... ? | # |
Ken Hilving | | I can't imagine what type of roads or roadways would support screw drive vehicles on a large scale. It seems to be more of a "one time" path solution than a designated path solution.
The folks at http://www.mattracks.com/ have tackled the "soft" roadway scenario the same way tanks did - by spreading the load over a larger surface area. This bigger footprint also addresses slick surfaces. It has an advantage of bringing its "road" with it which reduces the disruption on the ground surface. The larger footprint costs in fuel consumption and maneuverability at speed, and the wear from use on concrete limits their useful life.
If Henry Ford had had the matttracks instead of wheels, we might never have seen the widespread use of paved roads. Instead, paved roads now limit the practicality of mattracks. :-)Private Reply to Ken Hilving | | Nov 16, 2009 10:03 am | | re: re: re: whatever happened to the Snow Motor ... ? | # |
James Booth | | .
However, it is possible, with screws or tracks, that we would not have needed, could have done without building, saved expenses of, paved roads which primarily serve a need for speed.
In other-than-urban environments, major arterials could be paved, for speed, while the rest of the land could be travelled, perhaps with less dust, and at less cost for vehicle repairs, by use of non-wheeled vehicles ?
JB
Private Reply to James Booth | | Nov 16, 2009 5:49 pm | | re: re: re: re: whatever happened to the Snow Motor ... ? | # | 
Thomas Holford | | James Booth sayeth:
> However, it is possible, with screws or tracks, that we would not have needed, could have done without building, saved expenses of, paved roads which primarily serve a need for speed.
> In other-than-urban environments, major arterials could be paved, for speed, while the rest of the land could be travelled, perhaps with less dust, and at less cost for vehicle repairs, by use of non-wheeled vehicles ?
A made a lengthy comment earlier on the Snow Motor, which was, alas, lost owing to server lockup on Ryze.
With respect to your current observation, regarding roadless extra urban travel, I think that is very plausible.
People with nineteeth century minds are drooling at the prospect of building a "high speed" train from San Francisco to Los Angeles. That's four hundred plus miles of concrete, gravel, and steel -- which is a LOT of infrastructure.
The U.S. Marine Corp has demonstrated the usefulness of large hovercraft that can travel over both land and water.
It would seem to me to be a no-brainer to dump the whole idea of inflexible and resource intensive railroads, and simply operate a fleet of advanced passenger hovercraft between San Francisco and LA.
Do I have to think of everything?
T. Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford | | Nov 16, 2009 6:47 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: whatever happened to the Snow Motor ... ? | # |
Ken Hilving | | Wow, I can hardly wait for those hovercraft to come roaring past my house, blowing dust through the window screens, ruining my nap and choking me when I step outside to curse them. ;-)
Or perhaps instead a high speed train that is an elevated maglev, with a greatly reduced footprint on the ground compared to even a single lane road, with no wheels and only the sound of a fast moving object through the air. Sound lasting only a few moments as it passes by at several hundred miles per hour. Offering far less threat to cars, pedestrians, livestock, and wildlife as it passes overhead.
Or perhaps that elevated maglev will instead be a "packet" solution, individual small maglev "trucks" that can carry automobiles on a demand basis, allowing the "final mile" to remain a roadway solution while adding safety, speed, and a reduced infrastructure solution to the interstate highways. Small maglev busses for those who prefer or require a station to station solution. Standard segments, factory built to exacting quality specifications, and so easily expanded, repaired, and rerouted as needs change.
As for the roadways, its been almost 200 years since MacAdam created the road concept beneath our asphalt and concrete pavement. Perhaps its time to adopt a new approach that supports the traffic without putting a ribbon of crust on top of the soil? Perhaps its time to consider grid paving solutions that allow water to return to the soil it falls on and plants to grow where today asphalt and concrete hold heat and cause polluted runoffs? Private Reply to Ken Hilving | | Nov 16, 2009 7:58 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: whatever happened to the Snow Motor ... ? | # |
Thomas Holford | | Ken Hilving sayeth:
> Wow, I can hardly wait for those hovercraft to come roaring past my house, blowing dust through the window screens, ruining my nap and choking me when I step outside to curse them. ;-)
Not to worry.
The hovercraft will be routed over hovercraft lanes out over the ocean or through unpopulated areas.
Bullet trains, on the other hand, will have to be routed in a direct line, and the tracks will undoubtedly be built right by your front doorstep.
From what I've seen on Maglev's on the Discovery Channel, the trackage requirements are even more ridiculous than for bullet trains. Basically, the Maglev train is the stator, and the track is the rotor. Lots and lots of EXPENSIVE copper and other technology built into the track.
Building and electrifying four hundred miles of maglev track isn't cheap.
T. HolfordPrivate Reply to Thomas Holford | | Nov 16, 2009 11:03 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: whatever happened to the Snow Motor ... ? | # |
Ken Hilving | | Sounds like a possible venture for the specific LA to San Francisco market. It will be interesting to see if a business case for it can be built to compete with the high speed rail proposal.
The business case for monorail over traditional rail, and elevated over ground level, exists. Maglev is a variation on rail that offers quieter operation and higher speeds, and the business case for elevated maglev monorail also exists. The key drawbacks are the reluctance of populations to return to mass transit, the reluctance of political leaders to innovate, and the lack of monorail only contractors in the bid proposals. When the contractor can offer either, he chooses the one most acceptable to the decision makers rather than on the merits of the solution.Private Reply to Ken Hilving | | |
| |
| |
