MISTER – FAQ: Index MISTER – FAQ:
1. How do your patents affect your system?
2. How do the five Pods in a station accelerate from the station or stop when the station is full?
3. How are you accommodating 200 Pods per km and how you plan to prevent accidents?
4. How is the destination station selected?
5. What will the functions of the Command and Control System be?
6. How will you prevent vandalism or malfunctioning?
7. How will the system be supplied with energy? How much energy shall be needed for a system with lets say 3000 pax per hour per direction?
8. How will the systeml be protected from terrorism? If they attack one support pole will the whole system stop?
9. Please explain how the system is fed by electrical energy & in how many phases, from one point or several?
10. How is the system stabilized against wind.
11. What are some safety features regarding children entering an unmanned station?
12. What about accommodation and affecting the landscape?
13. What are the mechanical aspects?
14. What are the electrical aspects?
15. Tell us about the command and control. 1. How do your patents affect your system? The main patent, consisting of 57 clauses, protects a variety of current and future system elements and their combination; with one of the more important ones being "contactless rail switching”. This item enables additions on any new line, intersection or station without physically modifying any of the other parts of the rail infrastructure. As a result, flexibility of the system, speed and costs of being able to add and modify the network topology is unmatched by any other design of PRT.
Subsequent patents are concerned with more detailed solutions of the propulsion system and their aim is to pre-empt anybody from blocking our particular solutions, which we have deemed as most beneficial to the systems' design and operation. 2. How do the five Pods in a station accelerate from the station or stop when the station is full? Stops have parallel bays, so it doesn't matter which vehicle is ready to go first or where a new arriving vehicle (Pod) will stop. There is no blocking of vehicles, as there is with all "Sequential” stops, e.g. Tramways, buses etc.
Starting up is not a problem as it will only happen when the system knows that there is "upcoming gap” in the stream of vehicles traveling on the main line. A vehicle (Pod) departing from the station will merge into that gap. The Pod (whether empty or with passengers) will be accelerated and merged by the computers onboard the vehicles (Pods) involved in the maneuver and by the station synchronizing their actions, to ensure a safe and smooth merging process. Similar as with merging into traffic on motorways but without human error of judgment.
As for stopping, if the particular station is full and new vehicles cannot stop then they will go to the next station or return a little later with higher priority. However, every station will have buffer zones, which will enable it to accommodate additional vehicles either with passengers waiting for disembarkation, or for empty vehicles, which are kept at the station in case of sudden demand. If these buffers are full, then, as mentioned earlier, no additional vehicles will be accepted at such a station. This however will be a rare occurrence and any inconvenience to passengers is small, as there will be many stations and next one is probably only 100-200 m earlier or further, with the option of returning within a minute or so. 3. How are you accommodating 200 Pods per km and how do you plan to prevent accidents? 200 vehicles (Pods) p/km is the max theoretical density of traveling vehicles (Pods) and we do not expect in reality to allow for more than 60% of this number, with 50% being already very high; although we will allow vehicles to travel in 10 m spacing, giving a "local density" of 200 p/km (counting 2 ways). As in Q.2 above, in order for the vehicle to merge into such a stream of vehicles, there will have to be a sufficient gap, being at least a 15 m space between two adjacent vehicles. Merging will happen at the speed of 50 km/h. There are provisions for aborting this process even at the last moment but we won't go into these details.
As for stopping at a station or changing onto another track at intersections, it will only be allowed if there is suitable space to accommodate such a vehicle wanting to exit the track it is traveling on. 4. How is the destination station is selected? By touch panel or voice activated selection and very simple confirmation dialogue with the vehicle's computer system. It will also be possible to change one's destination during travel in the same way. 5. What will the functions of the Command and Control System be? The central system will only be responsible for gathering and distributing statistics and forecasts of the vehicles' traffic to each network node - being the stations and switching points (intersections). It will also accumulate business and accounting information but all detailed actions will be decided upon by the stations, intersections and vehicles themselves. 6. How will you prevent vandalism or malfunctioning? The main control will not directly monitor any vehicles (Pods) or stations as this will be done by computer systems at those locations and on board the vehicles. However when any abnormal activity is detected it will be switched over for direct action by a human operator, similar as with police or air traffic control systems.
If there is a malfunction (detected mostly by the many systems on board the vehicles and stations), then the service center is alerted and takes appropriate action. However, it should be remembered that our system design and its' monitoring will be pre-emptive, (i.e. a new kind of approach) and will detect almost any malfunction BEFORE it happens and therefore send the vehicle for repairs. Vibration and heat sensors on all crucial parts of the system will warn if something is potentially going to happen, before it happens. This, combined with a very small number of moving parts, means minimal mechanical stress values on all components and will lead us to new levels and standards of reliability.
Vandalism will be prevented by a raft of sensor detecting both mechanical and chemical parameters. Passenger will also know about cameras which record (and keep for a week or more) all events inside and outside the vehicles and stations. Any alarm raised by the sensors will activate a live connection with the operator, while video material will be used as a evidence in court should it be necessary. The system operator, or even the Pod system itself (in case detecting urine for example), will divert itself automatically to the nearest police station. 7. How will the system be supplied with energy? How much energy shall be needed for a system with lets say 3000 vehicles (Pods) per hour per direction? MISTER is powered by traction lines, like LRT (light rail) or rail. There will be no battery propulsion, which is inefficient and ecologically unsound. MISTER will have a small battery however, which is needed to support electonics operations and will also serve as backup power to drive the vehicle to the nearest stop should there be an emergency. An average of 1-2 KW is needed for moving a vehicle (Pod) at 50 km-hr (depending on wind factors). This means we'd need 3-6 MWh of energy for this payload. But it also means that we could move 120,000 passenger-km p/hr on this energy (3000 * 40 km/hr being the average trip speed). This is considerably less energy than metros and tramways (LRT), not to mention bus systems. 8. How will the system be protected from terrorism? If they attack one support pole will the whole system stop? No. The destruction of one or even more poles will not stop the system at all. It will only render a given section unusable, and the chance of killing the people traveling overhead is small. There will be a small number of people affected in the vehicles (Pods), as we assume the average use of a Pod will be 1.5 people and the system usage will not exceed, even at peak times, more than 50% of lines capacity. So within a vicinity of a single pole (every 30 m), there would be only 1.5 Pods, i.e. a total of 2.25 persons affected. Even if we double this, we are talking about 5 people who may be injured). Blowing up a single car, not to mention a bus or train, is much more damaging and easier for terrorists to consider. That is why the MISTER system is "unattractive" as a terrorist target, while protection is much easier due to a multitude of cameras (several under each vehicle which are constantly recording the vicinity of its travel path). 9. Please explain how the system is fed by electrical energy & in how many phases, from one point or several? The electrical power supply will be similar to that of a tramway system however MISTER will need much less power.If the power supply to trains and tramways is not a problem then it won't be for MISTER either. 10. How is the system stabilized against wind? Suspended vehicles (Pods) are supported on de facto 2 rails, therefore they will not swing like a ski gondola suspended on a cable. Vehicles (Pods) will have an active swivel joint, which will give in a little to wind gusts and also reduce the stress on the infrastructure. The effect felt by passengers will not be more than the experience of a somewhat bumpy road in a car. If the wind speed or gusts become too high, Pods will reduce their cruising speed or stop at the nearest station if necessary. The system will be designed to operate in winds of up to 70 km/h, which are not that frequent in most parts of the World nor do they last very long. 11. What are some safety features regarding children entering an unmanned station? None. If they behave and have tickets plus can operate a simple user interface (touch and voice), there is possibly no need to prevent them from using the system. If this was desirable, the system, via voice recognition and weight/headcount calculation, could demand additional information or prevent them from using the system. MISTER will also provide the features where parents can program their children's tickets to be valid only for certain stops, e.g. School or places for after hours activities. 12. What about accommodating the system and affecting the landscape? 12.1 Mister lines/routes require an accommodating space of about 5 meters width. This means that sidewalks around ground-level stations should be considerably wider than 5 meters. Many sidewalks are much narrower than 5 meters. Furthermore, if according to answer #2 in FAQ, 5 Pods will stop parallel to the sidewalks, then how can the sidewalk be wide enough to accommodate that many Pods? The width of the aerial lines footprint does not relate to ground level station size. These will be located NOT ONLY on the pavement but, probably and mostly, inside buildings and above the ground. They can also be moved to the sides of the trunk lines (main lines), 50, 100 or more meters off the lines, i.e. they do not have to be under the main lines going above.
The footprint of the 5 vehicle (Pod) stop will be approx. 5 m wide and 20 m long, including 6 m of dead zone, under the 45 deg ascending/descending rail sections at the ends of the stop (up to the height of 3 m). Parallel stopping of the Pods is not in a the same direction as travel, but at 90 deg, as on illustrations shown in the "Visualizations" tab on the website. Therefore the concern about the width of the sidewalks seems to be a misunderstanding. It means that the stop width is 5 m and length of the stop is 15-20 m.
If there is no such space available on the ground then we cannot have MISTER stations there, unless they are on the roofs of kiosks or shops standing on the ground. However bus stops often have stopping-bays by the road of approx ,5 m wide and 20 m long.
We could contemplate having sequential stops, which would then be only approx. 2 m wide, but we would forsake all safety and other advantages of the parallel parking system. Station footprint requirement is not a global problem, which can make these problems irrelevant as compared to the benefits of the system in a wider context. Even for old cities with narrow streets, one has a greater chance of a functioning station in the center of a street or road with MISTER than with a bus.
12.2 Most present electric and telephone lines are located several meters above sidewalks. The presence of these lines does not leave much room for the overhead rails of Mister, especially during ascending and descending from ground stations respectively, please explain how you could integrate the two. MISTER will travel with at least 7 m of space underneath the Pods. Most local tel/power lines, traffic lights etc. in cities are below this level. But if one needs to go higher, then it is only an issue of making higher posts, which is a small problem compared to building a new road through the same area.
Regarding avoiding the electricity/telephone lines on the approaches to stops, since we have the flexibility to thread MISTER rail lines where we want them, it will not be a problem. 12.3. Dwellers of apartments facing streets, where MISTER is expected to be operational, tolerate thin, stationary telephone and electric wires. They may not be so enthusiastic about continuously moving much larger MISTER Pods with passengers starring into their living rooms and bedrooms. Indeed, this might be a problem, but would people prefer an elevated highway or metro line alongside their apartments? We can prevent MISTER passengers in such areas and circumstances (although the majority of lines will not be positioned in such a manner) from peering into neighborhood windows by having them automatically closed off on the sides. This is the already known technology of making glass turn opaque. 12.4 Existing trees that were planted on sidewalks add color to streets and even contribute to the reduction of carbon dioxide. Will they have to be severely trimmed or cut altogether to make room for the moving, ascending and descending Pods? All ecological related organizations will surely fight cutting of trees. It will not be necessary to cut many trees, if any, as MISTER's lines can be suspended over the center of streets, thus avoiding any trees. But if some trees need to be cut, then will the same ecological organizations prefer the option of having polluting cars, wider streets, overhead freeways etc.? Removing a car from the streets is equivalent to having hundreds of more trees, as they do not need then to absorb carbon dioxide produced by the cars ! Simple ecological calculations will show this without doubt, so this concern seems less than critical. 13. What are the mechanical aspects? 13.1 In order for a single Pod to reach a certain pre-determined destination, it has to crisscross quite a few routes and pass through quite a few intersections. We know how trains do so on railways, but is it clear to the inventor how the pods will do so? Furthermore, how will 5 Pods in parallel sidewalk-level bays merge into the main traveling track? Yes it is very clear to the inventor. It will work in the same way as the colisionless intersections of freeways. 5 Pods from a station will merge into the main lines in the same way as 5 vehicles from a petrol station merges into a freeway. 13.2 Climbing out of and descending into stations, at slopes of 45 degrees, requires different mechanical means to those necessary for horizontal motion. Today, gondolas are pulled by cables in order to climb such slopes and trains need gears in order to climb slopes that are considerably smaller than 45 degrees. How will the MISTER Pods climb out of the sidewalk-level stations. This will be achieved with the well known technology of cog wheels. A 20 KW electrical engine will pull up a 700 kg vehicle and passengers at this grade of 45 degrees in some 10 seconds. It is a reasonably simple, if not trivial, technical problem, as compared to most other technological achievements of today. 14. What are the electrical aspects? It is assumed that the Pods will be powered by electric motors. Electrically powered trains and street- cars have networks of power supplies right above their routes and they also have the necessary flexible fixtures to maintain connection with these networks. The question is how can so many Pods per kilometer get their share of power supply effectively and safely, without passerbys on the sidewalk being in danger of bare electric cables? Furthermore, how will the Pods will have a continuous power supply while switching rails/routes. Electrical cables (rather micro rails) will be much less accessible to anybody than todays power supply lines for trams & trains. Rails will be at 10-15 m height & the cables are placed in a protected “C” shaped enclosure attached to the rails with no part coming closer to street-level than 3 m, and only within protected stop areas.
No more power will be needed on Mister's lines than on tram or train lines. In fact much less, since the system will have an overall much better performance than trains, so it is not the number of vehicles per km but how much overall load needs to be moved over a given length of line.
The switching of power supply lines along the routes is also solved. 15. Tell us about the command and control. The claim that it is possible to control hundreds of Pods and bring each one to its destination quickly, efficiently and safely seems to be far fetched. It is better to design and build a relatively inexpensive simulator to test all the claims about the command and control of the MISTER system. As a reminder, we may recall the big mess that happened with the computerized system for baggage control at the new airport in Denver, Colorado, USA Such concerns are understandable, especially in the view of well publicized computer fiascoes, but for every one of those there are thousands of complex systems which work reliably and soundly. Any experienced computer system and applications designer, like the author, knows that doing such a system is not only possible but completely doable, as claimed. This has also been confirmed by many people from the field, including professional opinions on this subject as cited on the MISTER website.
The author has created many systems of great complexity in his life and therefore feels fully justified in making these claims, including that there is no need to make any major simulations proving the obvious. Similar simulations have already been done many years ago. Therefore the statements in this point about what would be better and that the claims of doing such a system as being “far fetched” are not based on any facts or knowledge, therefore groundless. They are proving lack of knowledge and experience in this subject by the person asking the question, despite its authorative manner and purported knowledge as to "what is better". The author begs to disagree. |
