Forum GITS
 

03rd May, 2013

I have not received any reply from Siemens nor from Scania for my e-mail of 06th April, 2013. (you can read that e-mail below)

At the same time I got a confirmation that Siemens and Scania are going to realize the GITS concept as their own idea.

I found the following comments of Nils-Gunnar Vågstedt, Scania's head of hybrid system development at the manufacturer's R&D centre:

http://www.transportengineer.org.uk/article/48863/Scania-and-Siemens-to-pioneer-electrified-heavy-trucks-.aspx

Mr. Nils-Gunnar Vågstedt said: "We do not favour any particular solution."

However, Scania has revealed photographs showing a Scania truck equipped with a rising pantograph, similar to those used on electric trains.

And Mr. Vågstedt  said nothing that this solution was suggested for GITS concept. He said nothing about GITS concept at all. Moreover, if they use "an induction system built into the road surface" for their "eHighways" I will agree immediately that this solution was not suggested in GITS concept. Fuel cells and diesel-electric hybrid power system were mentioned there but not the induction system. The GITS system will be a passenger system also and I am not sure that powerful magnetic field is safe for human beings. The passenger factor is the reason that final choice of power grid system was made for overhead wires.

I spent years before I presented the GITS concept in 2010. I can explain in details the history of each idea from GITS concept and show the way it was developed. It is not to take a someone else's idea because it is a poor history for any idea.

Mr. Nils-Gunnar Vågstedt said: "For us, it's important to establish standard interfaces, including installation, electric power levels and information protocols between the vehicle and the road system – no matter which technology is used."

I suggested the same for GITS system but some years earlier. GITS system was suggested as a GLOBAL system. It needs the standard interfaces, standard installations, standard power levels, standard  information protocols, etc., and no matter which technology is used.

Let's look for the next step of Siemens and Scania in their "eHighways" project.

06th April, 2013

Last March brought some news related to GITS concept. I mean the press release of Siemens and the press release of Scania they had "launched a joint development involving integration of Siemens technology for power supply to vehicles with Scania's know-how in electrification of drive trains in HGVs and buses. This collaboration means that Sweden may be the first country in the world to have electric-powered HGVs and eHighways for commercial use."

Congratulations! Somebody has to start. It is not the way as I planned the start of GITS realization but it is better than nothing.

After I read both press releases I felt an unpleasant flavour in my mouth.

"Siemens has been working on technology for so-called eHighways for a long time, where vehicles with an electrified drive train draw power from an overhead cable via a so-called pantograph, or current collector, on the roof."

Siemens has not mentioned again that I sent them a copy of GITS concept on 12th December 2010.

I reproduce it here again:

de : vladimir37@voila.fr
A :ulrich.eberl@siemens.com
cc : florian.martini@siemens.com
date : 12/12/10 `a 11h23
objet : concept of Global Intelligent Transportation System
1 fichier(s) GITS concep...pdf

Dear Dr. Eberl,
Dear Mr. Martini,

I found your contacts on the CargoMover page of Siemens site.

I suggest you to consider my concept of Global Intelligent Transportation System (GITS)
that was present on the 17th ITS World Congress held in Busan (South Korea) last October.

The concept is enclosed to this message.

I think that GITS vehicle control system may be realized on the base of controllers and
electric equipment that are produced now by your corporation.
Yesterday I sent a similar message to Volvo Truck corporation to discuss the mentioned
above GITS concept.

I consider GITS vehicles as self-propelled containers though I do not exclude a chance to
use GITS for passenger transportation after the freight transportation of this mode will
prove its safety and reliability.

I do not ask you for money.
I do not ask you to make a prototype together with Volvo Truck or another truck manufacturer.

I suggest discussing of GITS concept only.

Siemens may be potentially the greatest supplier of components for future GITS concept
and it can be the first who make a prototype.

Hope to get your short comments if there is any.

With best regards,
Vladimir Postnikov
Mobile: +7 904 338 6100

I decided to contact the Scania people and I left a message on their site addressed to Mr. Henrik Henriksson who is the Executive Vice President and head of Scania’s sales and marketing.

I got a reply from their patent manager Mrs. Stina Sjögren Paulsson. It was short as you can see.

I have sent her my reply the same day:

de:             vladimir37@voila.fr
A:             "Sjögren Paulsson Stina" stina.sjogren_paulsson@scania.com
date:          26/03/13 à 22h14
objet:        re: SV: Förfrågan via kontaktlådan på scania.com

Dear Mrs. Paulsson,

Thank you for your short reply. The problem is that Siemens ignores my mails as it ignored my proposal to discuss GITS concept that I sent to them in 2010. You can inform them that I am open  to discuss GITS concept any time.
You are in this project now and you cannot say that you know nothing.  Today you know.

 I suggest you to discuss the GITS concept together with Siemens another time without me.  Why?

1. Look for the future development of “eHighways”. You will have to steal other ideas from GITS concept step by step. It is clear now. “eHighway” concept is a deadlock as it is today. You did this first step now and this step is from GITS concept. It is a fact.

2. GITS is planned as an international project. This is the reason that instead of asking money from anybody I suggest to everybody to discuss this concept openly. Let’s unite our efforts and let’s make international standards for future global system. 

Discuss it with Siemens, please. You understand that I will see the results in any case. You and Siemens can ignore me again but this letter is a new fact in the “eHighways” history.You (and Siemens) will get much more if you are fair. Unfair eRoads lead to nowhere.

With best regards,

I am going to send another message to Siemens today with the reference to this my post. Will they reply? We will see it in the near future.

And I did it. I sent another e-mail to another person of Siemens who signed a press release.

de : vladimir37@voila.fr
A :  caroline.rylander@siemens.com
cc : stina.sjogren_paulsson@scania.com
date :  06/04/13 à 13h44
objet : press release of Siemens  11th March, 2013

Dear Mrs. Caroline Rylander,

I decided to follow the advice from Mrs. Stina Sjögren Paulsson who is the patent manager of Scania and to try to contact your Siemens Corporation another time.

I make a reference to my post of 06th April 2013 that you can consider as my open letter to your organization (it is placed here: http://global-its.org/gitsforum.htm ).

Try to explain to your decision makers that they cannot ignore my name and my concept too long. It was published much before you declared your “eHighways” concept.

It is impossible to forget me and my GITS concept any more. Moreover, my SFTS concept is the future for sea transportation. It can be a good market for you products. How are you planning to enter into this future market if I am not going to forget your behavior regarding my GITS concept?

Inform your decision makers about this message, please. I do not want to be unfair to anybody. I consider myself as the open and fair person. I expect the same from others.

With best regards,

Vladimir Postnikov

22nd December, 2012

I sent an invitation to discuss the GITS concept to the United Nations Environment Program on 10^th November 2012. I wrote in my invitation that GITS concept can be a breakthrough in the environment safety and human safety. I wrote that I could not understand why environment organizations refuse to organize an open discussion and that blah-blah-blah will not make our environment better.

I got their reply.

I sent them my reply that I enclose here:

"8th December 2012

Dear Mr. Rob de Jong,
Dear All,

I would like to ask your attention for few minutes. Few minutes only, please.
Thank you if you give me this favor.

I do not ask any money and I do not ask your limited human resources. I will be able to organize the forum myself but it will not be as effective as it could be with your free assistance.
Look, you sent me your letter with the header "United Nations Environment Programme" (including two logos).
You have a chance to include the discussion forum of GITS concept to your environment programme  and I will be able to present my concept as a part of UNEP.

(I spent two minutes of your attention. Give me other two minutes, please.)

GITS concept means the Clean Fuels and Vehicles, Global Fuel Economy, Share the Road and Public Transport for developing country cities and for other cities in the world. You wrote me that UNEP is actively engaging to these activities.
Give me a chance to present GITS concept formally under the aegis of UNEP. It  requires no money and no your human resources.

(I have finished. Thank you for your attention if you are here.)
Yours sincerely,
Vladimir Postnikov

PS  It will not be fair if Siemens steals GITS concept step by step."

The UNEP officials have not replied me yet. It is not my first attempt to stimulate UN organizations to start the discussion of Global Transport System.

What're ya supposed to do with this thingy? I mean UN, not GITS.

17th November, 2012
 

News about pantographs

I got a reference that pantographs have been used for haul trucks in few ore mining sites:
1. Palabora, South Africa;
2. Iscor, South Africa;
3. Rossing Uranium, Namibia;
4. Barrick Goldstrike, Nevada.

Ref.: http://hutnyak.com/Trolley/trolleyphotos.html

5th August, 2012
 

Open letter to Siemens Corporation

5th August, 2012

Dear Dr. Eberl,
Dear Mr. Martini,

You have to remember that I sent to both of you my concept of Global Intelligent Transportation System (GITS) on 12.12.2010. I did it after GITS system was presented in 17th ITS World Congress held in Busan (South Korea) in October, 2010. I had a hope that my concept could be interesting for your Corporation and you could support me starting the open public discussion of future global automated transport system.

Present time I think you have been interested in my concept that time. Your "eHighway" concept is a part of GITS concept regarding the local distribution.

First my reaction to the news of "eHighway" concept was positive. I thought that I have found an ally who positively evaluated my concept. I thought that Siemens Corporation made a rough feasibility study and they found that the additional installation of a IC engine, electric generator, pantograph and secondary electrical equipment on the truck with the creation of infrastructure for power supply is economically justified and electrified freight vehicles will be competitive on the transport market.
GITS vehicles do not mean the IC engine and electric generator permanent installation on them in order to make them cheaper, to save the space, and to save the operating costs.

But my following reaction was negative after I visited the main site of Siemens Corporation where I read the following:

"Scope for eHighway - Electrified networks as a whole"

22nd July, 2012 15.30
 

I spent some time to visit the site of Siemens today:
Official site of Siemens Corp.

22nd July, 2012 12.00
 

I got good news a week ago: Siemens tests "eHighway of the Future" vision with tram-like overhead cables.
http://www.gizmag.com/siemens-ehighway-of-the-future-concept/22648/

Letter to Siemens 16 Jul 2012 4 pages

I have not got any reply from them yet but I hope to get it sooner or later.
It is good that a giant corporation like Siemens accepted one of my ideas to install railroad pantographs on chassis of automobile for power supply. It is a good sign.
The problem is that it is not a good idea to install the diesel-generator unit inside. Their truck has to carry that unit plus the fuel for it. Except the excess weight of this unit and fuel tank they will eat some space of that truck. I am not speaking about the price of this vehicle that will be higher than competitive conventional diesel trucks.
The idea to install the pantograph on the conventional truck is similar to ideas to install the steam engine on the sailing vessel. It is a step forward that is not effective as it could be.
I reproduce here a fragment from my concept:
"We should not forget that AV will be able to go outside of GITS tunnels. One solution is to place overhead wires in an open space (ex.: Freight Depot at the exit of track exchange zone). It is possible to place similar overhead wires over some conventional roads (similar to trolleybus power wires). Second solution is to find some place inside the future AV to install a removable Fuel Cell power plant or Diesel Generator unit. Third solution is to use a pilot car with a power plant for AV propulsion where the power is transmitted to the AV through a cable fixed on/in the coupling link."

Look, I mentioned the removable diesel-generator unit. In this version the GITS vehicle lose some space but not the weight. Moreover, I do not like this idea because it is not effective like a pilot vehicle. Pilot vehicle with a driver is a need for public roads.

The most interesting question for me is the specification of power for overhead wires used by Siemens. I have no information about it. This specification must be globally approved if we hope to make a global transportation system. The global community has to choose the most effective specification for that power. There are lots of ways to convert any power to any other one that will be realized by different vehicle manufacturers but the power for overhead wires has to be standardized. Global community has to discuss this subject and to make this global standard. It does not matter how the electrical power is generated. It can be solar panels, wind or water power plants, or conventional fossil fuel power plants. I do not think that humans have to repeat their mistakes.

I hope for global cooperation and I hope that Siemens Corporation is open for it. This is an invitation not only to Siemens but to other world organization (even to UN that is the most inertial organization).

Let's discuss it.
Let's do it.
 

6th May, 2012. Some news
 

An International Transport Forum was held on 02-04 May 2012 in Leipzig, Germany.  

It was possible to watch it online this year. I was watching two sessions: Transport for Growth (Developing Connectivity) and Transport Innovation Talks.  

A few comments from me:
It would be possible to discuss the GITS concept for last two years. http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1137431

It would be ….
 

What we have in reality?
We just had the International Transport Forum that was a pleasant meeting for its participants, a moderate chanson, and lots of bla-bla-bla.
I see another time that the result of OECD activity is the petty scheming. I can guess that they do not agree with me. They think that the International Transport Forum "acts as a strategic think tank with the objective of helping shape the transport policy agenda on a global level and ensuring that it contributes to economic growth, environmental protection, social inclusion and the preservation of human life and well-being" (ref.: Transport Outlook 2012).
 

Who am I, and who is OECD?
 

25th February, 2012
 

Passenger Transportation
 

I have been slightly surprised when I realized that some people consider GITS concept as the freight transport system only.
 

SFTS is a system of freight transportation but I have never said that land part of GITS concept is purely freight one. NO.
 

Sometimes I forget that I see the whole project but other people do not and they need more details to imagine something that is not real yet.
 

GITS land vehicles will open a new page of personal passenger transportation. These vehicles can be six meters long (shorter or longer) or any other size up to maximum length.
 

Passenger transportation can be divided onto three main categories:
 

1) Business travel;
2) Personal travel for any private need except holydays and vacations;
3) Personal travel for holydays and vacations.
 

What we need for all these travels:
 

1) Transport facilities;
2) Lodging facilities.
 

GITS concept allows uniting both transport and lodging facilities.
 

For example: You hire a GITS vehicle that will be your hotel during your journey and your stay at the destination point. It could be very interesting for short business travels with the distances less than 1000 km or for sightseeing vacation trips.
 

I am not able to define all possible varieties of these hotel-caravans. They can be for one person, for two, for family, with a personal car or without, they can be large buses or small ones. They suppose different variations of capacity and comfort depending on your demand. They will require new types of camping with appropriate services (cleaning, food supply, taxi, etc.).
 

It will be personal transport because you do not need to wait somebody or something to start or to return. You do it at the time when you need it. Yes, your lodging will not be as comfortable as in the conventional hotel but your journey will be much more comfortable in any case.
 

I invite universities (who are training future designers) to develop this idea. Their students are able to get a chance to demonstrate their abilities before professionals. Last year I suggested this idea to one Finnish university but I was ignored. Everybody knows better than others what he needs personally.
 

I insist that GITS concept is a concept of Personal Transport but any passenger transportation must be started on any new track after its safety and reliability proved by transportation of freight only for any defined period without serious problems.
 

28th January, 2012
 

I have some news that is not new. I got an e-mail from UNECE. It is interesting. They refuse to consider my concept because I am individual. Great! "Individuals … could bring in themselves through third parties."
 

They do not pay attention that the concept is GLOBAL. They continue to form their transport strategy ignoring GITS concept because it was suggested by individual. Nice explanation!
 

I enclose the e-mail from Associate Expert Ms. Dorte Schramm and my reply to her.
 

24th January, 2012
 

Dear Mr. Postnikov,
 

herewith we acknowledge the receipt of your message.
 

There was no new Information provided under agenda item 17.2. since we already dealt with ITS under agenda item 2.3.
 

Pls. find all relevant Information here:
 

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2011/wp29/ECE-TRANS-WP29-1093e.pdf , on page 12.
 

I would like to use the opportunity to draw your attention to the United Nations kick-off event on "ITS for sustainable mobility",
 

pls. find all Information here:
 

http://www.unece.org/trans/theme_its/un_policy_segment.html.
 

After reading your website, I would like to kindly refer to our rules, that lay down that UNECE Member states and REIOs can participate at WP.29, whereas countries, agencies and organizations can participate in a consultative way. Individuals are excluded in this sense, but could bring in themselves through third parties. Nevertheless, as you know, UNECE works transparent, all documents are available on our website.
 

http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29tor.html
 

Kind regards,
 

Dorte Schramm
 

--------------------------------------
 

Dorte Schramm (Ms.)
Associate Expert
UNECE Transport Division
Vehicle Regulations and Transport Innovations Section
United Nations
8-14, Avenue de la Paix
CH-1211 GENEVA 10
Tel. + 4122 917 3410
Fax. + 4122 917 0039

 

25th January, 2012
 

Dear Ms. Schramm,
 

Thank you for your reply. I am sorry but your reply has no information and it is written in the style "Go away, please. We know better what to do."
 

1) First of all I visited your first reference:
 

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2011/wp29/ECE-TRANS-WP29-1093e.pdf
 

I reproduce it here as it is:
 

26. The secretariat presented the "UNECE roadmap on ITS - 20 global actions to deploy ITS 2012-2020" (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/114 and WP.29-155-24), part of the UNECE strategy package on ITS. The package consisted of:
 

(a) A background paper with the primary objective of sharing information (including best practices) and raising awareness about the values that ITS solutions could deliver;
 

(b) A strategic note identifying the main gaps and impediments for a broader use and faster dissemination of ITS applications; and
 

(c) A roadmap outlining the areas and tasks that UNECE could undertake either as a continuation of on-going tasks or as new initiatives.
 

I can understand from it that the UNECE has the strategy and nothing more. I can guess that my concept is out of UNECE strategy.
 

2) I visited your second reference:
 

http://www.unece.org/trans/theme_its/un_policy_segment.html.
 

United Nations kick-off actions promoting Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) for sustainable mobility on 28 February 2012 You are invited to join the United Nations kick-off debate on ITS for sustainable mobility, on 28 February 2012 from 15h00 to 18h00 at the Palais des Nations in Geneva.
 

High-level speakers, governments, experts and academia from all the around the world will come together to put ITS on the policy makers agenda and to contribute to the policy-segment and launch of the UNECE strategy package on ITS that is expected to mark a milestone for future United Nations activities on ITS.
 

I think that I am not invited to that kick-off debate and GITS concept is out of its agenda.
"Individuals are excluded". Other information about UNECE Transport Division is not informative.
 

You are doing something but it looks like a petty scheming. It is my own opinion.
 

I can say you what I have expected from UN organization like UNECE Transport Division:
 

I expected to organize an international conference on UN initiative in order to discuss the specification for future global system. Railroads were developed by different nations and organizations and we have different tracks now that cannot be unified. Motor roads have two alternatives and we have now both of them (left and right driving). This is the result of isolated development.
 

If UN experts do not understand it is a problem of UN.
 

GITS concept (including SFTS) is a phenomenon now. You are an Associate Expert. You have to understand it. GITS concept will be living its own life. I do not exclude that it can die as concept later but it is alive now despite the fact that your organization "kick it off" today.
 

The reputation of UN is the reputation of UN. You are making this reputation also together with your boss Mr. Juan Ramos Garcia. Maybe you are right. Time is an honest man.
 

I am going to include your letter and my reply into the Forum section of GITS site.
 

I wish you a nice day.
 

Best regards,
 

Vladimir Postnikov
 

03 December 2011
 

I have not received any comment yet that means that GITS concept is not interesting for anybody.
 

A joke:
- Doctor, everybody is ignoring me.
- Next one, please.
 

For last year and a half I sent my concept to different organizations and institutions but most of them have been ignoring me and only few of them replied and politely sent me anywhere.
 

I had some illusions about International Transport Forum and I suggested to discuss the GITS concept there. I found that a keynote speaker there in 2011 was Mr. Jeffrey Sachs who is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. I sent him GITS concept and I got confirmation from his colleagues that he received it but after I listened his speech on the 2011 International Transport Forum I understood that I lost my time trying to present my concept on that forum.
I can say the same about Mr. Jack Short (former secretary of the International Transport Forum). Try to listen the speech of Prof. Sachs on that forum or look the program of this forum and you realize that it is a pleasant meeting for politicians who think that they define the future. I suppose that all of them had not any problem to come to that forum and by this way they consider the world transportation satisfactory (ref.: speech of Prof. Sachs). Presidents of states must consider it as perfect.
 

I tried to publish the concept in special editions but I received two reviews from them only. The copies of both reviews are placed in the "Neglector". After I received the second review I wrote an article "What is applied science". You can read it here.
 

What is applied science?
 

For a long time I could not imagine that I would try to comprehend this definition again. I have considered some theories like the theory of strength of materials or the theory of machines and mechanisms as the applied sciences that were studying the subjects of human activity products made for human needs. It was clear to me at the time but now I have a doubt.
 

I created a concept of a global intelligent transportation system and I suggested that this concept be published for its open discussion by specialists of two "journals" who are positioning themselves as journals covering the field of study related to intelligent transportation systems (ITS).
 

The first reply was received from IEEE Intelligent Transportation System Magazine and stated that the concept "is not scientific" and the quality of its scientific or technical content was poor. I will come back to the reviewer's checklist of this reply below but here I would like to quote the comments received from the International Journal of ITS Research (ITS Japan) a few weeks ago. It was also very short but much more notable: "This paper describes the author's general ideas of future forms of transport. However, it does not show any evidence for these ideas, and it does not contain any scientific findings." ???
 

Yes, I suggested general, basic, conceptual ideas of future transport system (the concept is published on the following site: ). I agree that I suggested a concept and I suggested it for an open discussion but it was rejected for publication because it does not look scientific.
 

I had to admit that time that my applied science definition could be wrong and I decided to clear this subject.
 

I decided to start from a general definition of science and I found a more or less acceptable definition on the following site (http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html):
 

"According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."
What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it. What is the purpose of science? Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.
 

Most scientific investigations use some form of the scientific method. Science, as defined above is sometimes called pure science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of research to human needs. Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines:
 

- Natural sciences, the study of the natural world, and
 

- Social sciences, the systematic study of human behavior and society.
 

After I accepted the general definition of science I decided to take the next step and to find the definition of applied science. It was not so easy. I recommend an article by Sunny Y. Auyang at (http://www.creatingtechnology.org/eng/apply.htm#M4). This article is very notable from the beginning and it has some references to other publications stating that engineering (or technology) studies can also be considered a science and this applied science is not intellectually inferior to pure science. I feel that some "applied scientists" have a complex and they want to be treated "more as a partner than a child of science".
Strange! Being an engineer I do not have this inferiority complex. I consider myself as a creator. I can create. The scientists can not. Eureka!
 

I have understood at that time, that I have needed a definition of art. REF http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Art "The employment of means to accomplish some desired end; the adaptation of things in the natural world to the uses of life; the application of knowledge or power to practical purposes. … A system of rules serving to facilitate the performance of certain actions; a system of principles and rules for attaining a desired end; method of doing well some special work; - often contradistinguished from science or speculative principles; as, the art of building or engraving; the art of war; the art of navigation. …. The systematic application of knowledge or skill in effecting a desired result. Also, an occupation or business requiring such knowledge or skill…"
 

Leonardo da Vinci or Nikola Tesla - who are they? Scientists or artists?
 

According to the mentioned above definitions, being an engineer means to be an artist! In my case I have created a phenomenon. It is a concept yet but it is a real artificial phenomenon now. I am an artist. If somebody considers himself as a scientist he has to study this phenomenon first before he makes a verdict that this phenomenon is useful or feasible, or not useful nor feasible.
 

A real scientist has to use the so called "Scientific Method" that is the algorithm of any scientific study. The main steps of Scientific Method are:
 

- Observation/Research,
 

- Hypothesis ,
 

- Prediction,
 

- Experimentation,
 

- Conclusion.
 

For my case the most interesting one is the second step - Hypothesis. The definition of this word means "a possible solution to a problem, based on knowledge and research". For engineering and technology any concept is a hypothesis and prediction. It is possible to achieve any goal by different ways and these ways will make different constructions or technologies that will differ in their effectiveness. To evaluate the effectiveness of a new construction or technology before its realization a feasibility study should be made.
 

Now it is time to come back to the mentioned above general comments of reviewer's checklist received from IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine (full text):
 

The paper addresses a transportation concept called Global Intelligent Transport System. It is formulated as a project proposal. It is based on an unmanned hybrid rail/motor vehicle, to be used on dedicated infrastructure. The concept is at a very early stage of development. A review of similar initiatives is missing (e.g. the NAHSC work, but also work in Japan), there is no analysis of the requirements, there is no solid support for the claim that the concept will reduce congestion, there is no clear scientific. In order to avoid the risk that this would be regarded as 'just another brilliant but hardly elaborated idea', the idea should first be elaborated before we could consider publication.
 

I confirm that the concept is based "on an unmanned hybrid rail/motor vehicle, to be used on dedicated infrastructure" and I agree that it "is at a very early stage of development".
 

My only question is what that reviewer expected from a concept of GLOBAL SYSTEM? I had a hope to discuss the concept with experts but I got a reply "No Discussions". O yes, it is "clear scientific"! I was told that a "review of similar initiatives is missing". First of all I would like to note that I accepted that my concept is based on an unmanned hybrid rail/motor vehicle. It was made from them and it was made to compete with them.
 

As I know the NAHSC work is fully devoted to automated highway systems without "dedicated infrastructure"(!). The phrase "… but also work in Japan" looks "clearly scientific". It is possible to find a little information about two experimental Japanese automatic transport system:
- Japanese Automated Freight Transport System (JAFTS),
- Toyota's Intelligent Multimodal Transit System (IMTS).
Both systems are dual mode ones. Their vehicles can be automatically operated on dedicated roads and manually operated on ordinary roads. The JAFTS' light weight vehicles were designed to meet a target weight of approximately 5,000 kg and they were steered mechanically using a guide rail and guide apparatus (consisting of guide wheels and a stabilizer). They were equipped with electric batteries only. Financial feasibility studies have shown that subsidies would be necessary to cover the construction cost of the system. (REF http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/japanaf.htm)
The IMTS steering is based on magnetic markers imbedded in the middle of the dedicated roads. Its vehicles are equipped with compressed gas engines. (REF http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/imts.htm)
All works, mentioned by my anonymous scientific reviewer, are not competitive on the transportation market today (there is no information that they are alive yet). They were initially planned as local systems for specific purposes (!).
 

I am not interested in competition with reserves that are playing another game. I prefer to compete with major players playing the same game with them. Ground part of GITS may be compared to conventional railroad system or with conventional motorway system only. No indulgences!
 

Let's go back to the letter from International Journal of ITS Research (ITS Japan) that was signed by its Editor in Chief Mr. Edward Chung, who has a Ph. D. from Queensland University of Technology. He wrote that my concept does not contain any scientific findings. What does he mean? I do not know. It is possible to think that his edition is publishing the scientific findings only. I would like to know what is it because (I am sorry) I have not heard anything about any significant scientific finding made by any ITS "scientists".
 

Cellular data communications, controllers, actuators, programs (algorithm), devices for longitudinal control (like laser distance meters or scanners), devices for lateral control in track exchange zones (that can be used in GITS concept because the idea of track exchange zone was created especially for GITS), etc. - what of the mentioned above can be considered as the scientific finding made by ITS scientist or by any "applied scientist"? All of them are products of artists. For example it is possible to consider the lamination of tunnel panels (walls and roof) for GITS with radiopaque screening. In this case the cellular data communication installed inside the tunnels should be named as the chain data communication where the clusters are placed in consecutive order. The principal is the same but the configuration is different. Can we consider this as a scientific finding? No.
 

Do not expect new scientific findings from GITS concept. It is assembled from components and elements that are present on the market today. This concept does not need the scientific findings at all but it is able to make a breakthrough in world transportation. It does not require any study of it made by applied scientists. It needs a feasibility study. That is all.
 

What have I expected from "applied" scientist? I expected to get the opinion of specialists who could find the weaknesses of concept in order to find a solution that will help to overcome those weaknesses. I expected they could suggest their own solutions for some aspects of concept. I expected to get their support.
 

What I got from them? Nothing. The phenomenon is not interesting for them. They were unable to find any serious blunders in the concept itself otherwise they would use them in their verdicts for sure.
 

I sent my GITS concept to ITS Japan journal because I hoped the Japanese applied scientists have their own opinion but I got a reply from its editor who is working for a US University. (I am sorry. I made a mistake. Mr. Edward Chung is working for Queensland University of Technology that is in Australia. Nobody paid any attention to this mistake and nobody informed me about it. I could simply correct this mistake but I leave it as it is. You can see that I am human. I can make a mistake, and I can recognize this fact, and I can apologize for this mistake.) It means that US ITS society earned indisputable authority in ITS subject. It is unlike science because the scientists must have a doubt always. I am not going to blame the USA in all human sins. I have a copy of another review (related to Submarine Freight Transportation System that is a sea part of GITS) from a Russian "applied" scientist. He wrote that the realization of SFTS project including its navigation system is feasible but it will require 10 years of R&D and several billions of dollars. I had one question to him only: Why? You can guess that my question was ignored. I could not check what he was planning for ten years of R&D and how he was planning to spend several billion dollars.
 

The scientist cannot state anything that is not proved by calculations or experience that could be checked by another scientist. This is the main rule of science.
 

I am not going to deny the applied sciences because I do not like some so called applied scientists. The real applied sciences collect the knowledge about artificial phenomena that is needed for coming generations. I am against the scientists who are organized in a scientific sect and who are not interested in new phenomena if those phenomena do not correlate in their mind with their sectarian postulates.
 

It is a good idea to automate the existing transportation systems with human operated vehicles as much as possible in order to increase their safety and capacity but the engineers have to have in their mind the Boden Lake crash that I defined as the "Boden Lake limit". It means that there is a limit of automation level for human operated systems. ITS engineers (not ITS scientists) can improve transportation systems with human operated vehicles but those systems will never accept the fully automated vehicles.
 

The mentioned above ITS applied scientists from ITS scientific journals do not realize it. I begin to think that similar applied scientists "burned" Giordano Bruno. I am able to pardon them taking into consideration that they are humans but I do not recognize them for scientists. Admirers of a golden calf, or idealistic fanatics, or any type of sectarians cannot be scientists. Scientists must have a doubt always and they have to observe the scientific method for phenomenon studying before they state anything. Science is nothing without the hypothesis.
 

I am not going to state something and to leave the audience proudly. I invite ITS applied scientists to defend the position of their colleagues if they think I am not correct in my assessment of their activity.
 

I assume that I can be wrong. I have a doubt.
 

The end of article.
 

I am trying to understand today what is wrong with me.
 

I am sure that GITS is an interesting concept but GLOBAL ignoring of it suggests that something is wrong with me. It is possible that I am ill and I need a doctor instead of opponent. I assume that human society is losing the taste of adventure. Everybody is interested in any activity that brings him money and if he does not expect to get it in the very near future he rejects that activity. It is impossible that all of them need a doctor, so I begin to think that I am ill.
 

OK. I am ill but I do not want to be cured (that means another time that I am ill).:-)
 

This is the sfatus of GITS and SFTS concepts on 03 December 2011.

© 2011 Global Intelligent Transportation System