There aren't any. Absurd analogies aren't in the least useful.
Don't be silly.
"Not invented here" isn't a good attitude. Objecting to other people's new ideas, even if the other people are part of the same organsiation, does happen quite a lot too. Quite a few people do think that their own ideas are insanely good, and reject anything that anybody else comes up with because it competes with their brain children.
Quite a few people have quite a few new ideas, none of which are ever any good. When I worked at EMI Central research, one of our colleagues made more patent applications per year than anybody else. None of them seemed to turn into patents. When I was working there I had what struck me as fairly obvious idea. After a number of people had told me that it couldn't possibly be right, and I'd repeatedly had to go to the trouble of explaining why it couldn't possibly be wrong, we turned it into a patent application (and - in due course - a patent). There were a couple of others, but we got to them rather more conventionally.
Making a fuss about whether an idea is "new" isn't a useful way of spending your time. Worrying whether it will work is much more useful.
Not a good idea. Do try to understand why people did things that way in the past, but keep in mind that new approaches don't have to work the same way as the old one did.
Calculate a lot. Computer time is pretty cheap too, and you can be a bit more rigorous with computer models than you can with pencil scribbles.
I was at the '64 fair!
We got PCs, internet, drones, cell phones, LCD and Oled color TVs, fiberoptics, nanometer ICs, medical advances, SUVs, social media, all sorts of great-ish stuff.
What the great things have in common is that they were *not* anticipated at the World's Fair. Futurism ain't what it used to be.
I'm still optimistic. There is plenty of stuff left to invent.
Nonsense. One cannot appreciate a good idea without discerning the faults of a bad idea. The word 'idea' covers all the contents of a conscious mind, no one rejects 'new ideas' who IS connected to reality.
You reject my idea! Obviously for one of the "several reasons."
Thanks for making my point.
Oddly one thing I have always remembered was a hands on exhibit in Ma Bell's pavilion. There were timers connected to a rotary dial and to the new touch tone keypad so you could see how much faster the future was going to be. Ma Bell is long gone but their keypad layout lives on.
Trivia: JFK kicked the fair countdown off by keying in '1964'. Not quite 'text 1964 to...'
I'm optimistic in the technical sense, not so much in the societal sense. That seems to be SSDD, to use Stephen King's acronym which has nothing to do with solid state drives.
I think there was a Bell demo of using light for communications, specifically shooting light through a long pipe that used thermal gradients to keep it confined. This sort of anticipated fiberoptics.
There was a cool monorail sort of ride.
It never was. Read old science fiction to find out how bad it was back then.
If you are as under-informed as John Larkin is , you can be a lot more optimistic. The woods are full of people reinventing the wheel and concocting media releases about how it is going to revolutionise the world after they get around to inventing spokes and axles.
The concept had been around for a long time.
A lot of ideas are like that. The concept of an airplane had to wait for relatively lightweight IC engines to happen.
Now for cool monorails -- in the early 1900's some people were working on a monorail with gyroscopic stabilization. The big problem was each car would need a gyroscope.
The idea never took off in the US. Other countries have impressive systems including maglev designed. Most US monorails are basically tourist attractions like Seattle, the Disney parks, Jacksonville, and Las Vegas. Detroit's is much more expensive per passenger mile than buses.
I don't think the people mover at the Detroit airport qualifies as a monorail. It's never been operating when I was there unfortunately. Invariably my connections are between the two furthest apart gates.
I have no idea why anybody would use a monorail for anything real. They're fun toys, but just toys.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
History consistently teaches us that one system means lack of competition or investment equals worse service.
Privacy is what stops governments harrassing us with endless false accusations
It's already mostly gone.
Monorails have a lot of problems. The need for a gyroscope is not one of them.
Why? Because the ones you've seen are small? Hero's steam turbine was small, too.
As a horizontal-elevator system, both tunnels/subways (The Boring Company) and elevated rail seem suitable for transportation in cities. Automobiles and ever-wider highways with long commutes are NOT likely to dominate the future. In a city core already full of streets, an elevated rail, monorail or standard gage, doesn't take a lot of demolition footprint to install.
Thatcher managed to come up with a counter-example. Her privatised British Rail skimped on maintenance (and killed a few people in consequence) and generally delivered a poorer service. Natural monopolies work better as publicly owned public services, as has been known since Victorian times. Thatcherites ignored the history and did a Putin-like job of giving previously publicly-owned assets to their friends for nowhere near enough money.
Putting back the original tram lines would have been cheaper and would have served more travellers.
No, because in order to get static stability your one track has to be huge and therefore expensive.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Ouniculars f that line of reasoning, we'd see f
Following that reasoning, we'd expect funiculars for intraurban transit.
The rigid elevated systems use less airspace than a guyed tower (there's HUGE lateral cable-tension loads in a funicular). A dovetail monorail is practical and less derail-able than standard twin-track.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.