Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:19, 24 June 2006

Clarification required

Is the cost for the guideway only? If so, how much are the pods? And how many are required? Just zis Guy you know? 11:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What sentence are you talking about? This one: "total cost of the system - vehicle, infrastructure and control systems - is between £3million and £5million per km of track" gives a total system cost/mile of track. Pods? Haha, you've been hanging around UniModal too much. Fresheneesz 20:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, so it does not make clear how many pods, which (as we find in PRT) is a crucial factor in determining system capacity. So at the very leats we need to know the estimated capacity. Also, if it's optimised for a ensely populated area, why is it being deployed to link a car park (a sparsely populated area) with an airline terminal (a single endpoint). I'd say that sentence should go. Just zis Guy you know? 22:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As it says here: "The current generation system will work best in a densely populated area with a typical radius of operation up to 5km.". As for why its being put in a car park, i'm guessing they don't have support for a full on city development yet, what do you think?

Personally I think the way the system is optimized is an interesting and useful thing to note on this page - *especially* given that they're building at a car park. Fresheneesz 23:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As I understand PRT design, they've done extensive analysis and simulation on the dynamics of a PRT network, and from that they can estimate an optimal number of vehicles per length of guideway. Too many vehicles would be wasteful, too few vehicles would cause the guideway to be underutilized. So, in that sense, it could make sense to estimate total costs per-guideway length, because the total length of guideway implies an estimate of the number of vehicles required.

Consider a light rail example: if you have a 10 mile bidirectional light rail line, with minimum separation of 2 miles between trains, then you would need no more than about 10 trains (5 each way). The same sort of estimations can be made for PRT, though they'd obviously be more complicated than the light rail case due to the fact that PRT is a network, not a simple line. A Transportation Enthusiast 02:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the quote "...densely populated area... up to 5km" quote, this is not in conflict with the airport installation. Just because ULTra is appropriate for Heathrow does not mean it cannot be appropriate for other types of applications, i.e more dense. I think the line should stay, but I'd have no problem with qualifying it with something like "the company claims..." or "Even though the only application currently planned is at Heathrow Airport, the company claims...". But there's no justification for completely removing it. A Transportation Enthusiast 02:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As usual we have a conflict between the manufacturer's claims and reality. They claim it is optimised for an urban enviuronment, but (a) it has not been tested in such an environment and (b) it is not being implemented in such an environment. SO I think the claim should come out. The aspiration to be an urban mode is amply covered in the main PRT article. This is about a system with one test track, and one order, for a car park. An interesting enough system, which I will most likely use from time to time unless they price it ridiculously (which, given BAA's track record, they will). Oh, and we still don't say how many pods there will be at LHR or what the forecast carrying capacity will be. Just zis Guy you know? 13:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The claim is made by the company, this much is verifiable. What is also verifiable is that there is no existing prototype or planned implementation with which to verify the claim. Instead of arbitrarily removing the claim, why can't it be made with qualification? I thought Misplaced Pages was supposed to state only that which is verifiable, without a further requirement that what is being stated is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A Transportation Enthusiast 14:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

1. The word you are looking for is "vehicles". They are not called "pods".
2. There will be 18 vehicles, as per this press release here.
3. Some very simple math reveals the carrying capacity (given 18 vehicles) to be in the neighborhood of 500-600 people per hour per direction. However, as I haven't seen this stated explicitely by either ATS or BAA, it doesn't need to be in the article at this time.
4. There is no "conflict between the manufacturer's claims and realities". That is a logical fallacy. Technologies can be optimized for situations in which they are not applied, and technologies can be applied in situations for which they are not optimized. Motorbusses, for example, are for travelling between a great number of locations -- yet they are often employed to shuttle people between two fixed points, ie an airport terminal and a car park. Does this then imply a "conflict between the manufacturer's claims and realities"? No, it does not. In the case of ULTra, they did not optimize it for this precise application, but they are happy to be paid to apply it in this way nonetheless. No "conflict" there whatsoever.

Skybum 15:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The system may or may not work best with a 5 mile radius, however the company has *designed* the system for that. It is very useful information to know. For example, when I think of PRT I think "replace roads with guidways, and cars with small vehicals". Obviously ULTra is not optimized (or "meant for") longer trips and larger radiuses like the road system. It is a very important number to have in the article. Fresheneesz 22:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So, we are willing to state without reservation that it is optimised for an application quite unlike the test or first comercial application? Seems like a bad idea. As to including what is verifiable rather than what is provably true, it has to be verifiable from a reliable source. The manufacturer are not a reliable source in this context, because it is a marketing claim which has not been substantiated elsewhere. Oh, and the word I was looking for was pods, since that seems to be the usually used term. Vehicle is generic and includes everythign from a bicyle to a B52. Just zis Guy you know? 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And pods can be anything from plants to machines - whats your point. Also, you're misinterpreting the issue of the "optimization". The manufacturor is the best person to tell you what they *tried* to build the system for. I really get the feeling you simply don't read our comments JzG. Fresheneesz 23:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for Pete's sake, JzG. You're still playing your same old game, simply because we are talking about a design and not an existing product. WE KNOW THAT IT IS A DESIGN. THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. Everywhere else on Misplaced Pages, it is absolutely permissible and desirable to make positive statements about the intent of a design. For example, the Windows Vista article states that "Microsoft's primary stated goal with Vista, however, has been to improve the state of security in the Windows operating system." It's perfectly okay to say this, even though Vista, of course, doesn't exist as a public product any more than ULTra does, and -- who knows? -- it's actual security, once it's released into the wild, might be terrible. Misplaced Pages should not suppress the fact that Vista's designers claim they are attempting to optimize security, simply because this is "a marketing claim" or that it is a claim which might not ultimately work out.

That being said, the sentence you blanked did have some problems. It read: "The current design is optimized for a densely populated area with a system radius of about 5 km, serving a small number of destinations." This is problematic, but only because it seems to be making a positive statement about the actual optimization of the design (which is a no-no), as opposed to the intended optimization of the design (which is an important and valid point to include in the article). The sentence can be fixed by re-wording it as follows: "Designers say that the technology is optimized for a densely populated area with a system radius of about 5 km, serving a small number of destinations." I am therefore putting this text back into the article.

JzG, you are neither an idiot nor a newbie. You know perfectly well how to make genuine improvements to an article, improving the language where it is either too strong or too vague. Yet you prefer to delete content without adequate discussion, or demand sources which you have, often as not, previously deleted yourself. It is becoming baldly obvious that, rather than trying to improve the quality of the information here, you are simply trying to suppress it, based on whatever flimsy pretext you can think of. Please try to improve your behavior. Skybum 01:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am playing the "same old game" of requiring that we do not include unsupportable hypothesis. As usual in respect of PRT, that sentence is claiming it to be designed for an application where it has neither been trialled nor ordered. Leave it to the link to PRT to say what is the intent of PRT proponents - this is about a system in an airpoirt car-park, and should be about just that. Actually I can hardly wait - it is local to me (about 25 minutes away). Just zis Guy you know? 10:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

JzG wrote: "So, we are willing to state without reservation that it is optimised for an application quite unlike the test or first comercial application?" No! We are willing to state without reservation that the company claims the design is optimised for an application quite unlike the test or first comercial application. It wasn't originally written that way, and you are correct that the original wording was not appropriately qualified. But as Skybum says above, the point is completely valid if properly qualified. A Transportation Enthusiast 01:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a marketing claim. Leave it to the company's website to make their marketing claims. Why not document the actual applications, rather than the ones the salesmen would like to have one day? What precisely is the problem with this? Just zis Guy you know? 10:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

JzG, you are being overly touchy about this. It was properly qualified as "Designers say...". In any event, I've re-worded and re-inserted the line from a different source. I found a paper by Lowson that discusses at length the ULTra system and its intended target: cities less than 1 million in population, or as a feeder network in larger systems. Unfortunately the paper is in MS Word format; if someone can find a PDF or HTML source, please change the link. A Transportation Enthusiast 14:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not overly touchy to require substantial proof before repeating that marketing claims which are in excess of any provable fact (remember, not only is this system iuntested in such an application, no comparable system has ever been deployed in such a way). And the paper is (again) direct from the makers- lowson identifies as being from ATS. Has nobody not connected with them actually validated this claim? Just zis Guy you know? 14:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Lowson is a respected expert on PRT, with several published research papers on the topic. He also happens to associated with ATS, which is why the line is qualified. But his involvement with ATS does not disqualify all the work he's done on the PRT, or the fact that his expertise lends considerable weight to the claim of applicability in mid-sized cities.

Your further qualification that no such system exists yet is fine. In the future, I would suggest that, rather than removing claims entirely as you've traditionally done, perhaps you should qualify them with your concerns so that the point and counterpoint are preserved, and then we can debate over the exact wording. Simply removing verifiable claims en masse just provokes hostility. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I might also add, referencing some recent debates:

• Has nobody not connected with Microsoft actually validated Windows Vista?
• Has nobody not connected with Sir Richard Branson actually validated Virgin Galactic?
• Has nobody not connected with Sony actually validated Blu-Ray?

A Transportation Enthusiast 15:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

*Yes, we have tested the beta extensively and are currently doanloading beta 2.

*Irrelevant, the article makes the status quite plain - if you think there are ctill claims which cannot be supported feel free tpo remove them

*No idea, ask Stephen, that's more his field than mine.

None of this is particularly relevant though. I don't want to bloat articles out with endless they say, but... commentaries. Just zis Guy you know? 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Microsoft Vista: "Yes, we have tested the beta extensively and are currently doanloading beta 2." - this says nothing about its compatibility with the wide range of hardware in the PC world, not to mention its stability and security. Yet there are company claims about Vista throughout the article.
• Virgin Galactic: "Irrelevant, the article makes the status quite plain..." - So, for Virgin Galactic, it's OK to make speculative claims as long as they are qualified by a statement about the current status of the project. Yet for PRT pages, you regularly remove claims even if they are properly qualified. Do you see the disconnect here?

Why do we allow claims from Microsoft (the company who gave us Windows Millenium Edition) but not from ULTra, even if they are heavily qualified? A Transportation Enthusiast 16:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, gee, maybe it's something to do with Microsoft having more money than many governments and a beta programme which is open to scrutiny from zillions of geeks the world over, allowing their claims to be tested? But really, you can't possibly be suggesting that there is a real-world parallel between microsoft and a university spinoff company which has just secured its first order. Branson has started several companies and made a lot of money - how many companies have these Ultra guys started? Rougly one? Where's the track record? Also, if you don't like the Virgin article, you can fixit. Incidentally, we are running Vista on beta Pentium 5 chips in white boxes direct from Intel in our labs. Just zis Guy you know? 22:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Two points in response:

1. Maybe I'm more skeptical of claims from Microsoft, because of their long history of delivering less than they promised. Wasn't their OS supposed to be secure from threats something like 8 years ago? Just last week I got 8 critical updates in one shot. Did you ever stop to think that it is up to the reader to decide if (s)he trusts the word of the company that is making the claim? What you are doing, JzG, is making a judgement for all of us: namely, that claims from Microsoft can be trusted, while claims from ATS are to be suppressed as unreliable. Do you not see how the simple act of making that decision introduces your own POV into the articles in question?
2. I never said I don't like the Virgin article, or the Microsoft Vista article, or any other article that has been brought up in this debate. If you don't like those articles, then you can go and try to change them. I've presented those examples as proof that claims are OK when presented correctly, not as examples of articles that need to be changed. The point is, those articles present company claims that are unproven, and there's nothing wrong with that as long as the claims are properly qualified. A Transportation Enthusiast 23:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. What Microsoft says is reported because they are big enough, and it is public enough, that they will be held up to ridicule if they lie. I remember the ever-slipping Windows 93 94 95 deadlines as well as anyone - so do Microsoft. Vista is "real" in as much as beta software ever is, outside companies have had it for a while and tested it with a lot of hardware. We should be cautious what we say about it, but it is certainly a tangible product and will, to a very high degree of certainty, end up on millions of desktops in very short order. When they say it's designed to replace all their enterprise class operating systems, you can be pretty sure that many enterprises will have large-scale rollouts of Vista, and some enterprises have already tested it in large scale lab installations. By contrast, ULTra is supposedly designed for an application for which this company has no track record, and indeed there is no extant PRT system which meets these criteria. Microsoft already have XP and Server 2003, Vista is probably tagged NT 6.0 - it's certainly not a version 1.0 product like the Heathrow ULTra system will be. You brought up various parallels, I don't think they address the problem. And the fact that article A says something questionable does not mean that article B can do the same. Just zis Guy you know? 13:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Part two

You guys. This is freaking ridiculous. No long arguments, this ends right here - find a consensus. The company says that they designed the system to be optimized at a radius of 5 miles - NOT 100 miles, NOT 500 feet, NOT in farmland. Do you get it JzG. Instead of insisting on annoying the shit out of everyone, PLEASE try suggesting a method of including the information that will make you feel comfortable. I, ATE, and Skybum all think its relevant information. We are willing to accommodate, but I for one think you are being ridiculous to ask us to remove the information. Its not a marketing push, its not a publicity stunt. Its plain and simple a qulifier of the way the system is built.

I dislike the 1 million population thing, as population has absolutely nothing to do with anything - despite whatever source. Density and size are what matter, as the company says. Can people please just say hear here if they think we should put the company's outragious marketing scam claim about their hypothetical 5 mile radius back up? For god's sake.. Fresheneesz 07:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Either version is fine with me. A Transportation Enthusiast 13:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and thank you, Freshenessz. This has absolutely got to stop; it's ridiculous. Skybum 14:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I decided to put in both statements:

"The company says that the design works best as system with a 5 mile radius in a densly populated area. Designers say that the technology can handle cities with populations of less than 1 million - for larger cities, it could be used as a network link to larger mass transit systems,"

The first statement is the companies claim that the system is not really meant for far distances, and isn't meant for small populations (like the countryside). The second statement is a qualifier of capacity, that the system isn't meant to handle *too many* people. I should probably more priminantly mark tha the company's claim is a "claim". Does this look any better JzG? Fresheneesz 21:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Still has the same old problem. Designers say that, but nobody's actually tried it. All we have is a small instalation in a car park> I'd say it's best to see how well it works there before we start arm-waving about cities of a million population; if it falls flat in this trial I think we can safely say it's dead in the water. Better to wait. Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, the problem is that you just don't like what the designers say. Fair enough, but that's purely your POV. This article is about ULTra, and in that context, it is absolutely NPOV to report what the designers do, verifiably and factually, say. Stop complaining about it. Skybum 21:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is plain and simple a semantic issue. JzG you're talking about technically physically optimized - me, ATE, and skybum are saying that the company tried to design their system for a 5 mile radius. Just like desktop computer are built for personal use, some may also be not too bad for server use - while others wouldn't ever even be considered.

Is there a wording that you would be comfortable with to reflect that the company designed the system for a 5 mi radius, but that the actual optimal radius of the system may deviate from the companies efforts? Fresheneesz 21:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Skybum, I neither like it nor dislike it, I simply find it lacking a provable basis for statement in an encyclopaedia. Fresheneesz, try the current wording. Just zis Guy you know? 22:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks perfect, good job. Fresheneesz 22:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Man-years

Do you think 50 man-years should be changed to something like 440,000 man-hours? Man-years to me sounds awkward. Fresheneesz 20:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

50 man-years is more like 100,000 hours. 50 weeks/year (two weeks vacation) times 40 hours/week, not counting unpaid overtime, etc. What units does the original source use? pstudier 22:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that man-years were counted by working days. this source uses man years. But I wouldn't think it makes sense to count man-years based on working hours, since obviously men aren't working every hour of the day. But, i'm not an expert on human resource statistics. If we can figure out what "man-years" means, I think we should change it to the more familiar and less ambiguous "man-hours", but if we can't.. I guess we should just keep "man-years". Fresheneesz 23:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

From , The similar "man-year" concept is used on very large projects. It is the amount of work performed by an average worker during one year. Obviously, the number of hours worked by an individual during a year varies greatly according to cultural norm(s) and economics, but a business man-year for management purposes seems to hover around 2000 man-hours. Since the conversion is ambiguous, I think that we should leave it as man-years. Or perhaps person-years? pstudier 23:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I emailed the company about it. When I get an answer I'll correct it into man-hours. Btw, the source you cite is a wikipedia-copy page of man-hour. Fresheneesz 01:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've heard the term man-years, and I think it's acceptable here, especially if that's the units that were reported in the sources. A Transportation Enthusiast 02:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the ambiguity tho, and the fact that even tho you may have heard of it, maybe other people haven't. For example, I assumed that there are 365 man-year in a man-hour, and 24 man-hours in a man-day - but apparently this isn't so. Fresheneesz 08:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Man-years is standard terminology in large projects. I'd leave it. It doesn't really directly scale anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 13:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How about if we Wikify it by pointing to the man-hour article (which has a section on man-years)?

Personally, I couldn't care less if its standard or not - I only care if I understand it. An abiguous standard is as or more useless than if we measured the amount of human work in Joules. Fresheneesz 22:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What is ambiguous about man-years? One man, one year. Seems simple enough. If in doubt, link to the article on man hour wich describes the concept consisely. Just zis Guy you know? 23:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How bout you read the other comments JzG - i'm not going to paraphrase.

I got this email from martin lowson:

"Probably our estimate of man years in not sufficiently accurate for the precise definition to make much difference.

However sine we have had a team of around 50 equivalent full time people (including all subcontractors) and also a good size BAA team working on the project for the past year I am sure that the total investment, whatever the definition, is now well over 100 man years"

It is clear that he is using Pstudier's interpretation of a man-year. Comments on changing it to man-hours? Fresheneesz 23:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Fresheneesz, I'm quite familiar with the terms "man-hour", "man-month", and "man-year". Just because you aren't familiar with these terms doesn't mean they are ambiguous. In fact, I think in this case man-years is the more appropriate term, because it is appropriately vague. In other words, man-hours implies a more precise measurement, whereas man-year indicates that it's more of an informal estimate. Man years are certainly not sufficient for a company audit, but they are sufficient to give a general indication of the level of effort that has gone into the system. I say keep it man years. A Transportation Enthusiast 01:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Seconded -- keep it as man-years. It's a unit of measurement that I've frequently seen with regards to large engineering projects (dams, airplanes, operating systems, et cetera), so it seems like the right unit to use here. Skybum 02:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't argue against a clear consensus - my only concern is that the readers of this article might mistake 50 man-years to mean 400'000 man hours - not 100'000. Fresheneesz 06:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that a man year is the time a man works in a year. Stephen B Streater 20:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and undue weight

Guys: I did some research, and you need to know that JzG has a critically flawed understanding of what NPOV is about. (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt by attributing it to ignorance rather than malice). He is correct in stating that articles must reflect the "majority viewpoint," and that even where facts concerning "minority viewpoints" are attributable and verifiable, it can skew the POV of an article by including them, thus giving the minority viewpoint "undue weight". This much is absolutely true.

However he is absolutely incorrect in applying that to this situation. The issue of "weight" only comes up when a minority viewpoint on a given topic attempts to dominate that topic. For example, if verifiable Space elevator facts cluttered up the Reusable launch vehicle article, then that would be a problem of undue weight, because space elevators are a distinctly niche topic, outside of the mainstream, and are completely irrelevant to contemporary space launch. However, that does not mean that the space elevator article itself must be truncated and minimized to reflect this fact, because virtually any and all facts about space elevator design -- but pro and con -- are appropriate for that specific topic. (Remember that "wiki is not paper," and we are under no injunction to conserve bandwidth).

Even topics which I (and the majority) consider to be absolutely false and invalid get this treatment. For example, Creationism and Flat earth have substantial and detailed articles. It would be giving them too much weight if they were more than a footnote in the Evolution and Geomorphology articles, but within their own articles, anything that is on-topic goes.

Similarly, if ULTra facts were to dominate the Personal rapid transit article, or PRT facts were to dominate the Transport article, then that would be a case of the "undue weight" problem that JzG talks about. But within their own articles, that is absolutely not the case. JzG needs to stop misrepresenting this rule, and we need to stop giving him any credence when he does so. Skybum 14:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What needs to stop is people attacking me for trying to keep these articles to policy. Large amounts of speculative detail have been removed from PRT and UniModal, but there appears to be a massive battle being fought to include speculative data. What we include, should be verifiable from reliable secondary sources, per policy. The assertion that PRT is suitable for a wide-scale implementation is a minority point of view; if it were a majority point of view this would surely be evident by now in the shape of wide-scale implementations, or arguments in the mainstream engineering press in favour of PRT. It's a minorityu point of view because it is asserted by proponents but is not backed up by real world data - it's never been tried.

Creationism has a big article because there are millions of Americans who believe in it; how many US states have laws requiring PRT? I can document several places where the schools are required to rteach creationism. And PRT has a large and very detailed article, which spends most of its time discussing a scale of operation which (as it makes clear) has never been tried. This article says that ULTra is the world's first actual PRT implementation. Is it, as the makers would love to see, an urban system covering about 5km? Not as such: it's in a car park. Misplaced Pages is not paper, but neither is it on a deadline - we can afford to wait and see if PRT becomes a significant mode. If it does, we can talk about it in detail citing facts verifiable from multiple reliable sources. Right now it's mostly a dream, and has been throughout virtually all its history. Monorails have achieved more installations than PRT, and a lot of them are in theme parks. Just zis Guy you know? 15:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cabintaxi was approved by the German government for city-wide installation. Yet you still call it a dream. Never been tried? Neither has Windows Vista. Neither has Blu-Ray. Neither has the Airbus A380. JzG, your POV causes you to hold PRT to a different standard. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just remind me again, where was the full implementation? Which cities have a Cabintaxi system? How many miles of production Cabintaxi guideway are there in operation? Oh, wait, I remember now - the answer is "none", isn't it? So, a dream then. Just zis Guy you know? 21:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So, until a Space Elevator has been built and is operating commercially, we can't write about any of the design principles therein? Bollocks. JzG, you absolutely are holding PRT to a different standard than everything else on Misplaced Pages. Knock it off. Skybum 21:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

All of which is wholly irrelevant to discussions of ULTra's design, which is not speculative, because that is, factually and verifiably, its current, contemporary, design. If there is some large body of criticism specifically of ULTra -- such that it constitutes the "majority viewpoint" on ULTra -- then you should include that criticism in this article. It would be on-topic, and welcomed by me. But the fact is that this (and PRT as a whole) is a niche topic: the "majority" has no awareness of it whatsoever. That does not in any way imply that Misplaced Pages should not cover it; there are millions of niche-topic articles here; that's practically the entire point of Misplaced Pages. We cannot engage in speculation, of course, but we can certainly document it -- that's why articles like Project Orion and Space elevator and Solar sail and Asteroid mining and Artificial intelligence exist, all of which are appropriate to document. So is this. Now stop trying to censor it. Skybum 15:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno if this disucssion is very neccessary. We've had it before, and I think we should all know now that NPOV dictates majority view inside individual articles, not separate articles. Anyways, JzG has been trying to argue that some of the information here is actually biased, and not verifiable. In many cases I disagree with his allegations, but I haven't seen him argue undue weight in a while now. Fresheneesz 20:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what I'm saying is that the manufacturer's claims for what applications this system is "optimised" for are at odds with the test installation and the only application it's been bought for, unsupportable from other comparable systems (of which there are none), and therefore must be treated with scepticism. They are marketing claims, and this is not supposed be a sales brochure. I'd like to see some discussion of these claims in the technical journals. As an engineering application that's rather what I'd expect in terms of reliable sources, rather than endless quotes from the promoter's website. Surely it's been discussed in the civil engineering press? Just zis Guy you know? 21:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The lack of a test installation is one piece of evidence, for which you have provided an adequate qualification. However, another piece of evidence is the claim made by the company. Presented as a qualified claim, it is completely verifiable, as verifiable as any claim made by any company who has a product that has not yet reached the market. That's what we've been saying over and over here. Instead of removing verifiable claims why can't you just qualify them? Furthermore, your notion that the claim is "at odds" with the test installation is logically incorrect. The fact that the test installation does not demonstrate the claim does not mean the claim is false. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just want to say...

... that as irritated at JzG as I am right now, his last edit was a fair one. If he can keep up that kind of editing without engaging in so much grandstanding on the talk pages, I wouldn't mind keeping him around. Skybum 21:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What you need to understand is that I am doing my very best to explain my thinking; many other editors would simply revert, or insert a single pithy comment - or edit-warred. We have much more talk than edit war in these articles, and that is entirely right, and they are better for it. Plenty of admins would simply have locked the articles down. If people (including me, I never claimed to be perfect) spent more time trying to understand each other and less time trying to read motives into each other's words then I think we'd have less trouble. As to grandstanding, I would remind you to remain WP:CIVIL. With thousands of main space articles on my watchlist and all teir associated talk I do have better things to do than argufy; I only engage in debate where I think the result is worth it to the encyclopaedia. Thus far, for the most part, it has been, although the PRT article is once again starting to creep. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

One thing I keep forgetting is that maybe half of all arguments are due to semantics - although I speak only from experience. Besides, on wikipedia, basically the only thing we're arguing about is wording - so we should try to be very clear and carful that we fully understand exactly what our opponents are arguing before we counter it. Fresheneesz 22:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

JzG, I agree, we need to understand each other more. But that means you need to trust us, that we are not just a bunch of PRT fanatics pushing POV here -- that's the Avidor view, and like most of Avidor's views, it's basically a grossly exaggerated caricature. Sure, there is enthusiasm for PRT in what we write, because it's a technology that interests us. Does that mean we have an agenda? No, no agenda other than trying to present a comprehensive, neutral picture of PRT.

Perhaps some our edits may look like blatant promotion to you, and, admittedly, sometimes their tone may be slightly more promotional than is appropriate. It doesn't mean the edits don't have any merit at all; in most cases, when you qualify the points we are completely in agreement with what you write (as in this case). But when you mass-revert without comment (you've done it several times, even recently), it just causes frustration, and it leads us to distrust your motives. It's a vicious cycle.

So let's start from a position of trust, and assume that we're all after the same thing here: a rock solid set of articles on a very promising technology that has yet to find a place in a very tight marketplace. If we work together on it, our respective POVs will balance in a positive way and improve the articles, rather than just cause talk page wars. A Transportation Enthusiast 23:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's always good to work together. The talk pages are also a good place to test out wording that might be controversial. Stephen B Streater 07:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the trust thing is a two-way street. I came to this from outside as a neutral third party, remember - it is very important to remember that the average of enthusiastic and sceptical is not neutral (the neutral version of an article on a pseudoscience, for example, is not somewhere between scepticism and promotion, it's scepticism). Neutral is the average between promotion and detraction - halfway between ATE/Fresheneesz etc. and Avidor. Stephen's view is probably the closest to the properly Wikipedian middle ground here. As is acknowledged above, these articles have a history of - how should we put this? - somwehat uncritical editing. Enthusiasm is good, but neutrality is better. As to whether this is a "promising" technology or not, I have no idea. That sounds like begign the question to me. Were monorails promising? They were all the rage a few dacades back but are not being built in any numbers. Automated guidance of private cars is far more likely to take off than PRT, in my view, because in the end public transport, even on your own, is seen as less desirable by users (and society, guided by extensive advertising spend by auto makers) than private transport. This is, of course, a philosophical argument with no place in the articles. In the articles we talk about what has happened, not what might happen one day. Just zis Guy you know? 08:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, JzG. Neutral is not halfway between us and Avidor, because our positions are based in verifiable science, and Avidor's positions are conspiracy theories with absolutely no verifiable basis. You continue to miss the point that, in this case, the skepticism itself is pseudoscience. We've provided research papers, scientific evidence, regulatory endorsement, working prototypes. Balance that against the Avidor position, which is based on nothing but paranoid speculation. How can you continue to claim that our positions are equidistant from center? That, I believe, is the fundamental basis of the problems we've had here. JzG, start looking at the verifiable fact, and stop assuming we're just anti-Avidors. Either that, or try to find hard evidence of Avidor's theories. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your own view about the neutrality of your own view, just bear in mind that it may not be WP:NPOV :-) I return to the central theme: PRT is presented as an urban transport solution. There is no such installation, and no proof it would work as such. The only installations which exist are trials. One apparently proved to be unworkable as conceived so was changed to something else (according to your definitions). One apparently fell through because the necessary subsidies were not in place (not a good sign for a solution being sold in the US!). Another is being implemented in a car park. So, as it stands, it's an interesting but plainly minor technology which has yet to find a proven workable application. Avidor's position is, as I understand it, that such schemes should not be used as stalking horses against proven technologies. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition. Of course he states it in the language of satire and polemic, because he is a satirist and polemicist. As long as the article says, in effect, that this might be interesting but thus far it's all theory, there should be no major problem. UniMOdal is a somewhat different case, in that it is a hypothetical commercial product being pitched quite hard. We are not here to facilitate that. ULTra is different again: somebody has at least ordered it. Time will tell if it works - not technically, I'm sure the pods will move, but practically, whether the wait times will be as short as forecast, whether there will be public acceptance, that kind of thing. It's local to me, I will most likely see it one day. As a fully paid-up geek I will be in the queue to have a go. Just zis Guy you know? 15:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My view is based in scientific fact (German regulatory approval!!). Avidor's views are political and unverifiable, and in many cases blatantly untrue (fraud? hoax?). You are being ridiculous in saying they are equal, and we will continue to have these endless debates until you start seeing things for what they really are, despite your obvious affection for Avidor.

Furthermore, show me where I've objected to a reasonable qualification to an unproven assertion. Go ahead and search the histories, you will not find one. The only times I've objected are when you remove a point entirely because it doesn't meet your definition of reality, or neutrality, or "balance". A Transportation Enthusiast 16:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Theres no largescale instalations, there is however smallscale instatallations, years of testing and theorizing, and the techology is draws off of is mostly tried and true. Avidor thinks this is some sort of marketing scam, while we see merit in it. By themselves they could be equal stances from center - but Avidor has proved that he does nottake science at face value. Ther merit is in the argument - and Avidor had plenty of low blowing and frankly crazy argumentative techniques. I reaaaaaly dunwanna be compared to that guy. Fresheneesz 18:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ultra is a lot more concrete than Unimodal, which has a pretty good article now. The advantage of Ultra is that a steady stream of reports should cover every aspect of the project allowing anything controversial to be verified over time. Is there a list of outstanding points somewhere? Stephen B Streater 20:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Stephen: do you agree with JzG, that Avidor and I are equidistant from the "center" position on PRT? If so, on what do you base this assertion? I only ask because JzG seems to base a lot of his edits on this assertion (that he's "balancing" the two positions), and on the fact that you supposedly agree with him. If you do, I'd like to know why, because I don't recall any of us saying anything nearly as extreme as "PRT is a fraud and a hoax", or that PRT scientists and proponents are "fanatics" and "wackos" who are trying to kill transit at the behest of the highway industry. A Transportation Enthusiast 20:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I arrived as Avidor was leaving, so I don't know how you compare. I think if someone makes POV edits mixed in with a good edit, JzG sometimes just reverts the whole lot. If you have a particular edit of yours you think is valid, I'll give my opinion on it and am happy to improve it through discussion. I am working on only a handful of articles at a time, so have the luxury of being able to sometimes winkle out, from amongst the assumptions, some of the hidden valuable nuggets of verifiable truth. Stephen B Streater 20:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Stephen, you should be a lawyer. :-). In any event, sounds to me like it is only JzG who has made the definitive judgement that we're just two equivalently opposed sides of the argument. And frankly, I'm insulted by the insinuation, because I'm a scientist and I don't like being compared to someone who deals almost exclusively in propaganda. A Transportation Enthusiast 21:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that these guys and Avidor would disagree on principle. Avidor is a champion of sustainable transport and a big fan of traditional trolleys; PRT was used as a stalking horse to oppose reinstatement of trolley lines in his town. See Roadkill Bill for a bit of background. They see Avidor as a vehement opponent of PRT, but that's not really the case, he's a supporter of a competing (and well-proven) system. I'm afraid German regulatory approval for something which was never built in the world does not cut much ice with me, but you know this. As to whether the pro-PRT camp have said anything extreme - well, I'd say some of the claims which have been excised over the past onths have been pretty extreme. Just zis Guy you know? 21:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Bollocks. Absolute Bollocks. I challenge you to find one piece of verifiable evidence on the stalking horse stuff. It's all flat-earth level conspiracy theory. JzG, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Avidor is a vehement opponent of PRT, I can't even believe you would say otherwise. I'm beginning to think you are as much of a POV pusher as Avidor was. You continue to vigorously support a pseudo-skeptic while dismissing real science!

Go ahead, JzG, find me one Avidor claim that is one tenth as verifiable as German regulatory approval, something you freely dismiss just a few words after publicly endorsing Avidor's ridiculous claims.

BTW, how about I propose a new theory: cyclists push light rail as part of their conspiracy against highway development! Obviously I don't need any more proof than the fact that you and Avidor are cyclists who also happen to support rail! Avidor doesn't need to provide evidence, why should I? I'll just draw some cartoons, put up a web site, and write op-ed pieces for every newspaper considering rail. That's enough evidence for you, right JzG? Unbelievable what passes for true skepticism around here. A Transportation Enthusiast 00:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Also BTW, does anyone remember back when JzG actually proposed adding a cartoon about a terrorist attack on PRT to the skepticism section? He actually called it "light-hearted"! A terrorist attack on a transit system -- lighthearted! This just goes to show just how distorted his POV is, and how deep his affection for Avidor is. Obviously, his views haven't changed after all this time. Nothing like a closed minded, arrogant, trigger-happy admin. Let pseudo-skepticism reign. A Transportation Enthusiast 00:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this cartoon on the article though. Perhaps there was a discussion and consensus not to have it. Anyway, let's start looking at ULTra a bit at a time. A good place to start is the most verifiable and NPOV fact not yet here. What is that? Stephen B Streater 06:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)