tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post3535649034426726137..comments2024-03-09T04:13:55.185-06:00Comments on Open PRT specification project: 148> Off-the-Shelf PRTDanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16303568401426087509noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-66906445314287785622018-10-02T01:47:05.118-05:002018-10-02T01:47:05.118-05:00Invest in Ripple on eToro the World's Leading ...<a href="http://forex.syntaxlinks.com/r/eToroRipple" rel="nofollow"><b>Invest in Ripple on eToro</b></a> the World's Leading Social Trading Network...<br /><br />Join millions who have already discovered better strategies for investing in Ripple...<br /><br />Learn from experienced eToro traders <b>or copy their positions automatically!</b>Bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287821785570247118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-90346638870692880682012-12-11T15:11:29.090-06:002012-12-11T15:11:29.090-06:00Yes, I agree that there is no point in knocking th...Yes, I agree that there is no point in knocking the doors of the companies prematurely. But if and when we can see a good common an open standard based path, then that approach should be proposed to the companies. The probability of different companies taking their different paths and blocking each others out e.g. by using IPR is quite high. Open standards can make PRT more successful earlier than multiple competing closed approaches can. That's why it would help to make the right moves at the right time (when the concept is mature and there is a sensible path, but no fierce competition yet) and invite companies to a path that would benefit all of them. I mean that standards do not emerge naturally by themselves but they need to be planned and driven.Juho Laatuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15072614531174046945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-29502778502497937032012-12-06T21:50:26.152-06:002012-12-06T21:50:26.152-06:00Since essentially every dimension I show is for a ...Since essentially every dimension I show is for a reason, it is all obvious and not patentable after the fact, like you said. If someone can show advantages stemming from different, proprietary methodologies, more power to them. I really have no vested interest, one way or the other, so long as the world eventually gets a really effective system up and running so it can prove its worth. Perhaps you see a downside that I am missing, but it seems to me that if they highjack the design and fail it would still be better than the design remaining unexplored in obscurity. At this point there are so many hurdles between what we have and an air-tight business model, I think we have plenty of time. Companies, after all, have a mandate to generally stay within their core competency. Until we figure an angle that is a win-win for them, there’s not a lot of point in knocking on doors. Eventually, though, actual interfaces between trades and physical subassemblies need to be established to clarify everyone’s job. That’s a point where I could certainly see some sort of open source style licensing agreement to help to ensure quality, forward compatibility, etc. I guess what I am saying is that I am wary of going to companies prematurely, just to throw out ideas to see what sticks. Odds are nothing, and you decrease the chance of future cooperation. Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16303568401426087509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-84173954802696125182012-12-02T15:01:44.598-06:002012-12-02T15:01:44.598-06:00> When it comes to standards and companies, the...> When it comes to standards and companies, the first motivation on their part is to lock out the competition. What would really defeat our purpose is if they file patents to help them do it.<br /><br />Yes, but I guess you want to get them involved one day, and therefore one can not avoid getting also their needs involved in the process one day. If they are outside the project, they may work against the project.<br /><br />I support the idea of avoiding patents in the the PRT standards. In PRT this is important also for practical reasons since the business case for widespread PRT is not easy even without the patent problems. I think your project has been excellent since it has listed so many ideas, that are as a result now outside the patentable zone.<br /><br />It is also possible to have standards bodies with rules that aim at making the standard free of patents, and that limit the use of existing patents. The rules may force all participants to offer their possible patents to others on some agreed terms. Often it is better to get companies (with interest in patents) inside the standards body rather than leave them outside (and invite them to kill the project with their patents because they see this project as competition to their own approach).<br /><br />It is not possible to avoid all patents (e.g. implementation details just outside the specs). But one can plan the IPR environment and make the best of it. In this case the target would be to find a consensus on one set of specs and a patent free(ish) policy. Companies must understand that the target of the project is to create an ecosystem where high number of participants helps in building a credible PRT system, and thereby brings hopefully lots of business to all. This means that there will be also competition, but that competition and patent fights should not take place inside the core standards that must be open and free to all (or at least to all members, or to all companies that treat your company the same way). One can also agree on reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing (maybe covering areas outside the core specs).<br /><br />My message is only that planning and timing must be right also on the IPR questions. If you expect the PRT system to become viable business some day, better start standardization and tie the companies together well before that date, and start developing and finding consensus on the specs (among all interested parties) so that they are ready when they are needed.<br /><br />So far all the PRT systems have been based on one company and proprietary specifications. Open and uniform standards would be the next step. Companies should be interested if they believe in the planned scenario.Juho Laatuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15072614531174046945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-2935984083291757482012-12-02T13:41:19.298-06:002012-12-02T13:41:19.298-06:00Juho, I am going to be writing a post on standards...Juho, I am going to be writing a post on standards shortly, so I will confine this to a couple of points that seem most relevant. When it comes to standards and companies, the first motivation on their part is to lock out the competition. What would really defeat our purpose is if they file patents to help them do it. Still worse, they might do just that and then sit on it. I think those kinds of standards (as in ISO standards) are premature anyway. This is different from trying to establish standard ways of doing things – best practice solutions. These would be the logical (and even-handed) starting point for more formal standards anyway. <br /><br />As for building a prototype, I’ve got a problem. I’ve given up my shop and don’t expect to have a new one of any consequence until I fully move to the New England. So far, only duplicate hand tools have made the journey from Texas. Other than that I’d be just the guy to do it. <br /><br />I have written quite a bit on control in the earlier posts. You might check out posts 20,75,76, 77, 98,105.<br />Bottom line - I like the “unbreakable” nature of autonomous control, but certain aspects, like traffic management need addressing more globally. Merging certainly should not be done autonomously, but to the degree it is centralized, the system becomes more fragile and inflexible. Autonomous vehicle control software, like Google’s, is really a game changer, imho, as is the proliferation of “cloud” based technologies. Remote sensors with Ethernet – based machine control is an emerging industrial technology that is getting to be “off-the-shelf” these days. The technologies are evolving so fast it’s pretty hard not to put if off! <br />Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16303568401426087509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-17643538203285807762012-12-01T10:11:33.224-06:002012-12-01T10:11:33.224-06:00Building a prototype would surely make the system ...Building a prototype would surely make the system more credible. In addition to a full scale prototype I'd be interested also on a miniature model. That could demonstrate that the system works as a whole.<br /><br />I don't know if you lean in the direction that the vehicles would operate independently, with no communication with the system and the other vehicles, or if you assume that the system would have a central role in controlling the routes and timing.<br /><br />Especially in the latter case also those "soft" parts may need standards and demos to make the system credible.<br /><br />Also software simulations would be interesting (and some have already been done).Juho Laatuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15072614531174046945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-7362049450236956572012-12-01T10:00:22.907-06:002012-12-01T10:00:22.907-06:00There are many possible tracks towards open standa...There are many possible tracks towards open standards. So far the work has been mainly your personal work with some comments from others. Another approach would be to have an open organization with open participation of individuals (I note that you already said that finding those people is not easy). Third alternative could be based on a joint effort of some key companies. And a fourth one, a project with open participation by all interested companies.<br /><br />(Since the name of your blog already assumes open standards I skip all closed, semi-closed and one company based standardization approaches.)<br /><br />My point is that if you want the standards to be implemented one day, it would be good to get all the relevant companies involved as early as possible. And assuming that you want all (this type of) PRT systems to be based on one standard, it is even more important to get the companies involved early (to find an agreement before the commercial competition starts, and to allow the participants to take a lead on the market).<br /><br />Currently there is no widespread interest among the companies. But it is possible to gradually raise their level of interest and invite them to participate or at least follow the work. Open standardization with companies with various interests would likely lead to some problems, compromises etc. but that may be needed anyway to reach the targets of open and leading standards.Juho Laatuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15072614531174046945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-62849127160666310802012-11-28T10:59:37.328-06:002012-11-28T10:59:37.328-06:00Dan The Blogger regrets the passing of the “Recent...Dan The Blogger regrets the passing of the “Recent Comments” feature. That was a 3rd party add-on, was always buggy, but now doesn’t work at all. Maybe they’ll get it fixed – who knows! Now on to the comments posted by alert readers akauppi and anonymous…<br /><br />Akauppi, I am still waiting for a good, clean-evaporating/burning wax for such a device, so that the results can be cast in metal by the “lost wax” method. They make little 3D wax printers for jewelry - maybe the same wax would work. I have friends who run CNC mills, and actually those machines change tools and remove material so fast it’s almost the same thing if the shape can be cut from a block. I must say, though, that the Makerbot would be killer for making a scale model of a PRT vehicle. <br /><br />Your BubbleMotion design strikes me as singularly well suited for the eco-tour business. Track-support base-plates could probably be designed to employ anchors that corkscrew right into the forest floor, and everything could be brought in by helicopter. Yeah, I think you need to immediately get a project going in the cloud forests of Costa Rica. And you’ll need a guy on site, right? Habla Espanol!<br /> <br />Oh yeah - the braking. Actually the bogie is always locked to one side or the other, so it really doesn’t matter if the brakes pull unevenly. The bogie can’t derail. I don’t know what I was worried about.<br /><br />Sorry, Anonymous. I don’t have a Facebook page and likely won’t get one anytime soon. Nor do I tweet. <br />I guess I just don’t want to have anything else to keep up with. The problem is that besides having a lot more going on in my life than when I started the blog, I am spending a whole lot more time designing. These renderings that I post are the result of some serious hours for what is supposed to be a “hobby.” Luckily I enjoy it! <br />Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16303568401426087509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-38470384488453530312012-11-25T12:37:25.365-06:002012-11-25T12:37:25.365-06:00Congratulations! May I recommend that you move/cop...Congratulations! May I recommend that you move/copy this work to Facebook page, to get more public traction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-35976451015911496842012-11-25T06:25:06.475-06:002012-11-25T06:25:06.475-06:00Great write, Dan!
Congratulations on reaching a c...Great write, Dan!<br /><br />Congratulations on reaching a certain step in the project! We need that - ability to show that progress has been done, and in ways where we don't need to re-question the earlier findings too much. Step, step, step ....<br /><br />On the "one-sided emergency braking" issue, just consider not doing emergency brake on switches.<br /><br />On part manufacturing/design, I think you know 3d printing? I had my first parts (spare parts for a lamp) done recently, but the technology is getting ready to serve also your needs. It allows designs that would not be manufacturable in conventional ways. Metals are available as material. MakerBot 2 Replicator is the current state-of-the-low-end I think, check it out here: https://store.makerbot.com/replicator2.html<br /><br />And thanks for the great ending on a sad story. You are right. Our cars need better sensors, and our transport planners need better alternatives.<br /><br />I discussed with a guy who'd been managing roads in Papua New Guinea recently (I didn't even know they had roads there!). What dawned to me is that with PRT one can make "roads" all through a jungle, in seeming harmony with the wild life (less maintenance, too).<br /><br />- AskoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com