Talk:Maglev

incorrect information under Japanese linimo

"Urban-type maglevs patterned after the HSST have been constructed and demonstrated in Korea, and a Korean commercial version was made by Rotem ans is now under operation in Daejeon." This is totally incorrect. Urban maglev using electromagnetic suspension has been researched by Hyundai Heavy Industries, now spun off to Rotem, since 1988. The first urban maglev opened to public was HML-03 in 1993 during Daejeon expo. http://www.railwaygazette.com/features_view/article/2008/09/8795/urban_maglev_opportunity.html http://www.ppp.org.pk/dfc/mush_relative_lands.html Rotem completed the first prototype of the urban maglev, which recently came into service in Daejeon, in 1998. http://www.rotem.co.kr/Eng/Business/Rail/Railroad/Product/rail_car05.asp The sequent model of the Daejeon's urban maglev will be available in Incheon's Yeongjong island for 2014 Asian games. In summary, urban maglev using electromagnetic suspension is not indigenous to Nagoya's HSST linimo.

Existing systems and proposed ones

Korea also has proposed a system 2 years ago. They have build a short track for public demonstration in Daejeon which opened on 21st April 2007, but I was not able to get more information. See http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_entertainment/283379.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.147.50 (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dates in article need updating

Several dates in this article referred to in future tense have already passed. For example, "April of 2007," "January 2007," and "end of 2006." I have removed the end of 2006 date, but I don't know much about what has happened since those other dates transgressed (did they happen? who knows? the end of 2006 event did not happen). Someone should look into this and make sure all the dates are correct and up to date. -Jaardon 02:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

MDS Pros section

The section on "pros" for the MDS system seems slightly non-NPOV and self-promotional. It states that the pro is that everything can be worked out theoretically with mathematics, and doesn't require costly test models. This is ludicrous. ALL new technologies work out great on paper when the engineers design them, and then you ALWAYS build test models to test your design. There is no such thing as something that works in the real world because the mathematics behind it are 100% solid. It's possible that this section was written by someone who read the earlier section about how this has been proved mathematically but has yet to be implemented, and inferred this pro. -Jaardon 02:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

4 Historical maglev systems

In "4 Historical maglev systems", why do you delete a letter of "Japan" from a title? I think that I am caused by racial discrimination.

See my earlier response. Per WP:MoS, we were just trying to avoid having a one line section and an excessively bloated TOC. Please read the responses to your earlier questions and accusations before reposting them. MrZaius^talk 01:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is more intelligible to establish Section one of "Japan, 1980s." Just by doing so, I think in encyclopedia that it is suitable. 14:58, 29 May 2007 218.221.110.31 (utc)

Perhaps you could have done as much the first time instead of bandying about unfounded accusations of racism three times over, including your most recent edit summary. Please remember to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. MrZaius^talk 15:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not erase the history of Mglev of Japan

Commercial operation of this was actually carried out. === Tsukuba, Japan 1985 === === Vancouver, Canada 1986 === === Okazaki, Japan 1987 === === Saitama, Japan 1988 === === Yokohama, Japan 1989 ===

If you wish to restore them, do so and post an explanation for your edits. Do not simply revert to a weeks-old version of the article. Your recent edit undid the the move of the proposed systems to the seperate page now linked therein with the template:main. MrZaius^talk 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Further more, please note that every single one of those sections was preserved in the /* Mid to late 1980s */ section. One poorly worded sentence does not a section make. The five one-liners mentioned above were simply merged into a single section to prevent TOC-bloat and improve readability. MrZaius^talk 00:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not renew this

Because it is an encyclopedia, it must be correct.

• 4 Historical maglev systems
• 4.1 First patents
• 4.2 Hamburg 1979
• 4.3 Birmingham 1984?1995
• 4.4 Tsukuba, Japan 1985
• 4.5 Vancouver, Canada 1986
• 4.6 Okazaki, Japan 1987
• 4.7 Saitama, Japan 1988
• 4.8 Hamburg, Germany 1988

00:08, 15 May 2007 218.41.168.83 (UTC)

Shanghai TR

Shanghai TR was made with German technology. Why will you conceal it? 222.145.8.251 12 April 2007(UTC)

Renaming article

The naming convention for wikipedia articles is to use the term most commonly used, much as articles on people are titled after their most widely known name - eg. Buzz Aldrin who is actually called 'Edwin Eugene Aldrin, Jr'. I propose that this article is renamed Maglev train as it is what they most commonly known as. 'Magnetic levitation train' sounds clumsy and is rarely said as a term. CharlesC 16:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Good Idea, and has been done by myself 2/1/06 Medscin 16:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you renamed it "Maglev Train" not "Maglev train"; I've put in a request that it be moved once again, as "train" is not a proper noun. ProhibitOnions 15:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Philadelphia?

Can someone cite a source for the claim that there is a study for a maglev train between Philadelphia's International Airport and the Urban Core?

There is no maglev to Philadelphia International Airport. Only SEPTA Regional Rail Line R1 goes there, a conventional steel-wheled train. ProhibitOnions 15:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like I may have misread your question. My apologies. However, I would be surprised if any serious plans would exist for this, as the R1 only takes about 15 minutes to get to Center City. (A future east coast maglev might, however, pass by the airport.) ProhibitOnions 18:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Pittsburgh?

In the section presenting proposed projects, “the above-referenced Pittsburgh” project is not referenced above. Obviously some happy editor decided to make some snappy revisions. How about we un-revise and put the information back, or get rid of this Pittsburgh reference if it is no longer applicable? This is rather amateurish as it stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.62.19 (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Study Possible

Apparently the federal government has money to throw at a maglev project, and this is one of the projects UNDER CONSIDERATION... it would seem to some (this is speculative) that the feds wish to keep these dollars somewhere on the east coast, which i can not really comment on.

Anyhow, there are articles out there in the las vegas sun and review journal on the vegas-LA mag lev that mention this project in philly which one could find on google.

here are some links: www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2001/07/23/daily6.html

www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2001/01/15/daily36.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vegassteven (talk • contribs) on 01:18, 20 February 2006.

Vegassteven 05:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Next

The distinction between maglev trains and coilguns for launching payloads into space seems an artificial one, as both use linear induction motors to provide acceleration (a coilgun is only the motor part, with passive stabilization). --Christopher Thomas 03:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Should something on Maglev launch systems for space be included in this article? I came across this article on the subject: Maglev launch assist technology may enable commercial space travel. Ga2re2t (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Article is disambiguated as (transport), I would say space launch is sufficiently different to warrant going somewhere else MickMacNee (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Energy consumption

The introduction to this entry states that maglev vehicles can travel at extremely high speeds (404 mph) with "resonable" energy consumption because there is no contact between the vehicle and the track. In fact, wheel friction was never the issue. Rather, the problem is air friction, which goes up geometrically -- thus, any train running at those kinds of speeds would not have "reasonable" energy consumption (i.e. would not be commercially viable).

Furthermore, the claim that maglev allows for far faster speeds than what is possible conventional rail is debateable as TGV's have run as fast as 320mph under test conditions.

Emccaughrin

Furthermore, the claim that maglev allows for far faster speeds than what is possible conventional rail is debateable - No, it isn't, at least not in the near future. All conventional high speed rail in existence is electric. Running electric trains faster than 350 km/h is considered commercially unfeasible, because friction between the pantograph and overhead wire is so great that the wires need to be replaced after just a few runs. Maglev doesn't have that problem because it's contactless and it is already proven to run commercially at 430 km/h, not just under lab conditions. Combustion engine-powered high speed rail might achieve that, but a diesel high speed train has never been built commercially because of the enourmous weight of the engine or gas turbine required. Klafubra 09:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

First, I'm going to give yet another ObPedanticNote about the difference between polynomial and exponential progressions. Exponential progressions are "geometric". The relation between speed and energy consumption for objects moving through air is cubic (a polynomial relation). Secondly, as conventional passenger aircraft (which fly just below Mach 1) demonstrate, the energy requirements of subsonic high-speed movement through air are low enough that such speeds are still cost-effective for commercial passenger travel. Thus, I question the appropriateness of the "not reasonable" label. Thirdly, unless your train's internal mechanisms are frictionless, you'd better believe there's energy loss going on. The modes that I can think of offhand have quadratic (second-power) energy to speed relations, but the coefficients are considerably larger than those for air resistance, so the speed at which they balance is significant. --Christopher Thomas 16:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The commercial aircraft comparison is not applicable as they do not fly at Mach 1 at ground level. Air density is considerably lower at 30,000 feet. -EM

The commercial aircraft comparison is applicable, as both the force required per unit cross-sectional craft area and the energy required are still far larger than any train built to date. Commercial jetliners typically travel in excess of 900 km/hour. At 30,000 feet, the usual aircraft cruising altitude, air has about a third the density it does at sea level (0.4 kg/m^3, vs. 1.2 kg/m^3). See density of air for calculations. Given a cubic rate of energy change with speed, a sea level craft would expend the same energy travelling cube_root(1/3) * 900km/h, or about 620 km/h. The world speed record for a wheeled train is 515 km/h, and for a magnetic levitation train 581 km/h (high-speed rail). Proposed operating speeds for maglev trains are typically below 500 km/h (about half the energy requirements of aircraft-speed-equivalent trains, or (500/620)^3).

You are correct in noting that the increase in speed is not _free_ - plane tickets cost more than low-speed rail tickets - but the whole idea behind high-speed rail and maglev systems is that customers will pay a premium to be able to travel a given distance more quickly. Also note that, due to increased speed, the energy required per unit _distance_ only goes up quadratically, not cubically. --Christopher Thomas 23:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Proposed operating speeds for maglev trains are typically below 500 km/h." Not to nitpick, but this is a lot less than 404mph (I interpret "reasonable" as commercially viable). -EM

The 650km/h (404 mph) figure cited in the article is close enough to the 620 km/h figure I cite above for the energy requirements to be very close to those for aircraft. My figures for aircraft are actually a conservative underestimate - 940 km/h is a typical figure for commercial aircraft (example: boeing 747), which yields almost exactly 650 km/h as an equivalent ground speed. I am also skeptical of seeing a maglev with routine operating speeds over 500 km/h in service any time soon. High speed rail trains are capable of over 500 km/h, but are more typically run at closer to 300 km/h.--Christopher Thomas 01:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, the real world doesn't always obey back-of-the-envelope calculations. It could be rather expensive for a train operator to sustain 400mph up 4% grades, or brake/accelerate @400mph when going through curves. And while the airplane analogy might work as a rough, first-order approximation, such an analysis doesn't consider things like ground turbulance, which could be considerable. Also, HSR trains are considerably longer than a plane -- granted that improves the seats per frontal area value, but what effect does that have on overall drag? As mentioned, there are no commercial proposals to build 400mph Maglev's, thus the "reasonable" claim seems more like 'Popular Mechanics' type fodder. -EM

Going up a 4% grade requires little power consumption compared to plowing through air at 650 km/h. It's very easy to calculate exactly how much energy it takes. You're going at about 180 m/s, which means you're going _up_ at about 7 m/s. This requires 70 W/kg. By comparison, you need something along the lines of 5 MW/m^2 of frontal area to push through the air (there's a coefficient that reduces this for streamlined objects, but it'll be in the same ballpark). As for ground turbulence, part of the _point_ of maglev is that it decouples the train from much of that. For systems that are more sensitive to precision alignment, like the German system tested many years back, the track is made smooth enough for variations to be negligeable. For other systems, like the Japanese one, these constraints are relaxed due to a larger gap between the track coils and the train. As for train length, as long as the linkages between cars are sufficiently streamlined, the body of the train contributes far less to power consumption than breaking the train into two pieces would, for the same amount of cargo. There will of course be a limit to what can be pulled by one engine, but you have the same kinds of limits for conventional trains. As for your "popular science" epithet, please provide numbers to back up any claims you choose to make. I interpret lower running speeds as being selected simply because it's more cost-effective to use them (an airplane ticket costs enough that commuters may not want to use a train with the same ticket price). This is an economics issue, not a technical one.--Christopher Thomas 15:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where HSR competes against air, rail ticket prices are basically identical to air (aside from special promotional offers). You can verify this yourself by visiting any one of expedia.com, sncf.com, eurostar.com, etc (I just did this a few minutes ago for London-Paris and Paris-Nice). Thus, your ticket economics interpretation is not valid.

While it might be technically feasible to run a 400mph train, it would not be economical to do so. Hence, I stand by my claim that the energy cost would not be "reasonable" because there is no credible business plan that could justify the added cost. -EM

Your initial claim was that it was not technically feasible. Now you claim that it isn't ecomomically feasible. Please provide economic data from maglev trains proposed and currently running to back up your claim. So far, I'm seeing lots of opinion, but not much backing it up.--Christopher Thomas 19:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NOT quadratically- proportional to speed. The drag goes up as a square law, but the distance per second goes up proportionally. Hence the power/distance needed goes up proportional to speed.- (User) WolfKeeper

(Talk) 17:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me give some thoughts about the energy efficiency comparison between MAGLEV and aircraft. Unless it flies at speeds close to speed of sound, the aerodynamic drag experienced by the aircraft is dictated by the magnitude of indicated airspeed. Indicated airspeed provides a nearly direct measurement of the aerodynamic effect that ise experienced by the aircraft. Indicated airspeed can be roughly calculated by this formula: IAS = True airspeed/(1+0.00002*altitude), altitude in feet. An aircraft which is flying at 460 knots TAS, which is the norm for B737 and A320 series, the aircrafts that will most probably compete with maglev, has app. 530 - 535 km/h IAS at 30000 feet. This figure is quite close to the speeds of Maglev. Maglev runs on electricity and significant energy is lost due to transmission, whereas also some energy is used for bringing the jet fuel from petroleum refinaries to the airports and also pumping it into aircraft's fuel tank. Aircraft relies on air drag to stay airborne (to higher drag is expected); whereas Maglev also uses additional electromagnetic power to do so(however in this article cited values for lift/drag ratio of Maglev is much higher than those of aircraft). High speed maglev trains tend to be shorter and wider than steel wheel/rail high speed trains; eliminating the advantage of lower cross-sectional area over aircraft. Although not very familiar with numerical values, I think one significant advantage of Maglev over aircraft in terms of energy is the purpose for which the energy is used. Maglev train uses a high portion of energy to actually move the train, however aircraft uses a lot of energy to accelerate a HUGE air mass to a HUGE velocity to get moving. But it is questionable whether this significant energy saving is worth for the enormous construction cost associated with Maglev. Gokaydince (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the comparison of drag between aircraft and maglev doesn't fit well in this article. The same arguments about lift/drag are the same for any type of train propulsion compared to aircraft - not a special feature of maglev. The arguments about the economics between the two are valid to an extent because as trains get faster the advantage of airlines reduces - however, again this applies to all trains rather than just maglev. Wonder at the validity of these points within the frame of the article and how much space they take up when it is a general point with all high speed trains. Maybe relocate to the high speed train article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.182.0.199 (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Anon addition from 29 June 2005

Anon addition moved to the talk page until citations are provided. It would also have to be rewritten for narrative viewpoint. --Christopher Thomas 29 June 2005 15:53 (UTC)

MagLev might be built accross the Atlantic, but this would cost billions, maybe even trillions. It would go from New York to England and England to New York, in Record time of just 54 minutes, and at the speed of roughly 8000kmph which is faster than a bullet! Of course, air in the way would slow it down so in order to get to that collosal speed you would first of all have too make a vacuum. Though expensive, it is theoretically possible and if many different countries contribute to it, it could work.

Has anyone tested this in a vacuum? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.129.225.151 (talk • contribs) 18:33, October 31, 2006.

it is probably not serious. It is making the point that within the article there are claims that are not costed in the real world. Like their example of a creating a vacuum across the atlantic. RAND has not "designed" it, but just put it up as a vague idea which is its purpose.

magnetic fields and the human body

I cut this section out of the article:

The effect of a powerful magnetic field on the human body is largely unknown. For the safety of the passengers, shielding might be needed, which would add additional weight to the train. The concept is simple, but the engineering and design aspects are complex.

I thought the effects of powerful magnetic fields on the human body *are* known -- see magnetic resonance imaging.

Of course, designers may choose to add "shielding" anyway, even though it is not a health issue:

• confining more of the magnetic field to the active area (rather than letting it leak out to where the humans are) lets the system support more cargo
• avoiding erasing the magnetic stripe on credit cards.

--DavidCary 22:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Shinkansen book

Are we sure that this is not just author-spam? I don't think it belongs in the references section, since there is no way for a book published in 2006 to already be used as a reference for this article. I've removed edits from most every article in the Category:Shinkansen that new user User:CPHOOD added to, because the book seems largely irrelevant to the articles. A few were relevant, and this particular article is borderline. Neier 00:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Allan Silliphant

I propost that the entire paragraph on Allan Silliphant should be deleted. This is a quackish futurist writer. Palmerston 21:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I second this, in a general overview it seems out of place and highly unnecessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.173.128.90 (talk • contribs) on 00:45, 18 June 2006.

UniModal

I've restored UniModal again because I think the possible use of maglev in a small scale vehicle is an interesting possible use of the technology that differs significantly from the usual large scale vehicles. It's no more fanciful than the Vactrain and no more promotional than any of the other proposals listed in the article, so I don't think the reasons given for deletion outway the reasons for inclusion. --JJLatWiki 19:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Inductrack Knockoff

http://english.people.com.cn/200607/24/eng20060724_286049.html

They're planning to launch it in Dalian. I just want to bring it up to your attention; I'm not confident in my article writing ability. 70.23.128.87 06:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Accidents section - necessary?

I've removed the recently added section on accidents, because the information about accidents can just as easily be documented elsewhere. The German Transrapid crash is already well documented in the Emsland, Germany section. As for the fire in the Shanghai line, I tried to merge it into the section about Shanghai in "existing systems", but there is none (why not?), so I just removed it. We should probably create a subsection in "existing systems" for the Shanghai line, and then we can re-insert the paragraph about the fire there (though, I'm not convinced that a minor fire with no injuries really should be documented anyway - seems like it was a relatively minor event that was only newsworthy because of the uniqueness of the Shanghai line). ATren 01:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the first accident on a commercial, thus significant. The accidents section should remain. It can link to fuller details in other articles, but it should exist in this article, for the most significant accidents on Maglevs. Or you can make a List article on maglev accidents. OTherwise people won't find the information. 132.205.4.47 21:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No system in the world is perfect. Therefore an accident section is needed. Simple. Simply south 21:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but the accident description in the Transrapid section is now redundant, so I've removed it. ATren 21:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

"Maglev" means "whip" in Hebrew. Also, "rotem", the name of the Korean maglev company, means retama in Hebrew. Weird. Smajie 10:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Shanghai and others

I keep reading that Shanghai has the only commercial maglev rail between the city and its airport. Then i also read that there is something called "skytrain" which is essentially a suburban maglev system found in many cities around the world (except i think it is Bangladesh). So does that mean that there is more than one and so on? Simply south 12:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Economics

Can someone who knows the reality please clean up the economics section? It seems somewhat contradictory or at least confused: all the examples given seem incredibly expensive yet this is supposedly no more expensive than building standard transportation methods. It also needs some citations for the figures given.

How do they manage to keep birds of the Maglev tracks?

Are birds able to notice objects travelling at 450km/h or faster and avoid a collission with the Maglev train? Mieciu K 19:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Birds collide with aircraft, I don't see why the wouldn't collide with high-speed trains, which also do not levitate in the stratosphere (above the clouds) where the birds don't naturally fly anyway. 24.184.234.24 (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)LeucineZipper

Intro needs cleanup

Wording like this is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and definately doesn't belong in the introduction: Due to the lack of physical contact between the track and the vehicle, the only friction exerted is that between the vehicles and the air. If it were the case that air-resistance were only a minor form of friction, it would be appropriate to say "Consequently maglevs can potentially travel at very high speeds with reasonable energy consumption and noise levels. Systems have been proposed that operate at up to 650 km/h (404 mph), which is far faster than is practical with conventional rail transport". But this is not true. In an ordinary high speed train, most of the friction is air resistance. The body of the article doesn't even contain a single mention of "friction"! The article should find a more professional way of stating multiple points of view about the role of air resistance. Patiwat 04:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Shanghai maglev uses solar power?

The article notes: The Shanghai maglev cost US$1.2 billion to build. At US$6 per passenger and 20,000 passengers per day, it would take over 27 years just to repay the capital costs (including cost of financing), not accounting for track maintenance, salaries and electricity (see solar power). Why is there a link to the solar power article. Does the Shanghai maglev use solar power? Patiwat 05:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) In the Shanghai maglev article it should say so. If it doesn't, there might be an WP:NPOV violation with someone assuming their favorite power source is used. 15:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)LeucineZIpper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.234.24 (talk)

"Existing maglev systems" needs cleanup

I did some significant work on the technology section, but the "Existing maglev systems" section needs to be reorganized. Currently it fails to mention the Shanghai airport system, which is arguably the most notable active highspeed maglev. IMO this section should be split into three parts:

- Commercially operational systems

- Prototype and proposed systems

- Obsolete or decommissioned systems Atarr 21:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 00:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

More inaccuracies removed

Quite honestly, this entry reads like an entry from Popular Mechanics. Needs major cleanup. In the meantime, I removed some inaccuracies -- in particular, claims about higher efficiences of Maglev. The article quotes a comparison against the ICE trainset. Jane's World Railway figures for TGV show 18-22kw/passenger (depending on trainset model) at 300kph. This is comparable to maglev numbers claimed by Transrapid. When quoting data, should view anything from Transrapid as not unbiased. Also, should be careful in claims about top speed of steel wheel trainsets - SNCF is right now going for new world record with their TGV and may hit 600kph (goal is 550kph).

Jane's World Railway figures for TGV show 18-22kw/passenger (depending on trainset model) at 300kph. This is comparable to maglev numbers claimed by Transrapid.

I don't see how you get to that conclusion. 18 kW/passenger divided by 300 kph gives .06 kwH/passenger*km = 60 Wh/passenger*km. That's, well, a lot more. Maybe the claims are a bit off, but the principle is sound. I don't think anybody seriously questions the energetic efficiency of working Maglev trains - it's the extremely high capital costs that kill them.

In a similar vein, let's not go crazy with stories of the top speeds attainable by a TGV or Shinkansen train. Sure, they CAN break 300 mph, but try maintaining a commercially used track at the tolerances necessary to keep the trains safe at those speeds. - Atarr 23:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Economics, Environment sections

Comments after review of the Economics section:

1. The environmental consequences of Maglev need to be broken out of the Economics section and dealt with in a separate section, entitled "Environment".
2. In the Economics section it is only meaningful to consider comparable forms of transport, e.g. domestic inter city or suburban travel (bus, train, metro, tram/street car). Airports are not positioned along a chain like stops in a ground transit system.
3. The reader is meant to believe that maglev is more "competitive" than airports ("These costs compare competitively with airport construction"), which not only sounds like an original synthesis devised to advance an anti-aviation position, but is also easily disproved: the financial cost of a Hong Kong - New York maglev link is likely to be enormously greater than the cost of two airports and a few aircraft.
4. The comparison of passenger volumes (maglev vs airports vs highways) needs to:

   (a) be substantiated,

   (b) consider only transport along the same route.

   (c) not be driven by an environmental agenda seeking opportunities to classify transport as "clean" or "dirty" (environmental issues belong in the "Environment" section and must be NPOV - it's Wikipedia policy).

-- Abut 19:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your right that maglev doesn't compete against airports. It is intended to compete against airtravel though, as do other rapid trains. Obviously only in relatively short distance routes. Nil Einne

Why do you conceal a German technical grant?

There is the person who wants to hide that Shanghai TR was made with technology of German TR. However, then I am not precocious despite a correct encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.190.250.145 (talk • contribs) on 17:02, 1 April 2007.

Transrapid is a German project, but we don't need to clobber the reader over the head repeating that fact. Slambo (Speak) 14:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Further, using the name "Transrapid" indicates the train's design heritage. We don't need to mention that it was a German development at every instance of the word. That would be like repeatedly saying "the American designed EMD SD40" rather than just "SD40". Slambo (Speak) 19:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Clean up Japan

The Japan section sounds like it was written by a non native English speaker and needs to be reworded. I was looking through the history and it has been this way for quite awhile. I'd do it myself but I don't usually contribute to Wikipedia so I don't know the right procedures or formats. 71.202.39.11 03:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is strange to hide a German technical grant

Shanghai TR] But why do you hide a fact produced in German technology? You should write it down precisely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.145.8.251 (talk • contribs) 05:15, April 5, 2007

See above. Slambo (Speak) 11:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Split

This has way too many subsections or at least this could be cleaned up. Simply south 18:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the proposal section be made into an independent article and that this section would be mostly removed. Comments? Objections?--MrFish^{Go Fish} 15:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, as well as a brief description on the subject. Do you think the history section should be moved to its own article, with accidents included? Simply south 15:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, not a bad idea. Then this article would be mostly about what maglev trains are and what technology goes into them, plus their pros and cons. That is what was done with rail transport and history of rail transport. In any case, at least a brief overview of maglev history, accidents, and a couple proposals should be kept in this article.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 12:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As no one has objected, the proposal section has been split.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 14:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good fix, as long as everybody keeps an eye on the proposals page. Quick question: What rationale did you use to select the few that you kept in this article? It seems like a couple of them are still pretty early in the process. Might want to trim the sections down and limit the proposals that are mentioned here to the ones that have independent articles. MrZaius^talk 14:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Rationale? *blushes* I just picked the longest description from each continent and the longer of the two others. For pity's sake, change it!--MrFish^{Go Fish} 18:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, any objections to breaking "The history of maximum speed record by a trial run" out into List of maglev speed records? The significant speeds are noted in the article proper, and the chart really doesn't add much to the article. MrZaius^talk 14:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Maglev vs convential trains

Maglevs can handle high volumes of passengers per hour (comparable to airports or eight-lane highways) and do it without introducing air pollution along the right of way. Of course, the electricity has to be generated somewhere, so the overall environmental impact of a maglev system is dependent on the nature of the grid power source.

This seems confusing electric trains don't introduce air pollution along the right of way either do they? And the trains maglev is intended to compete (bullet trains etc) against are predominantly electric Nil Einne 11:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

LSM is the weakest point of Maglev, because LSM gets affected by snow, ice or severe cold easily than conventional rail. 58.138.45.196 (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

China's maglev

I've added some details on China so called domestic maglev that appears to be in development in Dalian. It supposedly uses a permanent magnet system but details are a bit sketchy. I'm not sure if it similar to the Inductrack System or if it's similar to the Southwest Jiaotong University system which also uses permanent magnets in combination with superconductors (see the article and [1])or what. This is I assume also the system also the system that has been proposed for Johor I believe. I'm not 100% sure as China also appears to have 'borrowed' Transrapid's (check article) system which is potentially what they are planning to use to extend the Shanghai line [2] but I think the Dalian one is a seperate concept (which doesn't mean they haven't borrowed from each other). As the Dalian one appears to be the one being developed for urban use it seems the more likely candidate for the Johor plan (also it seems to have a less dubious history). Nil Einne 15:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Go here or elsewhere?

would this be ok here?

In U.S. patent 1,685,035 (Sep 18, 1928) there was high speed transportation developed using a method of propellers with a guide track.

or should i put it somewhere else? J. D. Redding

Semiprotect

Got tired of having to clean up vandalism. Let's lock this page down for at least a few hours.Lilac Soul 10:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

MDS info added

Added information on the Magnetodynamic (MDS) system. Also added some other issues/limitations to the EMS and EDS cons section. I will probably add a separate MDS article, explaining this all in detail, later (info at www.amlevtrans.com). Dmitry Murashchik 14:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging Tracks

With conventional tracks, trains coming in from two different tracks can be merged. Can Maglev trains be merged or does each Maglev train require its own track? Csnewman 05:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

MAGLEVs can merge tracks, but the complexity of that depends on the type of system used. For the most part it involves having a really large, somewhat flexible section of track, with the whole huge section of track moving to match up with one of two or three other sections. The switching would obviously have to be done before the maglev gets there.

Dmitry Murashchik 14:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly the case for any which have concrete tracks shaped like the one used at Shanghai, which need the same sort of points as are used on monorails, but the concrete channel shaped tracks could have the LIM rail arranged like in a conventional railway, with much simpler moving sidewalls.

Peterborough Maglev

One of the original maglev prototypes was stored on a short length of track at Peterborough Nene Valley railway station, where it could be seen from the ECML. If anyone knows where it is now, or if it is still there, that info should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.228.82 (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The train is still there - I just saw it from the window of my ECML train! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.28.34.132 (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

budget alternative to maglev

A paste made from wet leaves significantly reduces friction and is a lot cheaper than magnets.

• that will be from the tree that produces the variety known as the 'wrongsortof' leaves, will it? The type often reported as found under British trains at this time of year. Like the 'wrongsortof' snow in the winter. 8-) Ephebi 22:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Goddard

I thought that Robert H. Goddard had something to do with theorising maglev transport? Forgive me if Im wrong, but I couldnt find him mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.188.128 (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Eric Laithwaite

XInvictusX noted the connection to Eric Laithwaite and his trials; I recall there was a maglev test vehicle on a short section of track in the heavy engineering labs in Sussex University in the early 1980s. Was this the same vehicle & track? Ephebi (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Article name

I've just noticed that the name of this article has been changed to Magnetic Levitating Train from Maglev train. Chambers dictionary notes Maglev as a good word and records the etymology of the term goes back to 1970s - I certainly recall using it in the early 80s (see above). I propose getting the article renamed back to maglev which is the normally-accepted expression, with a pointer/redirect from Magnetic Levitating Train. But unlike User:Hoodman93, rather than doing it unilaterally, I suggest that anyone with a recommendation on the pros & cons of renaming raises it here first? Ephebi 10:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• OK, in the absence of feedback to the contrary, I'll revert the article back to Maglev soon, and put in a redirect from Magnetic Levitating Train Ephebi (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I suggest Maglev (transport), as the word maglev, although in common usage for trains, is a contraction of magnetic levitation, which can be applied to other engineering and scientific uses [3]. Also, some dictionaries have no definition for maglev [4], others have multiple definitions, with train and general acronym for magnetic levitation [5]. In fact there is already a Magnetic levitation aticle, which lists maglev as an alternate name. I suggest a disambig at the top of Maglev (transport) to that article. I think even maglev 'train' is potentially dubious. MickMacNee (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw the move when it was made and considered reverting, but with all of the content disputes that I've seen over this subject, decided better of it to wait for a more reasoned discussion here. I haven't been as able to return to comment with all of the snow shoveling this week (and there's more today, more predicted for Sunday and again on Tuesday). I agree with MickMacNee on "Maglev (transport)" as a suggested name for this article for many of the same reasons. Slambo (Speak) 14:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, Maglev (transport) it is. Thanks for the suggestions Ephebi (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

'Track' vs. 'Rail'

I've been working on fixing article links to the Track (disambiguation) page, and 'track' has come up in this article, does anyone have an opinion on whether Track (maglev) [to redirect here] needs to be added to the disambig page, meaning the physical track i.e. as in railway track? (Also posted on Talk:Monorail) MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What kind of power does the Maglav Train use?

"Inductrack System (Permanent Magnet EDS) Failsafe Suspension - no power required to activate magnets." What does this mean? Will this train have to be hooked into a power supply or does it propel itself? If it has to have a power supply how much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IYIasteI2 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC) This train does not have to be hooked to a power supply all the time, think of cars- are they constantly refueling? The magnets will be hooked up to a power supply, kind of like the third rail in conventional electric trains. Inductrack, however, seems to involve magnets that have an electric current running without a potential difference *ever* applied to activate the electromagnets. In other words, a perpetual motion machine, unless you have superconducting rocks that lightning strikes (anybody *ever* see that happen?). I have seen what maglev trains should look like, but all of the Inductrack System article looks still too good to be true.24.184.234.24 (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)LeucineZipper

Commented out section moved from article

unreferenced material by Special:Contributions/68.117.99.139 (Usertalk:68.117.99.139).

The goal of using magnets to achieve high speed travel with non-contact magnetically levitated vehicles is almost a century old. In the early 1900's, Bachelet in France and Goddard in the United States discuss the possibility of using magnetically levitated vehicles for high speed transport. However, they do not propose a practical way to achieve this goal.

On August 14, 1934, Hermann Kemper of Germany receives a patent for the magnetic levitation of trains. Research continues after World War II. In the 1970s and 1980s, development, commissioning, testing and implementation of various MagLev Train systems continues in Germany by Thyssen Henschel. The Germans name their MagLev system "Transrapid".

In 1966, in the USA, James Powell and Gordon Danby propose the first practical system for magnetically levitated transport, using superconducting magnets located on moving vehicles to induce currents in normal aluminum loops on a guideway. The moving vehicles are automatically levitated and stabilized, both vertically and laterally, as they move along the guideway. The vehicles are magnetically propelled along the guideway by a small AC current in the guideway.

In 1992, the Federal Government in Germany decides to include the 300 km long superspeed MagLev system route Berlin-Hamburg in the 1992 Federal Transportation Master Plan.

In June of 1998, the US congress passes the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21). The law includes a MagLev deployment program allocating public funds for preliminary activities with regard to several projects and, later on, further funds for the design, engineering and construction of a selected project. For the fiscal years 1999 - 2001, $55 million are provided for the MagLev deployment program. An additional $950 million are budgeted for the actual construction of the first project. In November of 1999, the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology and Transrapid International sign a letter of intent to select a suitable Transrapid route in the People's Republic of China and evaluate its technical and economic feasibility.

In January of 2001, in the US, Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater selects the Pittsburgh and the Washington - Baltimore routes for detailed environmental and project planning. Later that month in China, a contract is concluded between the city of Shanghai and the industrial consortium consisting of Siemens, ThyssenKrupp, and Transrapid International to realize the Shanghai airport link. In March, the construction of the Shanghai project begins.

Currently, the original Powell-Danby MagLev inventions form the basis for the MagLev system in Japan, which is being demonstrated in Yamanashi Prefecture, Japan. Powell and Danby have subsequently developed new Maglev inventions that form the basis for their second generation M-2000 System. Other MagLev Train systems are in the planning and development stages in various cities in the US, including projects in Georgia, California and Pennsylvania.

In the future, Maglev promises to be the major new mode of transport for the 21st Century and beyond because of its energy efficiency, environmental benefits and time-saving high velocity transport. Because there is no mechanical contact between the vehicles and the guideway, speeds can be extremely high. Traveling in the atmosphere, air drag limits vehicles to speeds of about 300 - 350 mph. Traveling in low pressure tunnels, MagLev vehicles can operate at speeds of thousands of miles per hour.

The energy efficiency of Maglev transport, either in kilowatt-hours per passenger mile for personal transport, or kilowatt hours per ton-mile for freight, is much lower for MagLev than for autos, trucks, and airplanes. It is pollution free, can use renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power, and in contrast to oil and gas fueled transport, does not contribute to global warming. It is weather independent, and can carry enormous traffic loads - both people and goods - on environmentally friendly, narrow guideways. The cost of moving people and goods by MagLev will be considerably less than by the present modes of auto, truck, rail, and air.

In addition to dramatically improving transport capabilities on Earth, MagLev has the potential to greatly reduce the cost of launching payloads into space. While it presently costs $10,000 per pound to orbit payloads using rockets, the energy cost to orbit that same pound would be only 50 cents per pound, if it were magnetically accelerated to orbital velocity. As ultra high velocity magnetic launchers are developed, the cost of reaching space will come down to everyday, mass market standards.

These and additional applications such as MagLev for mining, the Water Train and others to come will guarantee MagLev an important place in transportation history.

Magnetodynamic suspension

"Although tested via computer simulation, technology is still entirely theoretical."

Given this, and due to the lack of 3rd party references, I have removed this from the article. It's rather unclear that it's truly notable, and the lack of any hardware means that it's not a technology per se.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

India section needs cleanup!

India section of proposed maglev systems needs cleanup to remove erroneous capitalisation of words that imply they are proper nouns, and cleanup of abbreviations used erroneously.

Typically, rest of document needs harmonising, with removal of improper capitalisation of first letters of words, and use of different spellings or variations of the same word (eg. kilometre/kilometer). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.162.99 (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Camber needs disambiguation

In Section 4.1 (Maglev vs. conventional trains), the word "camber" links to a disambiguation page. Can someone please make a direct link. I think the intended link is cant (road/rail), but I am not sure. User:Mateat 4:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the mention entirely, as the intended meaning of "camber" here is unclear. If the writer meant to say that "cant" (superelevation) is a problem for maglev, then a reference citation explaining why should be added. --DAJF (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Maglev vs Aircraft: unclear langauge

From the article:

Maglev vs aircraft

One advantage of maglev's higher speed would be extension of the serviceable area (3 hours radius) that can outcompete subsonic commercial aircraft.

The phase "serviceable area" is not one I hear often so it took me a while to figure out what this means. As I understand, what the article is trying to say is that maglevs would be more practical than planes for relatively medium-length trips, and that this is an improvement over conventional rail. In other words, maglev's could replace planes for short trips, like SF to LA, Chicago to Indianapolis, Boston to Washington DC, etc. Could we change this to make it clearer? Thanks! 67.36.177.56 (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The new phrase, "This is slower than aircraft, since aircraft can fly at far higher altitude where air drag is lower and thus high speeds are more readily attained." makes it seem as though the article is in favour of aircraft over maglev trains. Perhaps this sentence could be dropped from the introduction and be placed in another section, where we could also balance it out by saying that if you take into account waiting time at terminals, it could be faster overall on many shorter cross-land trips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forestrover (talk • contribs) 15:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should just explain the reason why a train is superior to a plane for a shorter trip eg. the difference between check in at an airport on the outskirts of a city vs. a platform in the CBD intergrated with the public transport system. This way they could make up their own mind on how much of an advantage a MagLev would hold and for how long in a "race".--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Significant Incidents cleanup

"The accident was caused by a security concept without tolerance for human error."

I can't understand this sentence at all. --70.142.45.253 (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

how do they transport electricity to something totally suspended in the air?

how does the train itself get electricity ? you know, for light, heat and door control etc.?--41.234.15.140 (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A variety of different solutions. Battery storage is a common concept, but a small generator can be housed (similar as to how Steam-drawn trains generated their electricity for use in the carriage formation), or the use of a small strip or pantograph could be possibly utilised. There are other concepts, such as the use of flywheels or picking up motion from below (this would add friction, but likely marginally). Kyteto (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The transrapid system uses a non contact system - they just use the propulsive magnetic field supplied by the track. It varies a bit as the train moves and the variations are used to induce currents in coils that can be tapped for power. The percentage of the propulsive power they need to tap for the levitation is just a few percent.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

MAGLEV TRAIN MAGNETIC PICTURE'

I was very dissapointed when I could not copy a picture of the site. Please see to this problem. Besides this the article was easy to understand. I found my section of research easily. Thank You --196.207.35.246 (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Maglev (transport)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article is being reviewed as part of the WikiProject Good Articles. We're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. This article was awarded GA-status back in 2006, so I will be assessing the article to ensure that it is still compliant.Pyrotec (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

GAR Assessment

The major problem with this article is the lack of in-line citations and in some places problems with the prosse. The article is currently non-compliant with WP:Verify. In particular:

• Most of the History section is unreferenced, apart from First Patents & the USA.
• Commercial operation - unreferenced.
• Technology - mostly unreferenced.
• Advantages and disadvantages - mostly unreferenced.
• Economics - has some references, but needs a clean up
• History of maximum speed record by a trial run - unreferenced.
• Existing maglev systems - mostly unreferenced.
• Under construction - referenced.
• Proposed systems several sections referenced, but not all.
• Significant incidents - unreferenced.

Hello, wanted to say I found this article interesting, and I've done what I could to properly format references and add some where I could uncover them. I'm having trouble as the detailed science part is way above my capability. Also there appears to be a huge amount of duplication, between the history section and the lists for Past, Current, and Proposed systems, it seems daft to reference them twice, what would you think of simply deleting some of this pointless duplication? It is confusing me as to no end during editing as I try to semble some sort of order out of the article, yet I don't want to do something hasty that other people may dislike or regard as vandalism(!), so any thoughts on how to straighten that part out is appreciated. Kyteto (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kyteto for adding references. I will look at the article again. I had noticed that the Birmingham airport system appeared twice, with most of the detail in History. I was not too worried about this duplication; but the article could do with another good clean up, if it is to retain GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary

The major problem with this article was lack of WP:Verification. This has now been mostly rectified, so I'm closing this GAR review and marking this article as a "GA keep". Pyrotec (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Southwest Jiaotong University, China

This subsection contains the following:

On December 31, 2000, the first crewed high-temperature superconducting maglev was tested successfully at Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China. This system is based on the principle that bulk high-temperature superconductors can be levitated or suspended stably above or below a permanent magnet. The load was over 530 kg (1166 lb) and the levitation gap over 20 mm (0.79 in). The system uses liquid nitrogen, which is very cheap, to cool the superconductor.

I'm baffled by this. I don't know whether this is a mistranslation or what, but I do know that you cannot use liquid nitrogen to cool something to a high temperature. Unfortunately there is no cite to go to for clarification, so I've added a cite needed tag.

I'm rather tempted to delete the whole section as patent nonsense, but something about it suggests that there is more to it than that. So I'll hold fire for a while and see if anybody reacts to the tag. If not, it is toast. -- Starbois (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wondering whether cooling can achieve high temperature? Say it's a winter afternoon. The temperature outside is at a maximum ('high') of, say, zero degrees Celsius. Now you put a glass of warm water outside while the temperature is as high as it ever was that day. Now will water at room temperature "cool" to the wintertime high or *warm to that temperature? 02:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)LeucineZIpper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.234.24 (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)LeucineZipper

In this case, "high temperature" is referring specifically to superconductors. A "high-temperature superconductor" is one that uses temperatures that are relatively much higher than the ones we have been using. They are still very cold "liquid nitrogen" temperatures, but "high-temperature superconductor" is a technical term used to separate new magnet technologies from the old ones. -- Dmitry Murashchik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.22.42 (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed Seattle-Vancouver paragraph

I've removed the paragraph about the "Seattle-Vancouver International Maglev." Not only was this paragraph unsourced, but after trying to find a source the most I could find was the usual idle speculation about large transit projects. Most search results for this name were Wikipedia mirrors, which is never a good sign. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Workings

Added image:

Perhaps pass it on to the guys at wikipedia's graphic lab and link new file here. 91.182.40.154 (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Maglev 2000

There is a maglev system that can take advantage of existing infrastructure. [[6]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.122.56 (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Maglev which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 20:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion closed and page moved. Talk:Maglev. --Kusunose 02:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Badly butched sentence

"While it is claimed... while..." It seems to me this contributor badly butchered a sentence to push a particular point of view. That sentence has since been moved around in the article, and temporarily appeared in two places. This edit by the same user is also pretty partisan. Maybe someone else (other than me) suffers fools gladly and has the motivation to rework this into something readable and encyclopaedic. 31.16.20.174 (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)