The United States is full of technological nooks and crannies, bright new ideas and old ones that have never been fully utilized, oodles of potential innovation. An idea is useless, however, unless it is widely employed, which takes both business capital as well as social and political changes.
One such nook is linear motors, or LM, a technology that has been around for over 150 years, but is employed only in a few eccentric ways, such as the People Mover at Disney World and in prototype magnetic levitation (maglev) trains.
Michael Wright, an integration and test manager at NASA, thinks far more can be done with this technology to help clean up the environment and stimulate energy independence. Specifically, he believes that major highways and commuter routes could be equipped with LM lanes for personal vehicles, greatly reducing energy use and allowing for stress-free driving.
Linear motors technology, explains Wright, “is essentially traditional motor windings laid out flat. This imparts translational force rather than rotational, with half of the motor on the car and the other half buried in the ground.” As a NASA engineer, Wright has led a nationwide team of engineers and scientists with the goal of designing a system to boost a space vehicle skyward and save on rocket fuel.
While such a version of LM technology has yet to be implemented, Wright sees perhaps greater benefits in making LM part of the U.S. transportation network. “The power would be fed through a grid,” he says. “In theory just a metal plate on a vehicle would make any vehicle compatible with the grid-fed infrastructure. A ground system would propel each vehicle and control its speed and braking.” All cars on the system would thus move at the same speed and would not be controlled by their operators while on an LM lane. Drivers would, however, be free to leave the LM lane whenever they desired.
Only major highways would be fitted with such lanes, which would greatly save on energy; for smaller roads cars would operate on their own. While on the grid, however, cars would use only a fraction of the energy otherwise expended, and accidents would be virtually impossible. And, Wright adds, LM would allow “renewable energy generation, away from coal and oil.” Once the initial investment is made, the LM grid could be powered largely by local, clean, and inexpensive electricity.
Today’s cars could easily be fitted for such a system. Wright sees even more potential for LM in conjunction with electric cars. Currently a limited driving range hampers such cars, but an LM system would allow them to travel vast distances. Electric cars are environmentally friendly and free from dependence on precarious Middle Eastern oil.
LM technology is also used in maglev trains, which glide on a frictionless surface at speeds up to 400 miles an hour. Wright believes that deploying this technology for high-speed intercity travel, in the form of a nationwide maglev system, is key to an effective intermodal transportation system.
Wright’s quest, however, is currently a lonely one. Although he works for NASA, funding for R&D of this technology is extremely limited, and Wright does not represent a larger organization. Further, LIM technology, unlike such alternatives as biofuels and hydrogen batteries, has received little national attention.
The best technology is not always what gets implemented, but that which has the right combination of business and social capital behind it. The long delays between the invention and widespread use of such inventions as the FAX and the computer mouse show a failure of vision that is often repeated. For a project to receive national attention, it needs powerful individuals and groups lobbying on its behalf. Such an effort, says Wright, “requires time, money, and experience.”
LM technology has none of these behind it. “For example,” says Wright,
”the U.S. Department of Transportation has thousands of employees working highways, but only one working on Mag Lev.” Although the initial infrastructure investment to implement LM on a broad basis would be large, the payoff would be far larger.
And now is the time to do it. “ As a consequence of the Minneapolis bridge disaster, billions of dollars has been proposed to maintain existing infrastructure,” explains Wright. While a focus on high-risk structures is important, now is the perfect opportunity to implement new, clean, green technology “as we rebuild and upgrade our existing transportation networks.”
America has long been a country of visionaries, inventors, and entrepreneurs, as well as technology geeks and geniuses, from Edison and Alexander Graham Bell, to the Wright brothers and Steve Jobs. We also used to be a nation not just of vision, but of revolutionary accomplishment, with such achievements as the Apollo program, the National Park System, and even the interstate highway system.
We know that we face unprecedented problems, and are unsure of the way. In the past this has not stopped us. But we do not today seem as determined as we once were, as able to mine through ideas and implement solutions. If we lose our nerve and our imagination, our ability to innovate on a vast scale, we have lost the future.
Ethan Goffman, Politics and Environment Correspondent:
Ethan’s column, Environmental Connections, published on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of every month to Gather Essentials: Politics, is a discussion of environmental matters from local to global, covering transportation, smart growth, environmental justice, green buildings, climate change, energy independence and other topics.
Ethan is a writer and editor based near Washington, DC
Keep up with Ethan’s other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network -- just click here http://www.egoffman.gather.com/ and select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page
You’ll find Ethan and other Politics Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other Politics experts at Politics.gather.com


Comments: 19
The fact that "Although [Wright] works for NASA, funding for R&D of this technology is extremely limited, and Wright does not represent a larger organization" is indicative of how things really work in this country - and it's a travesty.
> LM would allow "renewable energy generation, away from coal and oil."
Why would that be?
> powerful individuals and groups lobbying on its behalf.
> Such an effort, says Wright, "requires time, money, and experience."
Or a proveable idea that someone can have enough of a high
confidence level in to invest in and make money on.
Except in rare cases that they are sure that it is the "Next big thing", private enterprise is really not interested in an idea, even if it is a good idea. And anytime that government is busy licking the boots of a constituency, (corn farmers and oil companies, for example) you can expect the bad idea to carry, and the good idea that lacks a lobby to be ignored.
We need to get off this treadmill so that our efforts will actually get us going.
> can play in solving energy problems.
That would be being deliberately blind wouldn't it? Considering
the only reason we have any automobile industry at all was
that govenment regulation demanded that they have better
fuel economy .. which was over-ridden by lobbying from the
auto-industry to their own detriment?
Consider the events with the CA mandated Electric car. Sure
seems like there is a market for it. Since the market is not
efficient, and since politics does exist and is corruptible, and
the cost of entry into any of these businesses that run our
lives and can determine life or death in some cases my own
personal opinion is that there is little room for idealogues
beause they are virtually always wrong, what works, works
and sometimes a little kick in the pants works well, from whatever
sector of the economy is comes from.
never miss an opportunity to spin things -
government does not lick any boots - and this
kind of dishonest imagery that all corruption and
dishonesty exists in the government sector is
just false.
If the private sector had not got in and
manipulated the incentives for government in
their favor, politicians would be working for
the public good instead of corporation's good
or at least a reasonable balance.
The huge number of corporate incompetences
and crimes shows beyond a doubt that govenment
is not the only human effort that can get things
wrong.
The problem is that we have lots and lots of bad
ideas with more and more lobby money in a
feedback loop that is starngling the country and
the free market and the kind of argument you make
just says, remove totally public involvement.
Another important point here is that we are not fully reacting to the energy and environmental crisis that we're facing, that we don't have a process that systematically searches for and begins to implement the best solutions for our problems. We are already behind the Chinese, Japanese, and Germans in Mag Lev technology, and could probably have gone much further with using electric cars as local vehicles (for instance as a second car for a family).
I have e-mailed Michael Wright to get his reaction to some of this discussion. I will pass his comments along as I get them.
I am waiting for W to leave office so that we can finally at least institute meaningful fuel efficiency standards. At least we can do that much, if we jettison the Exxon Boot-Licker-In-Chief.
"Regarding BK's comments:
1. LM enables use of renewables by virtue of the fact that electricity is being used for propulsion vs. gas, but assumes a gradual increase in renewable energies (away from fossil fuels) for electricity generation. In fact, if the latter is not effected in the next decade or so, the point may very well be moot due to the widespread consequences of climate change.
2. Long-distance power transmission can be avoided through local power generation. Also, in the case of long-distance, high-speed systems, efficiencies of over 90% at cruising speeds are possible. Compare this with the fuel-to-work conversion efficiencies of cars.
3. There is enough laboratory data and deployed operational systems (not in the U.S.) to refute this argument. If one argues development costs vs. O&M costs, these systems beat highways and cost of individual motorized vehicles by a long shot.
mw"
chlorinated hydrocarbons
chromium
cadmium
Sulfur dioxide
MTBE
PCB
PFCs
HCFCs
HFCs
All I have do is mention the names Dupont, Standard Oil, Dow Chemical, ExxonMobil, BASF and you immediately think MONEY and POLLUTION.
I challenge anyone to think of any major company in the last 150 years that doesn't have a history of contamination, pollution or corruption.
You know, when a family member abuses the home, we don't let them say" Well, how about I spend money on R&D on a more efficient vacuum cleaner, pay your monthly car payment for you, and you just let me trash the house".
It may not be a good analogy, but that's the way I feel big business treats this country and it's people.
So, when I read this article, my first thought is......" Oh, another governmental grant given to some well-intentioned researchers whose ideas are just that.....ideas."
Forgive me for being cynical.
NASA has been and continues to be one of the main culprits.
Even your reply from Michael WRight seems to be "orthogonal" to the energy production problem - they are two separate issues.
Bypassing long distance power transmission by building more power generators is even more expensive? The huge success of automobiles has to do with the high energy density of gasoline and its pretty efficient transformation into power - it is damn hard to beat, in fact some have gone as far as saying we should have our cars be part of the power supply input to the grid.
3 - I don't think so ... maybe in a laboratory, but in real life people need flexibility. The example is that although trains are hugely efficient to transport people and goods they are not a very good technology and lose to trucks even though trucks take more energy and more people to operate.
I think the number one priority of the country should be to change
the incentives of capitalism so that it pays its share of taxes and
cleans up its own messes.
For me, my next car will be a pluggable hybrid electric, as soon
as they make economic sense. I am not going to pay more for
a car than I save in gas, that makes no sense at all.
You are so right when you say our country has survived on ingenuity and insight.
With a change in Administration and reorganizing of priorities, such as the U.S. Patent office, we could once again lead the world in innovative and promising technologies.
Great article.