Skip navigation
9comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Steven Williams

Jun 15, 2013
06:00

Member


1 |
Share via:
This is an awesome idea. I can't wait until it comes to my town.

Paul Kranz

Jun 29, 2013
11:05

Member


2 |
Share via:
I had an opportunity to talk to the inventor and see a prototype that he has been working on. Very impressive work!

Robert Dedomenico

Jul 1, 2013
06:05

Member


3 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Thanks for the support and words of confidence. I really enjoyed telling you about the project. I wish I had included in my proposal that I intend to submit a proposal to the upcoming NYSERDA PON 2781, as I have a formal letter of interest from a NY state developer of green housing projects. Perhaps I put too much detail into the remaining prototype development and testing path, and not enough explanation into the plan for introductory commercialization and subsequent expansion. The bottom line is that moving small payloads is the low hanging fruit of efficiency gain. Even if there ever were good people moving substitutes for cars, we would still benefit greatly in convenience alone by developing a small payload delivery utility.

Mike Brodzik

Jul 6, 2013
11:58

Member


4 |
Share via:
Such a great idea to reduce transportation congestion and energy use! I can see this going over in a big way in major metropolitan centers.

Robert Dedomenico

Jul 6, 2013
02:14

Member


5 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Thanks, Mike. About 85% of the 115 million US households are on a municipal water system, with an average of about 60 water customers per mile of main. This level of population density should support installation of my system, with a network of interconnecting mains between these high density areas, so that it is ultimately all tied together as one network. Then, a person might have a part shipped from Pittsburg to Philadelphia on a moments notice and wait only about 4 hours for delivery, for a cost far less than a service at that level runs today. (A courier service would charge around $400 for that today, and it wouldn't be available 24-7.) I sincerely hope to be chosen as a finalist, so that I can refine my proposal and make it more clear the exact scope of what I am proposing, and the level of detail in preparation to make it all happen that I have already undertaken. Mine is an actionable plan, that I intend to implement. I look forward to it making a positive difference in peoples' lives, and a great improvement in efficiency for this subset of the broader transportation spectrum.

2013transportationjudges 2013transportationjudges

Jul 11, 2013
06:47

Judge


6 |
Share via:
- Interesting concept - Author only focused on building the vehicle. Not clear what infrastructure is used and who is going to control the vehicles. - Author should consider the interaction with other vehicles. - How would consumers pay for goods and transport service, etc? - Requires additional guideways, which makes implementation tricky. - For wider scale penetration, more thought is required. - It is not clear how large the dispatch vehicles are. If they are too small, many trips may required, and what about their carbon footprint?

Robert Dedomenico

Jul 11, 2013
06:40

Member


7 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
It's a great concept, not just interesting. I focused primarily on the vehicles, but have not neglected the guideway. I made it clear that effectively it would be small diameter pipe. I pointed out that the remaing go nogo test was merge between vehicles. Paying for goods and transport services is so trivial an aspect that I gave it no mention. Yes, it requires infrastructure installation, that doesn't make installation tricky, just necessary. Like solar serpent doesn't require construction? For wider scale implementation, it is first necessary to begin with starter installations. More thought has been given than I had time to outline. I made it clear that these vehicles would use about two orders of magnitude less energy than an automobile. Yes, if a gallon of milk and two loaves of bread are required to be delivered it will take two vehicles. Is it better to use a 4,000 lb car? Your analysis is feeble and weak, and several days late. The proposals you did chose in this category are certainly no better. Thanks for nothing.

Robert Dedomenico

Jul 12, 2013
02:04

Member


8 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
My proposal was a rapidly modified copy of a specific design-build proposal submitted last year to the New York State Energy Research Development Authority, Program Oppurtunity Notice 2584. I ran out of time before I could make all the revisions it deserved to tailor it to this particular contest. I did all that I could to communicate this to Climatecolab. Author only focused on building the vehicle. Not clear what infrastructure is used and who is going to control the vehicles. The above statement is FALSE. The very first sentence in the description summary states: "Autonomous electric traction motor container cars in enclosed tubes with power supplied along the guideway..." It is clear from this first sentence that the infrastructure is a network of electrically energized pipes, and that the vehicles will have autonomous control, which means each individual vehicle has it's own CPU and program for executing it's route. That's what Autonomous means. It's not unclear. Author should consider the interaction with other vehicles. The above statement is not false, but the author has considered the interaction with other vehicles, and did communicate that. Under "major tasks to be accomplished," bullets six and eight specify two vehicle merge testing (which is a key interaction between any two vehicles,) and multi-vehicle testing. It should be clear from these statements that the interaction between vehicles is being considered. How would consumers pay for goods and transport service, etc? This question is trivial! It will be no different than ordering things over the internet today. Having service will be no different than paying for internet access. This was omitted because there were limits on word count and limits time, as the author found out about this competition less than two days before the deadline. It was completely unforseen that the judges would be so shortsighted as a reason to reject the proposal. Requires additional guideways, which makes implementation tricky. Because it needs to be built it is therefore unworthy of consideration? That is what the above statement is saying. How about that "Solar Serpent" finalist which requires building roofs over all the LA freeways? What about that 2011 pick... PRT? How hard is it to put in one more network of underground pipes? We do it for water, sewer, natural gas, electricity (mostly above ground, sometimes below,) and oil and gas transmission pipelines all over the country. For wider scale penetration, more thought is required. ??? Is the author being accused of not putting in more thought than was communicated in a word-limited format proposal? It is not clear how large the dispatch vehicles are. If they are too small, many trips may required, and what about their carbon footprint? How can it not be clear how large the dispatch vehicles are. While the exact specification was not mentioned, it was clearly communicated that these would be small article container carriers. The approximate range of scale is specified. Yes, in cases such as bringing home the groceries a number of individual vehicles will each carry their portion of the load. This is how the internet works... numerous small packets of information. This will work for small articles as well. And questioning their carbon footprint? I said that these vehicles would be using about 1% as much energy as a car over the same distance. I also said they were electric. Clearly they will have a miniscule carbon footprint compared to driving 4,000 lb cars to retrieve small payloads. None of the negatives offered as reasons for not selecting this proposal as a finalist can stand up to any reasonable scrutiny. Proposals selected as finalists in this category had much more serious questions raised. They were told in judges comments that they were not worthy of judges selection without fixing those issues, and those issues were reasonable! How much will it cost to build earthqake resistant roofing over all of LA's freeways? It's ludicrous. Several of the published, stated rules of this contest have not been followed verbatim by Climatecolab: 1. Three to six proposals per category to be chosen as finalist. In one category seven were chosen, in another nine were chosen. 2. Deadlines missed and moved after the fact, for proposal submission, judging, proposal modification, etc. 3. One category was completely dismissed. In light of these adjustments, and in consideration of how the comments against my proposal have been demonstrated to have serious flaws and appear capricious and arbitrary in comparison to the comments and outcomes of other proposals, how is it right to stick to a rigid declaration that "decisions of the judges are final." Are they're decisions infallible? I hereby petition Climatecolab to institute a policy of case by case review of rejected proposals on the basis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments, and to reserve the right to promote to finalist any such proposal as is deemed appropriate.

Robert Dedomenico

Sep 6, 2013
10:48

Member


9 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
I want to thank the ClimateColab judges for passing over my proposal. It pissed me off, and made me search for other contests. I found and entered the Philips Innovation Fellows competition, in which I am doing very well. There are only thirty-five contestants. My entry there has already qualified for finalist selection, (one of only two so far,) and I have been contacted by the CTO of a major corporation interested in fully funding development of my concept. It appears that ten or fewer entries will qualify by the September 30th cutoff, and five $10,000 winners will be announced from among those qualified few on October 15th. Then, one of those five will be chosen winner overall and announced October 30th. That prize is an additional $50,000, and an all expense paid trip to Philips NA headquarters in Andover, MA. None of this would have been possible had I not realized that I should actively look for contest money, and that realization only came to me in my frustration over this contest. If you would like to see the Philips contest, just go to http://www.indiegogo.com/partners/philips or Google anything about it and you will find it. Thanks again, Robert DeDomenico CargoFish - Physical Internet
ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.