10th November, 2013
I have found a plan “e-Highways 2050”. First of all I thought that it was a part of “eHighway” concept of Siemens but in reality it is a plan on the Pan-European Electricity Highway System 2050 that means the planning of future electrical grids. GITS concept will require its own electrical greed and it will be the huge power consumer. I decided to send their my scenario to help them to make their plan.
This is my letter to two organizers of this plan: RTE (France) and DENA (Germany).
10th November 2013
My scenario can be very important for your
ambitious e-Highways 2050 plan because it will require a new
electrical power grid that means a new huge electric power consumer
plus this power grid can be used for power delivery to other
I have found some information about your
plans thanks to a fact that the name of your plan is “e-Highways
2050”. It is very close to the name “eHighways” that the Siemens
Corporation has given to one fragment of my concept “Global
Intelligent Transportation System” (GITS) that I sent to Siemens
three years ago.
The subject of my scenario:
The scenario of GITS concept will be
realized sooner or later because it is the concept of safe,
reliable, evolutional and environmentally friendly transport system
that will reduce the dependence from fossil fuels. You can read the
2010 version of GITS on the following page:
GITS concept is the concept of passenger and freight transport system that is expected to be used not only for intercity transportation.
I do not exclude the fossil fuels for power
generation, no, but I mean that using the electric power for
transportation will significantly reduce the consumption of fossil
fuels. Nearly 28% of them are consumed by transport (that means 28%
of greenhouse gas emissions from total human activity).
GITS system will be an off-peak electricity consumer during the night time because it is an automatic and noiseless system. It has a good chance to be used more intensively during the night time.
I read on your “e-Highway2050” site that “Scenarios on generation, storage capacities and consumption patterns will be worked out in detail, based on stakeholder consultations and in-depth work with professional associations”.
The problem is that there is no professional
association regarding the GITS concept yet. There are different
railroad professional associations but the GITS system will be their
competitor. It is an important factor. There are lots of ITS
professional associations but they are working for intelligent
adaptation of existed roads. There is no any professional
association regarding to new global transport system.
I hope to get any your comments.
01st July, 2013
I have planned
to discuss some aspects of GITS concept on the
27th Electric Vehicle Symposium (EVS27) in Barcelona
and on the 16th International IEEE Conference on
Intelligent Transportation Systems in Hague this
idea to discuss those aspects was rejected.
I got a polite reply.
I got an short e-mail from Mrs. Nocole Fontien (IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems in Hague).
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 11:49:49 +0000 [06/05/13 15:49:49 MSD
Subject: RE: IEEE-ITSC2013 / ITSC2013 Workshops/Tutorials
Program Chair has not replied.
Siemens and Scania understand my ideas but they do not like that those ideas are mine.
C'est la vie!
03rd May, 2013
I have not received any reply from Siemens nor from Scania for my e-mail of 06th April, 2013. (you can read that e-mail below)
At the same time I got a confirmation that Siemens and Scania are going to realize the GITS concept as their own idea.
I found the following comments of Nils-Gunnar Vågstedt, Scania's head of hybrid system development at the manufacturer's R&D centre:
Mr. Nils-Gunnar Vågstedt said: "We do not favour any particular solution."
However, Scania has revealed photographs showing a Scania truck equipped with a rising pantograph, similar to those used on electric trains.
And Mr. Vågstedt said nothing that this solution was suggested for GITS concept. He said nothing about GITS concept at all. Moreover, if they use "an induction system built into the road surface" for their "eHighways" I will agree immediately that this solution was not suggested in GITS concept. Fuel cells and diesel-electric hybrid power system were mentioned there but not the induction system. The GITS system will be a passenger system also and I am not sure that powerful magnetic field is safe for human beings. The passenger factor is the reason that final choice of power grid system was made for overhead wires.
I spent years before I presented the GITS concept in 2010. I can explain in details the history of each idea from GITS concept and show the way it was developed. It is not to take a someone else's idea because it is a poor history for any idea.
Mr. Nils-Gunnar Vågstedt said: "For us, it's important to establish standard interfaces, including installation, electric power levels and information protocols between the vehicle and the road system – no matter which technology is used."
I suggested the same for GITS system but some years earlier. GITS system was suggested as a GLOBAL system. It needs the standard interfaces, standard installations, standard power levels, standard information protocols, etc., and no matter which technology is used.
Let's look for the next step of Siemens and Scania in their "eHighways" project.
06th April, 2013
Last March brought some news related to GITS concept. I mean the press release of Siemens and the press release of Scania they had "launched a joint development involving integration of Siemens technology for power supply to vehicles with Scania's know-how in electrification of drive trains in HGVs and buses. This collaboration means that Sweden may be the first country in the world to have electric-powered HGVs and eHighways for commercial use."
Congratulations! Somebody has to start. It is not the way as I planned the start of GITS realization but it is better than nothing.
After I read both press releases I felt an unpleasant flavour in my mouth.
"Siemens has been working on technology for so-called eHighways for a long time, where vehicles with an electrified drive train draw power from an overhead cable via a so-called pantograph, or current collector, on the roof."
Siemens has not mentioned again that I sent them a copy of GITS concept on 12th December 2010.
I reproduce it here again:
de : email@example.com
I decided to contact the Scania people and I left a message on their site addressed to Mr. Henrik Henriksson who is the Executive Vice President and head of Scania’s sales and marketing.
I got a reply from their patent manager Mrs. Stina Sjögren Paulsson. It was short as you can see.
I have sent her my reply the same day:
Dear Mrs. Paulsson,
Thank you for your short reply. The problem is that
Siemens ignores my mails as it ignored my proposal to discuss GITS
concept that I sent to them in 2010. You can inform them that I am
open to discuss GITS concept any time.
I suggest you to discuss the GITS concept together with Siemens another time without me. Why?
1. Look for the future development of “eHighways”. You will have to steal other ideas from GITS concept step by step. It is clear now. “eHighway” concept is a deadlock as it is today. You did this first step now and this step is from GITS concept. It is a fact.
2. GITS is planned as an international project. This is the reason that instead of asking money from anybody I suggest to everybody to discuss this concept openly. Let’s unite our efforts and let’s make international standards for future global system.
Discuss it with Siemens, please. You understand that I will see the results in any case. You and Siemens can ignore me again but this letter is a new fact in the “eHighways” history.You (and Siemens) will get much more if you are fair. Unfair eRoads lead to nowhere.
With best regards,Vladimir Postnikov
I am going to send another message to Siemens today with the reference to this my post. Will they reply? We will see it in the near future.
And I did it. I sent another e-mail to another person of Siemens who signed a press release.
Dear Mrs. Caroline Rylander,
I decided to follow the advice from Mrs. Stina Sjögren Paulsson who is the patent manager of Scania and to try to contact your Siemens Corporation another time.
I make a reference to my post of 06th April 2013 that you can consider as my open letter to your organization (it is placed here: http://global-its.org/gitsforum.htm ).
Try to explain to your decision makers that they cannot ignore my name and my concept too long. It was published much before you declared your “eHighways” concept.
It is impossible to forget me and my GITS concept any more. Moreover, my SFTS concept is the future for sea transportation. It can be a good market for you products. How are you planning to enter into this future market if I am not going to forget your behavior regarding my GITS concept?
Inform your decision makers about this message, please. I do not want to be unfair to anybody. I consider myself as the open and fair person. I expect the same from others.
With best regards,
22nd December, 2012
I sent an invitation to discuss the GITS concept to the United Nations Environment Program on 10th November 2012. I wrote in my invitation that GITS concept can be a breakthrough in the environment safety and human safety. I wrote that I could not understand why environment organizations refuse to organize an open discussion and that blah-blah-blah will not make our environment better.
I got their reply.
I sent them my reply that I enclose here:
"8th December 2012
Dear Mr. Rob de Jong,
The UNEP officials have not replied me yet. It is not my first attempt to stimulate UN organizations to start the discussion of Global Transport System.
What're ya supposed to do with this thingy? I mean UN, not GITS.
17th November, 2012
News about pantographs
I am sorry that I was thinking that it is my idea to use the pantograph for automobiles. I have to adduce an excuse to Siemens Corporation that I was insisting that I had been first here. It does not matter that haul trucks is a very specific off-highway transport and their use with pantographs are very limited. The fact is the fact.
I will apologies another time if the Siemens Corporations confirms that it is their idea to use the pantographs for haul trucks. In case it is not so I will not be able to understand what is new in their eHighway project and I will continue to think that they have stolen this idea from my GITS concept that I sent them two year ago.
Dear Sirs from Siemens Corporation, I hope to get your comments still. It is not polite to ignore me if you hope to develop your eHighway project.
With best regards,
5th August, 2012
Open letter to Siemens Corporation
Worldwide road freight transport has the potential to become an exemplary model of sustainability by adopting new, innovative solutions. Its ecological footprint can be improved, for instance, with substantially reduced CO2 emissions as a result of a transition to electric mobility. This is also the conclusion reached by the ENUBA research project, in the framework of which Siemens developed the eHighway concept."
I found that Siemens Corporation has its own ENUBA research project and "eHighway" concept is a part of it. I could not get any information about this project but I got a suspicion that Siemens was going to realize the evolutional theft:
First stage is the pantograph.
Next stage is the automation.
Later are tunnels, passenger transportation (including the personal rapid transportation), and so on.
The final result can be the GITS concept under a new name like ENUBA or "eHighway".
Vladimir Postnikov is not associated with this project.
First of all it is not polite.
I know well that the Siemens Corporation is huge and it has enormous resources, but the ideas are not generated by capitals or by industrial power. The ideas are generated by people like me or like your engineers and researches. I do not consider myself inferior regarding to researchers of Siemens. It is possible to say that I have some advantages relating to most of them because I am free in my dreams and I can generate any idea as I like it and where I like it. Your researchers usually are limited by scope of a project initiated by any decision maker. If that decision maker takes the alien intellectual property he has to inform the real idea maker or other people about it. I would like to pay your attention that "eHighway" concept with human driven vehicles is a deadlock. But it looks logical in case you want to use it as the first step of evolutional intellectual theft.
What is new in your "eHighway" concept regarding the following reference?
The only difference is that you introduced the pantograph for road vehicles. But it is my idea. Too many specialists and experts know about GITS concept now. It is a question of image only. You want to be first with an idea but you are not.
If you want to be first in realization - it is another question. It means the cooperation and in this case you can be first with good image. You will be able to get your profit later after the GITS is approved by the world society.
GITS is suggested as the global system. It will require the global cooperation.
Let's start it.
We need globally approved specifications for this system if we want to make it global.
Let's discuss it.
You did your prototype of a vehicle with pantograph. It is a fact of history now like GITS concept.
Internet has changed the world and even huge companies cannot ignore the facts now. World Trade Organization has changed the world by new rules of trade. Realized GITS system is able to change the world also.
Let's make the specifications for power and dimensions of vehicles and tunnels. Next stage is to provide the future vehicle manufacturers with those specifications and to make a test track. All participants will be able to get back their investments with profit after the GITS concept is realized because the supply of equipment and vehicles to future GITS system will be licensed. I repeat it again and again that all investments have to be returned back with profit. It is not a question.
Does the image (to be one of the firsts) costs something?
Let's cooperate, please.
How are you planning to participate in SFTS program in the future after you ignored me in your "eHighway concept"?
It is possible that you do not agree with me in some questions.
Let's discuss it fairly and openly.
All your comments, as they are, will be published on the site of GITS (www.global-its.org).
I sincerely hope to get your comments.
With best regards,
22nd July, 2012 15.30
I spent some time to visit the site of Siemens today:
I am surprised. Step by step the Siemens Corp. is going to create the GITS system under the name "Siemens eHighway System". It is not good for so giant Corporation. But maybe I am mistaken and huge corporation can do everything?
Siemens, Siemens, Siemens…
Where is Vladimir Postnikov?
Who is Vladimir Postnikov?
22nd July, 2012 12.00
I got good news a week ago: Siemens tests "eHighway of the Future" vision with tram-like overhead cables.
I sent a letter to Siemens that you can read hear.
I have not got any reply from them yet but I hope to get it sooner or later.
6th May, 2012. Some news
An International Transport Forum was held on 02-04 May 2012 in Leipzig, Germany.
It was possible to watch it online this year. I was watching two sessions: Transport for Growth (Developing Connectivity) and Transport Innovation Talks.
A few comments from me:
The result of discussions could be a specification for future GITS track (including the specification for power supply). It could be possible to construct a test track on the base of that developed track specification, and to organize an invitation of world class corporations to present their vehicles for competition (according to the mentioned above specification). Future vehicle production would be licensed and competitors would be able to return their vehicles construction and manufacturing expenses later with good profit.
What we have in reality?
Who am I, and who is OECD?
25th February, 2012
I have been slightly surprised when I realized that some people consider GITS concept as the freight transport system only.
SFTS is a system of freight transportation but I have never said that land part of GITS concept is purely freight one. NO.
Sometimes I forget that I see the whole project but other people do not and they need more details to imagine something that is not real yet.
GITS land vehicles will open a new page of personal passenger transportation. These vehicles can be six meters long (shorter or longer) or any other size up to maximum length.
Passenger transportation can be divided onto three main categories:
1) Business travel;
What we need for all these travels:
1) Transport facilities;
GITS concept allows uniting both transport and lodging facilities.
You hire a GITS vehicle that will be your hotel during your journey and your stay at the destination point. It could be very interesting for short business travels with the distances less than 1000 km or for sightseeing vacation trips.
I am not able to define all possible varieties of these hotel-caravans. They can be for one person, for two, for family, with a personal car or without, they can be large buses or small ones. They suppose different variations of capacity and comfort depending on your demand. They will require new types of camping with appropriate services (cleaning, food supply, taxi, etc.).
It will be personal transport because you do not need to wait somebody or something to start or to return. You do it at the time when you need it. Yes, your lodging will not be as comfortable as in the conventional hotel but your journey will be much more comfortable in any case.
I invite universities (who are training future designers) to develop this idea. Their students are able to get a chance to demonstrate their abilities before professionals. Last year I suggested this idea to one Finnish university but I was ignored. Everybody knows better than others what he needs personally.
I insist that GITS concept is a concept of Personal Transport but any passenger transportation must be started on any new track after its safety and reliability proved by transportation of freight only for any defined period without serious problems.
28th January, 2012
I have some news that is not new. I got an e-mail from UNECE. It is interesting. They refuse to consider my concept because I am individual. Great! "Individuals … could bring in themselves through third parties."
They do not pay attention that the concept is GLOBAL. They continue to form their transport strategy ignoring GITS concept because it was suggested by individual. Nice explanation!
I enclose the e-mail from Associate Expert Ms. Dorte Schramm and my reply to her.
24th January, 2012
Dear Mr. Postnikov,
herewith we acknowledge the receipt of your message.
There was no new Information provided under agenda item 17.2. since we
already dealt with ITS under agenda item 2.3.
Pls. find all relevant Information here:
, on page 12.
I would like to use the opportunity to draw your attention to the United
Nations kick-off event on "ITS for sustainable mobility",
pls. find all Information here:
After reading your website, I would like to kindly refer to our rules,
that lay down that UNECE Member states and REIOs can participate at WP.29,
whereas countries, agencies and organizations
can participate in a consultative way. Individuals are excluded in this
sense, but could bring in themselves through third parties.
Nevertheless, as you know, UNECE works transparent, all documents are
available on our website.
Dorte Schramm (Ms.)
25th January, 2012
Dear Ms. Schramm,
Thank you for your reply. I am sorry but your reply has no information and it is written in the style "Go away, please. We know better what to do."
1) First of all I visited your first reference:
I reproduce it here as it is:
26. The secretariat presented the "UNECE roadmap on ITS - 20 global actions to
deploy ITS 2012-2020" (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/114 and WP.29-155-24), part of the
UNECE strategy package on ITS. The package consisted of:
(a) A background paper with the primary objective of sharing information
(including best practices) and raising awareness about the values that ITS
solutions could deliver;
(b) A strategic note identifying the main gaps and impediments for a broader use
and faster dissemination of ITS applications; and
(c) A roadmap outlining the areas and tasks that UNECE could undertake either
as a continuation of on-going tasks or as new initiatives.
I can understand from it that the UNECE has the strategy and nothing more. I can guess that my concept is out of UNECE strategy.
2) I visited your second reference:
United Nations kick-off actions promoting Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) for sustainable mobility on 28 February 2012
You are invited to join the United Nations kick-off debate on ITS for sustainable mobility, on 28 February 2012 from 15h00 to 18h00 at the Palais des Nations in Geneva.
High-level speakers, governments, experts and academia from all the around the world will come together to put ITS on the policy makers agenda and to contribute to the policy-segment and launch of the UNECE strategy package on ITS that is expected to mark a milestone for future United Nations activities on ITS.
I think that I am not invited to that kick-off debate and GITS concept is out of its agenda.
You are doing something but it looks like a petty scheming. It is my own opinion.
I can say you what I have expected from UN organization like UNECE Transport Division:
I expected to organize an international conference on UN initiative in order to discuss the specification for future global system. Railroads were developed by different nations and organizations and we have different tracks now that cannot be unified. Motor roads have two alternatives and we have now both of them (left and right driving). This is the result of isolated development.
If UN experts do not understand it is a problem of UN.
GITS concept (including SFTS) is a phenomenon now. You are an Associate Expert. You have to understand it. GITS concept will be living its own life. I do not exclude that it can die as concept later but it is alive now despite the fact that your organization "kick it off" today.
The reputation of UN is the reputation of UN. You are making this reputation also together with your boss Mr. Juan Ramos Garcia. Maybe you are right. Time is an honest man.
I am going to include your letter and my reply into the Forum section of GITS site.
I wish you a nice day.
03 December 2011
I have not received any comment yet that means that GITS concept is not interesting for anybody.
For last year and a half I sent my concept to different organizations and institutions but most of them have been ignoring me and only few of them replied and politely sent me anywhere.
I had some illusions about International Transport Forum and I suggested to discuss the GITS concept there. I found that a keynote speaker there in 2011 was Mr. Jeffrey Sachs who is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. I sent him GITS concept and I got confirmation from his colleagues that he received it but after I listened his speech on the 2011 International Transport Forum I understood that I lost my time trying to present my concept on that forum.
I tried to publish the concept in special editions but I received two reviews from them only. The copies of both reviews are placed in the "Neglector".
After I received the second review I wrote an article "What is applied science". You can read it here.
What is applied science?
For a long time I could not imagine that I would try to comprehend this definition again. I have considered some theories like the theory of strength of materials or the theory of machines and mechanisms as the applied sciences that were studying the subjects of human activity products made for human needs. It was clear to me at the time but now I have a doubt.
I created a concept of a global intelligent transportation system and I suggested that this concept be published for its open discussion by specialists of two "journals" who are positioning themselves as journals covering the field of study related to intelligent transportation systems (ITS).
The first reply was received from IEEE Intelligent Transportation System Magazine and stated that the concept "is not scientific" and the quality of its scientific or technical content was poor. I will come back to the reviewer's checklist of this reply below but here I would like to quote the comments received from the International Journal of ITS Research (ITS Japan) a few weeks ago. It was also very short but much more notable: "This paper describes the author's general ideas of future forms of transport. However, it does not show any evidence for these ideas, and it does not contain any scientific findings." ???
Yes, I suggested general, basic, conceptual ideas of future transport system (the concept is published on the following site: ). I agree that I suggested a concept and I suggested it for an open discussion but it was rejected for publication because it does not look scientific.
I had to admit that time that my applied science definition could be wrong and I decided to clear this subject.
I decided to start from a general definition of science and I found a more or less acceptable definition on the following site (http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html):
"According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."
Most scientific investigations use some form of the scientific method.
Science, as defined above is sometimes called pure science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of research to human needs. Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines:
- Natural sciences, the study of the natural world, and
- Social sciences, the systematic study of human behavior and society.
After I accepted the general definition of science I decided to take the next step and to find the definition of applied science. It was not so easy. I recommend an article by Sunny Y. Auyang at (http://www.creatingtechnology.org/eng/apply.htm#M4). This article is very notable from the beginning and it has some references to other publications stating that engineering (or technology) studies can also be considered a science and this applied science is not intellectually inferior to pure science. I feel that some "applied scientists" have a complex and they want to be treated "more as a partner than a child of science".
I have understood at that time, that I have needed a definition of art.
"The employment of means to accomplish some desired end; the adaptation of things in the natural world to the uses of life; the application of knowledge or power to practical purposes. …
A system of rules serving to facilitate the performance of certain actions; a system of principles and rules for attaining a desired end; method of doing well some special work; - often contradistinguished from science or speculative principles; as, the art of building or engraving; the art of war; the art of navigation. ….
The systematic application of knowledge or skill in effecting a desired result. Also, an occupation or business requiring such knowledge or skill…"
Leonardo da Vinci or Nikola Tesla - who are they? Scientists or artists?
According to the mentioned above definitions, being an engineer means to be an artist! In my case I have created a phenomenon. It is a concept yet but it is a real artificial phenomenon now. I am an artist. If somebody considers himself as a scientist he has to study this phenomenon first before he makes a verdict that this phenomenon is useful or feasible, or not useful nor feasible.
A real scientist has to use the so called "Scientific Method" that is the algorithm of any scientific study.
The main steps of Scientific Method are:
- Hypothesis ,
For my case the most interesting one is the second step - Hypothesis. The definition of this word means "a possible solution to a problem, based on knowledge and research". For engineering and technology any concept is a hypothesis and prediction. It is possible to achieve any goal by different ways and these ways will make different constructions or technologies that will differ in their effectiveness. To evaluate the effectiveness of a new construction or technology before its realization a feasibility study should be made.
Now it is time to come back to the mentioned above general comments of reviewer's checklist received from IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine (full text):
The paper addresses a transportation concept called Global Intelligent Transport System. It is formulated as a project proposal. It is based on an unmanned hybrid rail/motor vehicle, to be used on dedicated infrastructure. The concept is at a very early stage of development. A review of similar initiatives is missing (e.g. the NAHSC work, but also work in Japan), there is no analysis of the requirements, there is no solid support for the claim that the concept will reduce congestion, there is no clear scientific. In order to avoid the risk that this would be regarded as 'just another brilliant but hardly elaborated idea', the idea should first be elaborated before we could consider publication.
I confirm that the concept is based "on an unmanned hybrid rail/motor vehicle, to be used on dedicated infrastructure" and I agree that it "is at a very early stage of development".
My only question is what that reviewer expected from a concept of GLOBAL SYSTEM? I had a hope to discuss the concept with experts but I got a reply "No Discussions". O yes, it is "clear scientific"!
I was told that a "review of similar initiatives is missing". First of all I would like to note that I accepted that my concept is based on an unmanned hybrid rail/motor vehicle. It was made from them and it was made to compete with them.
As I know the NAHSC work is fully devoted to automated highway systems without "dedicated infrastructure"(!). The phrase "… but also work in Japan" looks "clearly scientific". It is possible to find a little information about two experimental Japanese automatic transport system:
I am not interested in competition with reserves that are playing another game. I prefer to compete with major players playing the same game with them. Ground part of GITS may be compared to conventional railroad system or with conventional motorway system only. No indulgences!
Let's go back to the letter from International Journal of ITS Research (ITS Japan) that was signed by its Editor in Chief Mr. Edward Chung, who has a Ph. D. from Queensland University of Technology. He wrote that my concept does not contain any scientific findings. What does he mean? I do not know. It is possible to think that his edition is publishing the scientific findings only. I would like to know what is it because (I am sorry) I have not heard anything about any significant scientific finding made by any ITS "scientists".
Cellular data communications, controllers, actuators, programs (algorithm), devices for longitudinal control (like laser distance meters or scanners), devices for lateral control in track exchange zones (that can be used in GITS concept because the idea of track exchange zone was created especially for GITS), etc. - what of the mentioned above can be considered as the scientific finding made by ITS scientist or by any "applied scientist"? All of them are products of artists. For example it is possible to consider the lamination of tunnel panels (walls and roof) for GITS with radiopaque screening. In this case the cellular data communication installed inside the tunnels should be named as the chain data communication where the clusters are placed in consecutive order. The principal is the same but the configuration is different. Can we consider this as a scientific finding? No.
Do not expect new scientific findings from GITS concept. It is assembled from components and elements that are present on the market today. This concept does not need the scientific findings at all but it is able to make a breakthrough in world transportation. It does not require any study of it made by applied scientists. It needs a feasibility study. That is all.
What have I expected from "applied" scientist? I expected to get the opinion of specialists who could find the weaknesses of concept in order to find a solution that will help to overcome those weaknesses. I expected they could suggest their own solutions for some aspects of concept. I expected to get their support.
What I got from them? Nothing. The phenomenon is not interesting for them. They were unable to find any serious blunders in the concept itself otherwise they would use them in their verdicts for sure.
I sent my GITS concept to ITS Japan journal because I hoped the Japanese applied scientists have their own opinion but I got a reply from its editor who is working for a US University. (I am sorry. I made a mistake. Mr. Edward Chung is working for Queensland University of Technology that is in Australia. Nobody paid any attention to this mistake and nobody informed me about it. I could simply correct this mistake but I leave it as it is. You can see that I am human. I can make a mistake, and I can recognize this fact, and I can apologize for this mistake.) It means that US ITS society earned indisputable authority in ITS subject. It is unlike science because the scientists must have a doubt always. I am not going to blame the USA in all human sins. I have a copy of another review (related to Submarine Freight Transportation System that is a sea part of GITS) from a Russian "applied" scientist. He wrote that the realization of SFTS project including its navigation system is feasible but it will require 10 years of R&D and several billions of dollars.
I had one question to him only: Why? You can guess that my question was ignored. I could not check what he was planning for ten years of R&D and how he was planning to spend several billion dollars.
The scientist cannot state anything that is not proved by calculations or experience that could be checked by another scientist. This is the main rule of science.
I am not going to deny the applied sciences because I do not like some so called applied scientists. The real applied sciences collect the knowledge about artificial phenomena that is needed for coming generations. I am against the scientists who are organized in a scientific sect and who are not interested in new phenomena if those phenomena do not correlate in their mind with their sectarian postulates.
It is a good idea to automate the existing transportation systems with human operated vehicles as much as possible in order to increase their safety and capacity but the engineers have to have in their mind the Boden Lake crash that I defined as the "Boden Lake limit". It means that there is a limit of automation level for human operated systems. ITS engineers (not ITS scientists) can improve transportation systems with human operated vehicles but those systems will never accept the fully automated vehicles.
The mentioned above ITS applied scientists from ITS scientific journals do not realize it. I begin to think that similar applied scientists "burned" Giordano Bruno. I am able to pardon them taking into consideration that they are humans but I do not recognize them for scientists. Admirers of a golden calf, or idealistic fanatics, or any type of sectarians cannot be scientists. Scientists must have a doubt always and they have to observe the scientific method for phenomenon studying before they state anything. Science is nothing without the hypothesis.
I am not going to state something and to leave the audience proudly. I invite ITS applied scientists to defend the position of their colleagues if they think I am not correct in my assessment of their activity.
I assume that I can be wrong. I have a doubt.
The end of article.
I am trying to understand today what is wrong with me.
I am sure that GITS is an interesting concept but GLOBAL ignoring of it suggests that something is wrong with me. It is possible that I am ill and I need a doctor instead of opponent.
I assume that human society is losing the taste of adventure. Everybody is interested in any activity that brings him money and if he does not expect to get it in the very near future he rejects that activity. It is impossible that all of them need a doctor, so I begin to think that I am ill.
OK. I am ill but I do not want to be cured (that means another time that I am ill).:-)
This is the sfatus of GITS and SFTS concepts on 03 December 2011.
© 2011 Global Intelligent Transportation System