Magnetic Levitation Trains

One trend in transportation that may have a major affect on the future is the Maglev (magnetic levitation) train.  This technology uses magnetism to levitate and propel the train and trains can travel at 350mph or more (Halal, 2008).  The jury is still out on whether the technology will succeed.  China has installed maglev trains successfully and other countries are considering installing them. The technology costs about $50 to $75 million per mile which is expensive and so some countries are cancelling their plans and reverting back to traditional high speed rail. The energy required to operate both traditional rail and maglev are similar since most of the energy is used to overcome air resistance.

Magnetic Levitation Train

 The forces that are in play for Maglev trains are economics and convenience.   Economically even though they are more costly to build, they are far cheaper to maintain and operate.  This is because traditional rail uses wheels with bearings that wear out and tracks that experience wear and tear.  If government and private industry is able to look beyond short term expense and concentrate on long term costs, the maglev trains will succeed economically. Convenience is an important factor on whether a technology will succeed and, in this case, the maglev trains are faster than conventional trains.  When installed in places where speed is a factor such as between two towns or a town and an airport, maglev trains will be well received by the busy public.

 

References

 

Halal, W. E. (2008). Technology's Promise. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Micro Electro-Mechanical Systems - Week 6

One area of research that may become the breakthrough technology in the near future is Micromachines, also called Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) (Halal, 2008).  These are tiny electro-mechanical devices that can perform functions in very small applications.  They are so small that they are produced using photolithography and etching to build the device in layers.  Besides the mechanical nature of the devices, they also generally contain a small microcontroller which is used to control the device and take feedback measurements.

MEMS Video

Some of the uses of MEMS technology include inertial sensors, actuators, accelerometers and gyroscopes (Sandia National Labs, 2008).  There are also biological and fluid oriented MEMS devices which can sample fluids on a micro scale.  MEMS technology can also be used to create tiny resonators and oscillators.  MEMS devices are also making breakthroughs in the field of optics.

MEMS Drive Gears





 MEMS Optical Shutter

 The future for this kind of device appears to be bright as devices become smaller and smarter.  There is speculation that some MEMS devices may be made to be smaller than a grain of sand and be able to transmit RF messages to communicate with a host (Halal, 2008). There is no reason to doubt the future of MEMS devices because its development follows the same trend as silicon devices.  One force that will determine the future of MEMS is technological.  There are limitations on MEMS capabilities just like there are limits on silicon technology.  This means that miniaturization will continue to a point and then hit a wall as it approaches atomic limits.  Another force will be economic.  Certain fields of endeavor have nearly unlimited budgets to research and develop MEMS technology including defense and to some extend medical applications. As the government budgets tighten, however, this may slow down research efforts.

 

References

Halal, W. E. (2008). Technology's Promise. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Sandia National Labs. (2008). MicroElectroMechanical Systems (MEMS). Retrieved November 5, 2012, from Sandia National Laboratories: http://www.mems.sandia.gov/

Creating a New Agora to Overcome Spreadthink and Groupthink

The Agora was a central location in ancient Greek cities where people assembled and  decisions were made.  It has been suggested that we return to the concept of coming together to make better democratic decisions in a “New Agora” (Schreibman & Christakis, 2007).  The authors combine a number of collaborative methods to overcome known problems in group thinking and even in larger settings such as in democracy as a whole.  They point to problems such as Spreadthink where individual opinions in a group are watered down to the point where the decisions that are made are not in line with what anyone in the group would actually want.  Similarly, Groupthink is the name for what can happen in group settings where group pressures cause the group to lose touch with realistic thinking and even sometimes moral judgment.  To overcome these kinds of problems the authors indicate that facilitators of groups need to institute methodologies in the decision-making process so that the group converges on a consensus that makes sense.  Thus they collect a number of proven techniques and use them in a systematic way.

The Structured Design Dialogue Process (SDDP or SDP) is one technique that is discussed which spells out a system for defining a problem space around a critical triggering question and then formulating a group solution through a carefully laid out sequence of steps as illustrated by the author of that technique (Christakis).  The steps are illustrated in the picture provided by the author:



The SDP Process

The system helps to guide a team through a decision-making exercise by providing steps that the team can follow.  They start with a “complex problem” and generate a trigger question as a group that the team must focus on.  Each team member then provides his own ideas to answer the question and the ideas are posted for all to see. In the next round each person gets to answer questions about their ideas from the other group member which forces the team to define terms and understand the perspective of the others in the group while clustering ideas into groups and then determining the relationships between the ideas.  This relationship is called a “tree of influence” where the team decides which items have influence over other items.  This then evolves into a “tree of meaning” where they now understand the problem(s) more completely and can come up with group decisions more clearly.

There are forces that prevent widespread adoption of good collaboration techniques.  First, there is an educational problem where many facilitators have been trained poorly or have not been trained at all in leadership.  This causes them to rely on behaviors that are not constructive in group thinking.  Another force that must be overcome is cultural where it is naturally counter-intuitive to allow all of the members in a group to participate in an equal amount in making contributions during structured thinking meetings.

References

Christakis, A. (n.d.). The SDP Process. Retrieved October 24, 2012, from Harness Collective Wisdom: http://www.harnessingcollectivewisdom.com/sdp_process.html

Schreibman, V., & Christakis, A. N. (2007). New Agora: New Geometry of Languaging and New Technology of Democracy: The Structured Design Dialogue Process. International Journal of Applied Systemic Studies , 15-31.