Talk:Maglev

message: 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)
replies: text: [It doesn't say it cools something to a high temperature, even isolating the final sentence from its context. It couldn't be clearer to a native English reader. JohndanR (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southwest Jiaotong University, China 

message: This article is extremely pro-maglev to a clearly unwarranted extent (considering how few maglevs are even under construction). This is evident even by just looking at the sources it cites - for example, it cites this article solely for maglevs' power consumption (and only cites it in the lede - the increased power consumption of maglevs isn't present in the power consumption section!) and doesn't mention the many other criticisms of maglevs it has. I'm sure there are also piles and piles of reliable sources criticising maglevs it doesn't cite. Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Hi, I've rewritten the introduction. Previously it was a mess (like the rest of the article) and I've done my best with it, but if anyone has any questions or concern about what I've changed, please reply here. If I have the time/energy, I'm planning to rewrite other sections of the article as well. 219.89.31.196 (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction rewrite 

message: I've reverted recent edits which updated the train speed record to T-Flight as I don't believe the T-Flight qualifies as a train. In Railway speed record, "trains" are assumed to mean "Passenger trains", but the T-Flight vehicle appears in pictures to be about the size of a car and unable to carry passengers. Furthermore, the 623 km/h speed record was achieved on just 2km of track. This would have required acceleration/deceleration of over 1g, which in my opinion, makes the T-Flight more comparable to a rocket sled.
As a point of comparison, the previously listed speed record was achieved by the L0 Series Shinkansen while carrying passengers in a 7 car set which was at least 170m long. 219.89.31.196 (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-Flight Does Not Qualify as Train 

message: I am not convinced by the economics section of the article as it seems to aim at manipulating the reader into thinking the Maglev is the best solution for the future of train. No comparison of cost per km/trip, payload, maintenance, installation cost compare to a traditional system… 2604:3D09:A176:E300:8814:E80E:D46D:ED65 (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics