bladerunner
Banned Idiot
I think so. The trains I was referring to have their own dedicated tracksand travelling at speeds close to 280-300KpH
News on China's scientific and technological development.
- Thread starter Quickie
- Start date
I think so. The trains I was referring to have their own dedicated tracksand travelling at speeds close to 280-300KpH
solarz
Brigadier
Never said it undermines "traditional railway". Quite the contrary, in fact. However, you mentioned maintaining electric railways, so I thought you might be referring to some other high-speed train.
I don't know about dedicated tracks, but the trains I was talking about can reach those speeds. It's just that the rails need to be in good conditions for that to happen, which is only a select portion of the network.
bladerunner
Banned Idiot
Then why is the Shanghai to Beijing Fast train expected to cost 221 billion remmenbi.Isn't that a lot of money for electrification and rolling stock?
I always had the impression there was dedicated tracks to handle the highspeed trains, perhaps I got it wrong.
Last edited:
The high-speed trains do have their own tracks. Although normal train can use them, tracks are engineered to handle the load. But for 240+kmh tracks they are still weight limit to 84t/21t eng/axle.
The cost of line is ¥84bn bid by 6 contractors (all China based) overall with (land and other is about ~¥100bn)
The line and all future high speed line are PDL, and passengers per day will be around 220,000. (about 1/3 of current daily flow)
I used to work for a German company that had a bid in it, but they only got to be parts vendors.
bladerunner
Banned Idiot
Thanks that clears things up for me
Engineer
Major
No.
Observation satellites around the moon, and to a lesser extend Mars, can achieve high resolution because they can orbit close to the surface. In comparison, Earth observation satellites have to orbit a lot further to avoid burning up, which reduces their achievable resolution. The atmosphere from Earth also serves to distort the image and further lower image resolution, which isn't an issue at all around the moon.
Observation satellites around the moon, and to a lesser extend Mars, can achieve high resolution because they can orbit close to the surface. In comparison, Earth observation satellites have to orbit a lot further to avoid burning up, which reduces their achievable resolution. The atmosphere from Earth also serves to distort the image and further lower image resolution, which isn't an issue at all around the moon.
Violet Oboe
Junior Member
Assuming that PLA puts a Chang'e sensor package and not the best stuff available on its latest IMINT sats is probably quite flimsy analysis. After all crisp high resolution pictures of the Moon will certainly not earn any of the space generals a well deserved promotion.
Last edited:
williamhou
Junior Member
News from the Financial Times Today：
China scientists lead world in research growth
By Clive Cookson
Published: January 25 2010 18:06 | Last updated: January 25 2010 18:06
China has experienced the strongest growth in scientific research over the past three decades of any country, according to figures compiled for the Financial Times, and the pace shows no sign of slowing.
Jonathan Adams, research evaluation director at Thomson Reuters, said China’s “awe-inspiring” growth had put it in second place to the US – and if it continues on its trajectory it will be the largest producer of scientific knowledge by 2020.
Thomson Reuters, which indexes scientific papers from 10,500 journals worldwide, analysed the performance of four emerging markets countries: Brazil, Russia, India and China, over the past 30 years.
China far outperformed every other nation, with a 64-fold increase in peer-reviewed scientific papers since 1981, with particular strength in chemistry and materials science.
“China is out on its own, far ahead of the pack,” said James Wilsdon, science policy director at the Royal Society in London. “If anything, China’s recent research performance has exceeded even the high expectations of four or five years ago, while India has not moved as fast as expected and may have missed an opportunity.”
Although its quality remains mixed, Chinese research has also become more collaborative, with almost 9 per cent of papers originating in China having at least one US-based co-author.
Brazil has also been building up a formidable research effort, particularly in agricultural and life sciences. In 1981 its output of scientific papers was one-seventh that of India; by 2008 it had almost caught up with India.
At the opposite extreme is Russia, which produced fewer research papers than Brazil or India in 2008.
Just 20 years ago, on the eve of the Soviet Union’s disintegration, Russia was a scientific superpower, carrying out more research than China, India and Brazil combined. Since then it has been left behind.
The Thomson Reuters figures show not only the “awe-inspiring” expansion of Chinese science but also a very powerful performance by Brazil, much slower growth in India and relative decline in Russia.
According to James Wilsdon, science policy director at the Royal Society in London, three main factors are driving Chinese research. First is the government’s enormous investment, with funding increases far above the rate of inflation, at all levels of the system from schools to postgraduate research.
Second is the organised flow of knowledge from basic science to commercial applications. Third is the efficient and flexible way in which China is tapping the expertise of its extensive scientific diaspora in north America and Europe, tempting back mid-career scientists with deals that allow them to spend part of the year working in the west and part in China.
Although the statistics measure papers in peer-reviewed journals that pass a threshold of respectability, “the quality [in China] is still rather mixed,” says Jonathan Adams, research evaluation director at Thomson Reuters. But it is improving, he adds: “They have some pretty good incentives to produce higher quality research in future.”
Like China, India has a large diaspora – and many scientifically trained NRIs (non-resident Indians) are returning but they go mainly into business rather research. “In India there is a very poor connection between high-tech companies and the local research base,” says Mr Wilsdon. “Even the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), the highest level institutions in the system, find it difficult to recruit top faculty.”
A symptom of this is the poor performance of India in international comparisons of university standards. The 2009 Asian University Rankings, prepared by the higher education consultancy QS, shows the top Indian institution to be IIT Bombay at number 30; 10 universities in China and Hong Kong are higher in the table.
Part of India’s academic problem may be the way red tape ties up its universities, says Ben Sowter, head of the QS intelligence unit. Another issue is that the best institutions are so overwhelmed with applications from would-be students and faculty within India that they do not cultivate the international outlook essential for world-class universities. This looks set to change as India’s human resource minister has stepped up efforts to build links with US and UK institutions.
In contrast to China, India and Russia, whose research strengths tend to be in the physical sciences, chemistry and engineering, Brazil stands out in health, life sciences, agriculture and environmental research. It is a world leader in using biofuels in auto and aero engines.
Russia produced fewer research papers than Brazil or India in 2008.
“The issue is the huge reduction in funding for research and development in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union,” says Mr Adams. “Although there has been an exodus of many of the rising stars of Russian research, there is still a great pool of talent there. It is not in the interests of the rest of the world for the exodus to continue, and we need more co-funding arrangements to help Russian research get back up to speed.”
Link to the article：
China scientists lead world in research growth
By Clive Cookson
Published: January 25 2010 18:06 | Last updated: January 25 2010 18:06
China has experienced the strongest growth in scientific research over the past three decades of any country, according to figures compiled for the Financial Times, and the pace shows no sign of slowing.
Jonathan Adams, research evaluation director at Thomson Reuters, said China’s “awe-inspiring” growth had put it in second place to the US – and if it continues on its trajectory it will be the largest producer of scientific knowledge by 2020.
Thomson Reuters, which indexes scientific papers from 10,500 journals worldwide, analysed the performance of four emerging markets countries: Brazil, Russia, India and China, over the past 30 years.
China far outperformed every other nation, with a 64-fold increase in peer-reviewed scientific papers since 1981, with particular strength in chemistry and materials science.
“China is out on its own, far ahead of the pack,” said James Wilsdon, science policy director at the Royal Society in London. “If anything, China’s recent research performance has exceeded even the high expectations of four or five years ago, while India has not moved as fast as expected and may have missed an opportunity.”
Although its quality remains mixed, Chinese research has also become more collaborative, with almost 9 per cent of papers originating in China having at least one US-based co-author.
Brazil has also been building up a formidable research effort, particularly in agricultural and life sciences. In 1981 its output of scientific papers was one-seventh that of India; by 2008 it had almost caught up with India.
At the opposite extreme is Russia, which produced fewer research papers than Brazil or India in 2008.
Just 20 years ago, on the eve of the Soviet Union’s disintegration, Russia was a scientific superpower, carrying out more research than China, India and Brazil combined. Since then it has been left behind.
The Thomson Reuters figures show not only the “awe-inspiring” expansion of Chinese science but also a very powerful performance by Brazil, much slower growth in India and relative decline in Russia.
According to James Wilsdon, science policy director at the Royal Society in London, three main factors are driving Chinese research. First is the government’s enormous investment, with funding increases far above the rate of inflation, at all levels of the system from schools to postgraduate research.
Second is the organised flow of knowledge from basic science to commercial applications. Third is the efficient and flexible way in which China is tapping the expertise of its extensive scientific diaspora in north America and Europe, tempting back mid-career scientists with deals that allow them to spend part of the year working in the west and part in China.
Although the statistics measure papers in peer-reviewed journals that pass a threshold of respectability, “the quality [in China] is still rather mixed,” says Jonathan Adams, research evaluation director at Thomson Reuters. But it is improving, he adds: “They have some pretty good incentives to produce higher quality research in future.”
Like China, India has a large diaspora – and many scientifically trained NRIs (non-resident Indians) are returning but they go mainly into business rather research. “In India there is a very poor connection between high-tech companies and the local research base,” says Mr Wilsdon. “Even the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), the highest level institutions in the system, find it difficult to recruit top faculty.”
A symptom of this is the poor performance of India in international comparisons of university standards. The 2009 Asian University Rankings, prepared by the higher education consultancy QS, shows the top Indian institution to be IIT Bombay at number 30; 10 universities in China and Hong Kong are higher in the table.
Part of India’s academic problem may be the way red tape ties up its universities, says Ben Sowter, head of the QS intelligence unit. Another issue is that the best institutions are so overwhelmed with applications from would-be students and faculty within India that they do not cultivate the international outlook essential for world-class universities. This looks set to change as India’s human resource minister has stepped up efforts to build links with US and UK institutions.
In contrast to China, India and Russia, whose research strengths tend to be in the physical sciences, chemistry and engineering, Brazil stands out in health, life sciences, agriculture and environmental research. It is a world leader in using biofuels in auto and aero engines.
Russia produced fewer research papers than Brazil or India in 2008.
“The issue is the huge reduction in funding for research and development in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union,” says Mr Adams. “Although there has been an exodus of many of the rising stars of Russian research, there is still a great pool of talent there. It is not in the interests of the rest of the world for the exodus to continue, and we need more co-funding arrangements to help Russian research get back up to speed.”
Link to the article：
vesicles
Colonel
Like mentioned in the article, the increasing number of publication in China may be misleading. Many of the journals have low impact, or poor quality. Almost all international journals have "impact factor" that indicates the quality and impact of the journal. Journals like Science/Nature/Cell should have impact factors about 20-30's while PNAS is around 9-10. Most of the top-of-the-line journals in each specific field would have impact factors between 3 and 6, depending on the size of the field. A journal like Journal of organic chemistry is THE top-of-the-line journal for organic chemists, but its impact factor is only about 3.5 while Physical Review Letters, one of the top journals in physics has an impact factor of ~6.8. So there is some variation and the impact factor is not perfect. Anyway, no matter how small the field is, anything below 3 is low impact and anything below 1.5 is NOT even considered as peer-reviewed publication by many universities. These journals would be thought as "garbage cans" that takes anything that comes its way. In biology, you don't EVER want to send anything to these journals if you expect to become a faculty one day since even one publication in one these "garbage" journals would give people the impression that you tolerate low quality work and this would seriously tarnish your reputation. And if you look at Chinese journals, most of them have impact factors way below 1. Many of the papers get published because of personal connection with the editors or bribes. According to many of my Chinese colleagues who have done research in China in recent years, an estimated 80% of the publication has fake data. Of course, I certainly don't believe the number is this high, but the integrity of these publication is definitely questionable.
The reason I'm saying this is not to criticize China's research, but to remind people not to get overly excited about some misleading info. Although the article says India falls behind in terms of number of publication, many of these publications have been in high impact international journals. So in a way, India has higher quality publications and research programs.
Last edited: