German Cargo Cap freight moving system

[Jerry Schneider]

Uses tubes with a 2 meter diameter - appears to have a large capacity
and switching capability plus platoon-capable
http://www.cargocap.com/content/what-is-cargocap
Might be a useful technology to use for an initial underground tube
system application

- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans

[eph]

Jerry Roan,
If someone had a cargo moving application as described above and were
willing to bankroll a system start-up, would you be willing to adapt
TriTrack for the purpose?

Is there a way to build the guideway in sections with expansion
joints?
Would it be possible to have an external switch (like many monorail)
instead of using wheels (improve aerodynamics, no need to slow down,
simplified design)?
Can the track power the vehicle with power rails mounted below the
guideway?

This seems like such a great opportunity and can be a stepping stone
to a passenger carrying TriTrack system.

F.

On Feb 5, 2:28 pm, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
> Uses tubes with a 2 meter diameter - appears to have a large capacity

> and switching capability plus platoon-capablehttp://www.cargocap.com/content/what-is-cargocap

[Jerry Roane]

F.

Yes I would be able to adapt it to freight, bulk goods or liquids movement.  One of the patented features is having a positive control of thermal expansion to avoid the clickety clack of a traditional rail but it is not required we use every patent claim.  Freight won't care if the track makes a noise.  Our guideway could easily be track switched if you think it is necessary.  My initial plan was to use a robo-car approach in the protected merge zones for autonomous "switching" of small freight.  With the 14.5" on a side triangle you would just move a long span sideways on one end to go to a new guideway path and the angle change would be small enough that no flexible track section would be required.  A switch as you describe would be a leadscrew ball nut on a short track of its own.  With freight I don't really care if we crunch a few every billion cars or whatever failure rate such a switch might have in the field.  It would be dirt simple to design and build and it would take the complexity of robo-cars out of the start up issues.  The ZoomHydro version is very energy efficient with a tiny frontal area for up to a US ton of freight or fluids.  For bulkier freight we can get quite large if we allow the guideway to carry the ADA paratransit cars and set up the guideways for clearing the 22" stretch ADA car.  A freight-only bulk carrying car could be 6 foot in diameter and that makes it 29.4' long nose tip to tail.  In a wheels-retracted version it would take essentially the same horsepower to maintain high speed of the people cars so sharing the guideway with people versions would be compatible.  The kicker for interoperability would be the linear motor would now need to be longer to back off on the .69 G takeoff to more like .2 Gs and much longer than 1500 feet launch (2925feet ).  The following distance behind a bulk freight version would be expanded but because these can keep the high speed, disruption on the guideway would be minimal.  There is no rule that the freight versions be inter-operable with the people version but it would be a cute design parameter to make them as close as makes sense for common parts and common development effort.  I have not pushed the bulk freight version much because it diverts attention away from the car I am building now but there are no rules so I could easily switch gears and do freight first.  Both freight and passenger service will be required going forward so it would be no big deal to flip the order of which comes first.  Freight in many ways will be so much easier to get permission to build a starting network.   

I can easily add a power third rail under the guideway.  Again at the power level required to go fast you will see that battery operation will be  more reliable and less black dust everywhere but it would also be easy to add the power rail if it helps speed deployment.  It would be an insulated spacer then a copper fin sticking down.  The top of the rail would be one connection and the copper fin under the guideway would be the other.  With a standard UPS system on board it is possible that the rail could be intermittent so you don't have to put copper on every last foot of guideway but just enough to push the power needed to the car.   The extruded aluminum outer shell is 3/8" thick so easily drilled and tapped to attach the copper fin.  The top of the guideway would also get a copper wear bar that is common with the voltage of the aluminium.  

Freight on fork lift pallets seem like the obvious choice for store-bound goods.  I can see the same forklift pallet going from the factory floor to the store isle for stocking shelves.  Automating the pallet loading and unloading would be a piece of cake and even automatically filling store shelves from standard pallets would be a great job for our local robocar advocate that could add value to the store function.  

I don't want to talk too far advanced on freight and material handling but coming from the semiconductor industry where wafers are never touched by operators who sneeze and scratch their nose taking skin oil to the wafer doing material handling would be relatively simple for freight "door-to-door".  

Imagine 2 tons of freight delivered at 120 MPGe for bulky goods or one ton of liquid delivered at crazy MPGe.  

The price of diesel can do what it must and this new transportation solution would not be affected in the least.  As a store operation there is as much to be gained by a reduction in goods handling by stock boys and nearsighted fork lift drivers as in saving the fuel burned up getting the goods to the store.  I think if this entity willing to fund a starting system has interest in both ends of the supply chain they will do quite well against their competition.  In the modern age with 60,000 telephone apps each more complex than freight movement, it seems time to update freight to be more profitable with less labor.  It will reduce some low paying jobs but it will create a few high tech jobs too.  It will cut our nations' fuel bill and that will make us all richer.  

Jerry Roane

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[eph]

2 tons of freight per 2? seconds @ 120 MPGe and180 mph on a low cost,
low maintenance, all-weather guideway!

Direct electrical connection might be better for refrigerated cars,
less weight, more space, less complex and more energy efficient.

If you could sell a railroad company on the idea of FAST freight to
complement their slow, bulky freight offering, they may fund
development?

A switch fault should cause an emergency stop, not a crash, but a very
low failure rate would be acceptable (probably still less than by
air).

I would leave the automated loading aspect to another company. Some
automated pallet loaders already exist (as you know).

F.

> coming from the semiconductor industry where wafers are *never* touched by

> operators who sneeze and scratch their nose taking skin oil to the wafer
> doing material handling would be relatively simple for freight
> "door-to-door".
>
> Imagine 2 tons of freight delivered at 120 MPGe for bulky goods or one ton
> of liquid delivered at crazy MPGe.
>
> The price of diesel can do what it must and this new transportation solution
> would not be affected in the least.  As a store operation there is as much
> to be gained by a reduction in goods handling by stock boys and nearsighted
> fork lift drivers as in saving the fuel burned up getting the goods to the
> store.  I think if this entity willing to fund a starting system has
> interest in both ends of the supply chain they will do quite well against
> their competition.  In the modern age with 60,000 telephone apps each more
> complex than freight movement, it seems time to update freight to be more
> profitable with less labor.  It will reduce some low paying jobs but it will
> create a few high tech jobs too.  It will cut our nations' fuel bill and
> that will make us all richer.
>
> Jerry Roane
>

[Jerry Roane]

F.

I thought you had a specific funding source in mind.  I talked to the MoPac railroad and they were willing to rent me a stripe of their right of way but were not really interested in guideway competing for their cash cow which is freight.  I am not sure about the all-weather part but most weather.  The 2 tons version takes a beefier guideway with a strong steel rib sticking down from the triangle.  The 1 ton version keeps the petite triangle.  To feed cars every two seconds I think you need a fully functional merge zone.  It would be a trick to max out a guideway with mechanical switches but with a big enough switch yard I guess you could get to one every two seconds.  The merge zone with robo-cars running would be fairly easy to get to one car ever 2 seconds or 86,400 tons per day per guideway.  

At high speed the need for Freon based refrigeration is diminished with excellent insulation and packed with ice or dry ice depending on temperature range requirements.  At speed that is three miles per minute so a trip across a 30 mile town would not melt frozen items if there is no waiting before being put back into the freezer on the receiving end.  

Jerry Roane 

[eph]

I think there is a clear niche as expressed in the above effort but
TriTrack/ZoomHydro would be a better solution, at least for North-
American distances between cities.

I've been thinking about CN rail and Alcoa as potential investors (any
railroad or aluminum producer would do and there are lots). Rail
companies because they have the right of way and "logistics"
business. Aluminum producer because the guideways would require
significant quantities of aluminum. I don't see this as competition
for rail, it's a pure moneymaker for them. The ability to deliver
freight intercity in a few hours followed by bulk rail shipment to
deliver a continuous stream of supply. The ability to supplement
loads on demand, all from the same carrier. They already have the
ports. They already have the sales personnel and clientele. The
potential seems huge.

How much of an investment would be needed to get a test track with a
switch up and running? How long? What's the harm in pitching the
idea?


BTW, why not use aluminum as a conductor and avoid an extra supplier
and corrosion problems connecting the copper wear rail to the aluminum
guideway? Battery power may be a better option if power is
unavailable in some areas or a combination as you stated earlier where
powered sections could recharge the battery (like when it zips through
a town where power is readily available).

Ice and dry ice would require extra handling and supply stream.
Refrigeration units are simple and available. I suppose if you make
it the sender's responsibility it works, but it limits your offering a
bit. Produce is one of the things that needs to move fast and stay
cool for example.

F.

On Feb 7, 4:48 pm, Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> F.
>

> I thought you had a specific funding source in mind.  I talked to the MoPac
> railroad and they were willing to rent me a stripe of their right of way but
> were not really interested in guideway competing for their cash cow which is
> freight.  I am not sure about the all-weather part but most weather.  The 2
> tons version takes a beefier guideway with a strong steel rib sticking down
> from the triangle.  The 1 ton version keeps the petite triangle.  To feed
> cars every two seconds I think you need a fully functional merge zone.  It
> would be a trick to max out a guideway with mechanical switches but with a
> big enough switch yard I guess you could get to one every two seconds.  The
> merge zone with robo-cars running would be fairly easy to get to one car
> ever 2 seconds or 86,400 tons per day per guideway.
>
> At high speed the need for Freon based refrigeration is diminished with
> excellent insulation and packed with ice or dry ice depending on temperature
> range requirements.  At speed that is three miles per minute so a trip
> across a 30 mile town would not melt frozen items if there is no waiting
> before being put back into the freezer on the receiving end.
>
> Jerry Roane
>

[Jerry Roane]

F.

I think Alcoa would be perfect but they are such a huge corporation there is no way to talk to them.  If you know how to get to a level that could make a decision about investing in aluminum highways that would be a great contribution.  I tried a few times but got nowhere.  The amount of aluminum we are talking about would be a good sale even for such a big company.  I have not yet tried CN rail but I am up for anything.  It is just difficult to get past the protections set up to keep out the riffraff.  At some point of trying we just look like riffraff to them.  Putting elevated guideway along the edge of all their rail lines would make them a lot of money and they could compete with FedEx for speed at a rail cost.  That differential could be profits to the established rail operator.  You realize that but the trick is to get them to first hear what is possible, then the big step getting them to believe that it could be.  

The belief part is where the federal railroad administration "expert" launched his torpedo.  That guy no longer works for the taxpayers if he ever worked on behalf of the taxpayers but his next job.  Long story with some history but needless to say the expert could not believe TriTrack and he ruined any part of the railroad administration looking at advanced approaches upon his "retirement".  There could also be federal laws that would be broken if railroad companies don't run railroads as defined by the US Dot railroad administration.  If you take a critical eye to railroad operations they are somewhere back in the 1950s.  To them modernization is to put a lo-jack on the boxcars so they can find them.  The railroads are defined as the two steel rail versions on ties.  Guideway does not legally qualify as rail according to the head of the railroad administration I talked to at the high speed rail conference.  That puts us in uneasy legal territory since the feds feed money to railroads on occasion for track upkeep.  

Jerry Roane 

[eph]

I can see that getting to the top can be a problem and connections
would help. It also helps to have a credible proposal/plan ready to
go if the opportunity arises.

Alcoa has a wheel and transportation subsidiary - they make aluminum
wheels for cars and trucks and other parts. Posco (the steel company)
invested in Vectus. It isn't a stretch to think there is a
possibility that an aluminum company would invest. The payoff could
be substantial.

Railways don't have to compete with fedex, they can carry freight for
them, just like any other freight (unless there is a connection I'm
missing). It's much easier than trying to set up a new competing
business especially if you start with only one line along a busy
corridor.

Railway rights of way were used for fibre-optics and that created a
class action suit. AFAIK, fibre-optics still run along rail ROW. So
they aren't closed off to ideas, especially money making ideas. I
think there is a good fit there too.

The fact that they are huge corporations means they have the money to
invest in a potentially game-changing but somewhat risky venture.
Maybe they only enter later on the game, I don't know. Alcoa might
invest in building the prototype and the rail companies would be
clients (exclusive clients or special rights might get them investing
early). If you could get both ends to agree, you'd have a seller and
buyer ready to do the deal. I guess Alcoa would buy shares in
ZoomHydro and contribute money and material and the payoff comes when
the rail companies buy the system. The rail companies make money by
selling FAST freight service.

Creative people find ways to make things happen. Just posting this
idea might open doors - who knows.

F.

On Feb 7, 10:59 pm, Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> F.
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jack Slade]

I don't think railroads are a possible source of funding. I have never heard of a rail Company that does any R & D funding either, except I imagine they do give money to Universities in return for the some of the projects that are done there.

I once had a sort of verbal agreement from a small Steel Company (Retail) to take a look at what I planned, and possibly build a test syetem if it could be done within my 10 million buck estimate, but that was a long time ago, before I had even built my bench model. The Company changed hands, and I never did get to meet the new owners. From this, I suggest that smaller Companies that are looking to increase their sales are much easier to meet, and deal with, than the large Corporations.

Some of Alcoa's retail outlets are multi-million dollar businesses, but you would have to make an agreement that they are your supplier, and own a piece of the action.

Jack Slade

--- On Tue, 2/8/11, Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote:

[eph]

"Alcoa annually invests approximately 1% of its revenues in R&D, which
is helping to build a foundation for Alcoa’s future."
http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/innovation/info_page/home.asp

F.

On Feb 8, 3:45 am, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> I don't think railroads are a possible source of funding. I have never heard of a rail Company that does any R & D funding either, except I imagine they do give money to Universities in return for the some of the projects that are done there.
>
> I once had a sort of verbal agreement from a small Steel Company (Retail) to take a look at what I planned, and possibly build a test syetem if it could be done within my 10 million buck estimate, but that was a long time ago, before I had even built my bench model. The Company changed hands, and I never did get to meet the new owners. From this, I suggest that smaller Companies that are looking to increase their sales are much easier to meet, and deal with, than the large Corporations.
>
> Some of Alcoa's retail outlets are multi-million dollar businesses, but you would have to make an agreement that they are your supplier, and own a piece of the action.
>
> Jack Slade
>

> --- On Tue, 2/8/11, Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > at 5:04 PM, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jerry Roane]

F.

I have several business plans laying around.  I usually write a fresh one each time there is an opportunity.  So much changes with time that data gets stale very quickly.  Also each investment entity has such diverse goals you cannot make a generic presentation for a bigger funding request.  I have noticed that the age bracket of investors tend to be older and so you have to play to their experience and past decisions they have made.   We have to be respectful of how the human brain functions generally and adjust the presentation to the individuals in the room.  The most important thing to scope out is what time horizon are they thinking about.  The other part is how fast have they developed things and that will be their measure against what we propose.  If we give a time table that is too fast or too slow from their experience it will get a huge discount and then every other word out will get the same or more discount.  If we ask for too little investment in their eyes then again in their eyes we will be discounted regardless of data of quotes or facts.  It takes a little bit of two way communications to get to where you can write a proper proposal.  I have to get a feel for the reader or the probability of stepping on a mental land mine is too great because of the number of land mines in a network solution.  

The first step will be to get an inside contact at a high enough level to make such an investment decision.  Once that individual of committee is identified then we need to call and chat to get inside their motivations and key objectives.  Once we have a direction I can bang out a proposal and dog and pony show in about a week of intense cut and paste of my previous presentations.  

If you are able to get to the right people at Alcoa that would be fantastic.  

One comment about rail competition-- Railroads sell freight ton-miles with a bulk factor tacked on at an insanely low price per ton.  Fedex sells dependable service that you can count on being there the next day.  Fedex per ton is incredibly expensive.  If rail was able to deliver tons over night where it was never a question that it would be there overnight they could get a lot more money per ton.  I paid $40 to get my proposal to Lubbock to be turned down.  It weighed about 4 pounds so on a per ton basis I paid $20,000 per ton to Fedex to be sure the papers got there and I got my date stamp for a valid bid.  Of course it should have gone as an email attachment for free because it was all just data but the government purchasing system is back in the 1950s and they required that I make three copies before sending.  Like they couldn't turn it down off of a digital version and I save the 40 bucks and the Earth saves the CO2.  16 hours across the country.  If the railroad could deliver overnight or same day for 1/2 the price of Fedex they would make a lot of money and Fedex would be in trouble.  So far railroads are not at all competition for Fedex.  With higher speeds guideway would crush air travel for overnight shipments in all measures.  Energy, pollution, dependability (airport weather delays) cost, smooth handling, barometric pressure extremes.  the list goes on.  

Jerry Roane 

--

[Jack Slade]

I looked at the type of grants they  give.  It is usually to Academic Institutes, for such purposes as climate investigations.  Some are industry-related...new product developement, mining techniques, etc. I suppose the material used for new stations might interest them, even if the rest of the system uses little of their product.   Starting discussions with any large outfit is often better if you have an acquaintance with somebody inside, who can steer you to the right people.  Arousing curiosity is more effective than putting a pile of documentation in front of somebody who is not interested.   Jack Slade   --- On Tue, 2/8/11, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group. To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[eph]

I read the investments too and agree, though they may not publicize
some of their smaller, more risky investments until they have a
business and a name. Or maybe it's just too soon for them to invest,
though Posco seems to have been on board from early on. I was
thinking specifically about TriTrack in this case with it's aluminum
guideway. That is a distinctive feature that can be exploited. I
imagine the cars' chassis could also be of aluminum making this
project attractive to Aluminum producers.

Of course, an insider would be ideal, but failing that, do you just
give up?

Jerry Roane,
I imagine a more general pitch can be made without much insight into
the target audience by setting ranges like: [1 million investment and
10 years] to [$15 million and 1 year] to get to stage 1... It would
at least give the reader a sense of whether this can work or not
within their personal expectations. I imagine aluminum producer would
want to know how much aluminum per km of guideway and per vehicle
(again, can be a range). Railroad owners might want to know if track-
side installation is feasible (Can the operation be conducted from a
flatbed railcar for example?)

I feel this TriTrack Fast Freight idea has so much potential it
deserves its own web space, separate from the passenger version to
avoid confusion.
- 180 mph freight delivery
- High energy efficiency.
- 1800 ton per hour potential
- Fully Automated
- Low cost, low maintenance, weatherproof guideway

Distinguishing features:
- Aluminum guideway
- Aerodynamic vehicle shape
- Triangular guideway
- LIM assisted drive.

As for FedEx, I think you would still pay the same amount but FedEx
profits and railroad profits would increase and you would profit by
selling, installing and maybe running and maintaining TriTrack.

F.

On Feb 8, 1:05 pm, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> I looked at the type of grants they  give.  It is usually to Academic Institutes, for such purposes as climate investigations.  Some are industry-related...new product developement, mining techniques, etc. I suppose the material used for new stations might interest them, even if the rest of the system uses little of their product.
>  
> Starting discussions with any large outfit is often better if you have an acquaintance with somebody inside, who can steer you to the right people.  Arousing curiosity is more effective than putting a pile of documentation in front of somebody who is not interested.
>  
> Jack Slade
>  
>

> --- On Tue, 2/8/11, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[eph]

Sorry, just checked the term "fast freight" and I get trucks.

I guess Brad has the right terminology, it is High-Speed Freight, so
TriTrack High-Speed Freight.

F.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jerry Roane]

F.

The current extruded design of the guideway is 10 pounds of aluminum per foot.  The eventual guideway goal is half that wall thickness or 5 pounds per foot.  We propose a grid system for the biggest 30 population centers in America with 2,000 miles of guideway per city average.  The extruded material for urban movement would be 158,400 tons of aluminum for the urban areas.  City to city connections would be bracketed by the number of Interstate highway miles of 65,000.  To build two direction guideway to crisscross the nation would take 343,200 tons of aluminum.  So Alcoa would be looking at a total of 1/2 million tons for a starting grid as a gross order of magnitude number.  As a grounding number their Massena plant in New York would be a year and a half of production from that one plant bringing in 1/2 billion dollars and 1,100 jobs to the community there.  The reduction in aluminum in trolleys, buses and airplanes would offset this number some.  Once guideway is in place infill can keep the aluminum flowing for quite a while.  Other countries will also want aluminum guideway so Alcoa could be a leader if they chose that path.  Each car now has about 180 pounds of aluminum and less than 40 pounds of steel.  With more elaborate tooling and coring and ribs I could get that aluminum weight down another 20% pretty easy.  

The third patent describes the TriTracker which is the machine that produces guideway and leaves the rolled-to-shape guideway in its wake.  This could easily roll up onto a standard rail car and produce guideway on the old telephone right of way that the railroad had before the phone company grew.  The rail right of way has to be clear of combustible material because of sparks off the rails setting grass fires.  This makes the right of way plenty wide for a TriTrack pole on the edge of the property.  

I think the right person at Alcoa could make this happen very quickly.  Finding that person and being allowed to talk to that person is the trick.  

Jerry Roane   

> ...
>
> read more »

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

[eph]

I get about 15 metric tons per km @ 10 pounds/foot.
I get $33,000 per km @ $1/pound, more if extrusion process is part of
the aluminum supplier's business.
A (2-way) 600 km Toronto-Montreal intercity link would bring in $40
million in aluminum sales for the guideway.
6.5 vehicles per km, 7500 vehicles (max.), maybe another $1 million.

Considering the size of pallets, American ones are 48"x40", it may be
better to go with a larger 2 ton version of TriTrack, so the beefier
guideway and more aluminum. Space for 3 or four skids would maximize
bulk vs weight trade-offs and aerodynamic resistance (more freight per
vehicle).

Initially at least, I would expect a simpler approach of placing
prefabricated beams onto posts could be used. This would avoid the
R&D, time and capital expense of constructing the TriTracker. Also,
the track would not be tied up as long as it would be with an in-place
extrusion machine.

F.

On Feb 9, 12:11 pm, Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> F.
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jerry Roane]

F.

The aluminum is the one time bendable concrete form and serves as the smooth rolling surface.  The strength of the beam is 200,000 psi steel rods inside a high tech concrete cast beam.  Once the concrete sets the aluminum is just neutral baggage as far as beam strength goes.  It holds about its own weight.  To get the double weight version we run a steel fin down from the triangle.  Depending on commodity steel prices this may be mild steel or it could be high strength steel that will change as prices change almost daily.  If the bottom fin will be deeper if we use lower strength steel.  You are not the only one asking for heavier and the trade off is always how much more expensive will thousands of miles be if we add the next weight increment.  At one car every two seconds per guideway I doubt we would fill up capacity with things that fit physically.  As for the pallet.  Those are throw away items and in a transition they will wear out long before they obsolete so going to a round configuration makes more sense than staying with the square.  Airplanes all use round containers to get the most value and no one had to work hard to convince them to go to an appropriate pallet and container configuration.  Cubes are cute but 99.9% items for sale in stores fit on a store shelf.  The store shelf item is the size to work out all other sizes from.  Wooden pallets driven around by high school students working night shift are beat to death and the products are damaged at a great loss to the supply chain.  Simple proof go to any appliance or furniture store and ask for the scratch and dent department.  There will be thousands of dollars worth of inventory sitting unsold that is gouged and broken by the pallet system today.  All totally preventable with a more precise pallet and round container scheme.  In one of my college jobs I loaded UPS trucks on the bone yard shift.  Not only did I see what boxes got crushed I was the one crushing them.  If a box had too many warnings telling me be careful it got tossed the furtherest to the front of the truck.  The boxes are stacked floor to ceiling in walls of boxes to maximize the truck volume.  The bad part is 30% of boxes are crushed to some degree from the weight of the top boxes.  You transfer the loads at the hubs so the odds of your package not being smashed go down with each reload of the truck it is sorted to.  With TriTrack doing quick freight no package would be under too many other boxes to do all that damage.  Today it is just accepted that boxes are going to be crushed and before you get your new home appliance into place that it will sustain damage to the skin.  With a more precise definition of the pallet made to fit the circle we can all but eliminate the scrap from freight damage and we can get more stuff on each shipment.  Because shipments are much cheaper we don't even have to max out every last inch of the vehicle because the cost to ship a partial is so low it does not matter.  Just some thoughts.  

I didn't check your math.  I assume you did all the conversions right.  I would suggest having a lot more vehicles though.  They will make great temporary storage for inventory that may not fit in the building but can still be in a secure area.  The difference between the 5 pounds per foot and the 10 pounds per foot is not the weight of the expected load but the size of the extrusion press.  A larger press can smash a thinner wall tube.  Presently the largest presses can only do a 3/8" wall and with some more development I think I can get a slightly bigger press to do a 3/16" wall on the triangular tube.  This is not a show stopper even if the extrusion press cannot be improved because we can extrude larger and mill the walls down to exactly any wall thickness we want.  We would then add the energy to recycle the milling strings back into billet.  I am still on the fence about whether we will precision grind the rolling surface after all processes have settled in.  Aluminum can be ground with the proper lubricant to an extremely smooth mirror finish.  I have had lots of precision aluminum parts made for semiconductor manufacturing process tooling in my day.  There are a lot of ways to shave off the straight walls of the aluminum to get to 5 pounds per foot from 10 pounds per foot.  Wire EDM cuts aluminum very fact compared to steel as another process that could lower the aluminum necessary.  Of course if Alcoa was funding it they may want to leave it thick and sell more aluminum.  The extrusion of aluminum is at a set speed to get the proper finish.  It is about walking speed so extruding guideway happens at this pace of about 3 mph or so.  It would not tie up the railroad rails much at all to build guideway.     

Attached is an earlier image I sent out showing pallets inside the standard TriTrack.  A 6 foot diameter one would hold considerably more volume than the 49" diameter people version shown.  

Jerry Roane 

> ...
>
> read more »

[eph]

I'm always amazed that you've thought about all this stuff in the past
and that it isn't on the website.

So the guideway stays the same size but is reinforced - got it.

No reason to waste material I suppose, unless the cost to trim away
the extra aluminum exceeds the savings in material substantially.

This is a wrinkle I hadn't seen. Railroads deal in LARGE containers
and quantities, much larger than TriTrack can hold so there is no rail
standard for freight. But the idea is to augment the offering with
High-Speed Freight. Moving pallets around is fairly straightforward
and common enough. Moving packages around would require more
infrastructure if it must go from one container shape to another as it
does by air. I'm seeing package handlers, conveyor belts, sorting
equipment...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_delivery

I did some more math to relate the area of a disc to the area of the
contained square plane and got pi/2. So the profile area for wind
drag is 57% larger than the square it encloses. Put another way, it's
a 57% penalty on the drag coefficient. So the question is: Is there a
better shape to haul a pallet? In any case, .15 Cd isn't bad if you
add 57% to .9 Cd and some of that space is used by the guideway...
Obviously, filling the shape with smaller packages is more efficient.

Maybe even adding pallet handling to railroad logistics would be too
difficult? This is where knowing someone in the industry would
help... Maybe you're right, since the speed is comparable to air,
(small) package handling is what is needed?

F.

On Feb 9, 2:04 pm, Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> F.
>

> ...
>
> read more »
>
>  freightpallet.jpg
> 75KViewDownload

[Jack Slade]

If I may comment,  I think you are getting back into the same old" Bigger is better" argument thai probably made Morgantown the huge system that it is,  instead of more and smaller vehicles, and the Raytheon excercise where they quadrupled the size of everything and ended up with something that the City thought was too expensive.   Cost is related to size.  Convenience is related to size.  Ease of construction is related to size. Aren't you falling into the same trap that ruined the early systems?   Jack Slade

--- On Wed, 2/9/11, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> Subject: [t-i] Re: German Cargo Cap freight moving system To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group. To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[eph]

I guess the obvious solution is to go Airport to Airport and share
their package handling infrastructure. Then TriTrack becomes just
another carrier in the eyes of the airports. Luggage could even be
moved using TriTrack instead of loading down planes. The problem is
that it is another player in the puzzle and that tracks don't
necessarily go to airports. It's never easy is it?

Moving freight by air averages $1.15 per ton-mile and by truck $0.13
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_03_17.html

Air freight (approx) 9,600 BTU per short ton mile (~1.9 kWh/km)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation#US_Freight_transportation

TriTrack uses 85 kWh/290 km (to carry 2 ton, I'm guessing), so about
0.3 kWh/km, double that if return trips are empty.

F.

On Feb 9, 3:48 pm, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm always amazed that you've thought about all this stuff in the past
> and that it isn't on the website.
>
> So the guideway stays the same size but is reinforced - got it.
>
> No reason to waste material I suppose, unless the cost to trim away
> the extra aluminum exceeds the savings in material substantially.
>
> This is a wrinkle I hadn't seen.  Railroads deal in LARGE containers
> and quantities, much larger than TriTrack can hold so there is no rail
> standard for freight.  But the idea is to augment the offering with
> High-Speed Freight.  Moving pallets around is fairly straightforward
> and common enough.  Moving packages around would require more
> infrastructure if it must go from one container shape to another as it
> does by air.  I'm seeing package handlers, conveyor belts, sorting

> equipment...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_delivery

> ...
>
> read more »

[eph]

OOps that was 0.15 kWh/ton-km (still a guess) for TriTrack.

If (small) packages are being moved, then the smaller, lighter
vehicles may make more sense. I was originally thinking of moving
pallets which would require larger vehicles.

F.

On Feb 9, 4:35 pm, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> If I may comment,  I think you are getting back into the same old" Bigger is better" argument thai probably made Morgantown the huge system that it is,  instead of more and smaller vehicles, and the Raytheon excercise where they quadrupled the size of everything and ended up with something that the City thought was too expensive.
>  
> Cost is related to size.  Convenience is related to size.  Ease of construction is related to size. Aren't you falling into the same trap that ruined the early systems?
>  
> Jack Slade
>

> --- On Wed, 2/9/11, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com>

> Subject: [t-i] Re: German Cargo Cap freight moving system
> To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Wednesday, February 9, 2011, 8:48 PM
>
> I'm always amazed that you've thought about all this stuff in the past
> and that it isn't on the website.
>
> So the guideway stays the same size but is reinforced - got it.
>
> No reason to waste material I suppose, unless the cost to trim away
> the extra aluminum exceeds the savings in material substantially.
>
> This is a wrinkle I hadn't seen.  Railroads deal in LARGE containers
> and quantities, much larger than TriTrack can hold so there is no rail
> standard for freight.  But the idea is to augment the offering with
> High-Speed Freight.  Moving pallets around is fairly straightforward
> and common enough.  Moving packages around would require more
> infrastructure if it must go from one container shape to another as it
> does by air.  I'm seeing package handlers, conveyor belts, sorting

> equipment...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_delivery

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jerry Roane]

F.

To come up with this guess did you use the calculators tab on the web site?  http://tritrack.net/horsePower.html

A freight version with retracted wheels would have the following numbers filled in:

Weight of empty car 800 pounds (guess)

Weight of Each Passenger (the freight) 4000 pounds

Number of passengers 1

Starting speed 40 mph

Acceleration .2 G

Final Speed 180

Drag Coefficient .07 (measured in wind tunnel on scale model Cd is dimensionless) 

Frontal Area 72" diameter converts to 28.275 square feet

Rolling Friction (steel on metal guideway) .004

To run 180 mph takes 87.9 hp

To get up to speed at .2 Gs takes 311 hp launch from the linear motor It will take more distance of motor segments for the big version.  

The TriTrack regular version uses 80.5 hp to go 180 mph(wind speed)

To get up to speed it uses a 1500 foot 330 hp linear motor section 

As you can see the wheels retracted is where I am sand bagging on the first implementation.  Best to under promise and over deliver.   If you push me for bigger I will need to give up on my sandbag buffer to stay in a similar price range.  Adding the steel fin to the underside of the guideway will cost a little more and be a bigger target for NIMBYs to gripe about.  I am not saying it can't grow a little.  I am just saying it is a slippery slope that compounds quickly.  We are not taking more than 80% market share on the best scenario so let the trucks carry big odd shaped stuff.  Just use TriTrack for millions of small objects that fit in a small as practical circle like is protected in the patent.    

If we use the smaller diameter car (49") with the 1 ton load then the power goes down from 87.9 hp at 180 mph wind speed to 38.2 hp.  If we are carrying liquids then the frontal area drops to 3 square feet and the power drops to 13 hp if we slow it down some to 80 mph then your typical cheap lawn mower motor could move that ton of freight at 2.8 hp.  

Is this where you got your energy number?

Jerry Roane 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

[eph]

Yes. I used the .9 Cd that came up, converted hp to kW and averaged
over 1 hour.

I would put both size options up because you don't want to scare away
a potential investor just because they have a pallet application in
mind. One interesting idea with the larger vehicle would be to move
small EV around. Move them as freight at first and maybe with
passengers in the future. The low Cd and low rolling resistance would
move them along more efficiently and faster than would ever be
possible on their own.

Also, would it work to extrude the rib in Aluminum? I know some
bridges are being built in Aluminum. Triangular holes can be poked
into the rib to lighten it up (weight and light wise). If the track
runs along rail lines, light isn't as critical.

Another idea is to use the TriTrack poles to hold track
electrification lines - just a thought.

I think I have a passive switch design for TriTrack.

In the "High-speed railroading" article, Warren Buffett is mentioned
along with the idea that freight lines should stay as they are.
TriTrack would allow this.
http://www.economist.com/node/16636101

F.

On Feb 10, 12:03 am, Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> F.
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jerry Roane]

F.

.09 is a compromise between wheels out and wheels retracted.  .07 is with the wheels tucked in but the number should be good as you calculated it.  It gives some wiggle room still.  I did do a supersized version where you roll your full sized SUV Land Rover into this aerodynamic shape and travel on a heavy larger triangle that is extruded and seam welded together.  The mpg is pretty good and the speed is better than a teenager driving his parent's Land Rover but the guideway is much more expensive.  It is more in line with the cost projections of the competition.  Because of its much higher price it might be better accepted by the people who spend other people's money.  I think the higher guideway cost would make it niche market only though so I only bring it up when pressed.  Basically it is putting a good ferring on a poor Land Rover boxy shape.     

The rib could be a separate extrusion and seam welded to the bottom but aluminum would be a poor choice for cost/performance in pure tension application like that.  Think of a steel cable for strength in tension.  Aluminum would need to be very big to get to the strength of a low cost steel cable.  A hybrid of cable and aluminum could work as a suspension bridge but steel is what holds up almost every bridge on the planet to use the 100,000 flies cannot be wrong argument.  

I couldn't get the link to load.  I too think freight rail should stay exactly as it is but with modernization of tracking assets and safety.  A shovel-ready project they should have done is to greatly decrease the number of railroad crossings where people die on a regular basis.  Also I think trains should have the crash pillow we talked about a while back.  There is no excuse for the deaths due to trains.  It would be so easy to eliminate 95% of them.  As for taking profitable railroads and making them lose money Warren Buffet is right.  That would be silly.  Looking at air travel BTUs per mile versus German Maglevs by Siemens, a bigger jumbo jet gets better performance so why would we want airlines to compete with rail other than monument building?  If someone wanted to build a monument perhaps they should build the lack of traffic congestion monument and put it just in front of and slightly higher than the Washington Monument.  Tall pointy monuments are all the rage unless you envy a really long monument.   

Jerry Roane 

> ...
>
> read more »

[eph]

Somewhere near 2 m (6.5 feet) diameter should be enough, maybe a bit
more. The ferring might need to be adjusted (down the road), but
small EV (around the 1 ton range) should be good enough - it's the
right weight class for pallets and for EV or even Podcars. It's
another way to do dual-mode where car styles can vary (to some
extent).

I don't understand why it has to be done in 2 sections if extruded.
Can't it be an arrow shape instead of a triangle? It just seemed like
a slick way to produce a guideway. If Alcoa backs it, extra material
doesn't matter as much and a less labour intensive product results.
Anyway, it can be done one way or another.

The link seems OK, maybe google "the economist America’s system of
rail freight is the world’s best. High-speed passenger trains could
ruin it"

They could just erect a big phallus for each President and be done
with it.

F.

On Feb 10, 1:48 pm, Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> F.
>

> should build the *lack of traffic congestion monument* and put it just in

> front of and slightly higher than the Washington Monument.  Tall pointy
> monuments are all the rage unless you envy a really long monument.
>
> Jerry Roane
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jerry Roane]

F.

The extruding machines available to make these large extrusions are few in the world.  I am pushing the largest size the experienced extruders are will to quote already.  I went back and forth four times to get them to shave the wall thickness down to the nearest metric equivalent below 3/8".  If the triangle gets much bigger then it has to be extruded in two pieces or more and then seam welded back together.  The welding process causes heat warp so to make a weldment out of a simple extrusion opens up a can of manufacturing worms.  The welded version would need to be machined back to a smooth trajectory using some of the wall thickness to swallow the deviations in fabrication.  I am not being stubborn just for fun.  The physical world puts limits on what is cost-effective to do. When you go to the store look around and find any item that uses metal.  Those parts will be very thin and usually small.  That is because the tools required to make metal parts are massive compared to the produced part.  If the part to be made is massive then the extrusion press becomes too big for any in existence.  Either you design your own never before built extrusion press with crazy pressures or just send more cars per second or build more guideways.  The design philosophy focuses on what it will not do.  By defining that we are not going to serve the 3% and increase cost on the 97% is our approach.  Naturally we can sneak up on any parameter but there is always a network cost and we intend to be the lowest cost solution that goes 180 mph.  Even if you ignore the guideway size bloat for ever inch you push into the guideway that is hundreds of cubic inches you take out of the car in the tunnel.  This is a system of thousands of inter playing dimensions and making a bigger guideway changes the usefulness of the car interior and lots of other things.  Right now the triangle tunnel through the car fits under the seat upholstery.  If you increase the tunnel much it will be inside the car as a hard ridge between seats.  Now a larger man will be uncomfortable trying to sit in 1 1/2 seats like he can with a bench seat arrangement.  There are more reasons for the size chosen but these are the major ones.  

Thanks for thinking about the guideway options.  You will not be the last to ask for a larger beefier triangle so all good questions. 

Jerry Roane    

> ...
>
> read more »

[eph]

Right.
I guess the slot and tee joints are only good in sections and only on
uniform segments unless the segments are bent after extrusion and
mating... It's never easy... ;-)

I suppose another option might be to bring the posts in a bit or 'V'
them to keep the number of footings the same. That might actually
have some neat triangular symmetry.

I'm sure you've looked at all this before too.

F.

On Feb 10, 10:42 pm, Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> F.
>

> The extruding machines available to make these large extrusions are few in
> the world.  I am pushing the largest size the experienced extruders are will
> to quote already.  I went back and forth four times to get them to shave the
> wall thickness down to the nearest metric equivalent below 3/8".  If the
> triangle gets much bigger then it has to be extruded in two pieces or more
> and then seam welded back together.  The welding process causes heat warp so
> to make a weldment out of a simple extrusion opens up a can of manufacturing
> worms.  The welded version would need to be machined back to a smooth
> trajectory using some of the wall thickness to swallow the deviations in
> fabrication.  I am not being stubborn just for fun.  The physical world puts
> limits on what is cost-effective to do. When you go to the store look around
> and find any item that uses metal.  Those parts will be very thin and
> usually small.  That is because the tools required to make metal parts are
> massive compared to the produced part.  If the part to be made is massive
> then the extrusion press becomes too big for any in existence.  Either you
> design your own never before built extrusion press with crazy pressures or
> just send more cars per second or build more guideways.  The design

> philosophy focuses on what it will *not *do.  By defining that we are not

> going to serve the 3% and increase cost on the 97% is our approach.
>  Naturally we can sneak up on any parameter but there is always a network
> cost and we intend to be the lowest cost solution that goes 180 mph.  Even
> if you ignore the guideway size bloat for ever inch you push into the
> guideway that is hundreds of cubic inches you take out of the car in the
> tunnel.  This is a system of thousands of inter playing dimensions and
> making a bigger guideway changes the usefulness of the car interior and lots
> of other things.  Right now the triangle tunnel through the car fits under
> the seat upholstery.  If you increase the tunnel much it will be inside the
> car as a hard ridge between seats.  Now a larger man will be uncomfortable
> trying to sit in 1 1/2 seats like he can with a bench seat arrangement.
>  There are more reasons for the size chosen but these are the major ones.
>
> Thanks for thinking about the guideway options.  You will not be the last to
> ask for a larger beefier triangle so all good questions.
>
> Jerry Roane
>

[eph]

Jerry R.,
I wanted to get your thoughts on using 'V' shaped posts to allow
heavier vehicles (2 ton) on the guideway. 20' posts, 20' apart at the
top would maintain the 17' height The post diameter would remain
12". This would shorten the unsupported span by 20 feet (33%). It
would also put the supports at the inflection points which may help
with guideway stiffness.

F.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jerry Roane]

F.  

Our proposed pole is a simple 12" diameter used oil field reject.  I can get these pipes by the ton very cheaply.  If I put one every 60 feet that gives a very low cost guideway solution.  Obviously we can make the support poles anything we choose.  They can be elaborate architectural carved stone with mosaic coverings but most places I think cheap will win out over elaborate.  I am a tightwad so I like the cheapest approach and used oil field pipe is as cheap as I have found that can stand up to hurricane winds and not lean over.  A V shaped post can get a longer span so there are trade-offs between a simple pole with almost no welding or special fabrication and bridge types of structures.  Any one installation will most likely have several different types of support poles depending on terrain rivers, valleys, bays, swamps etc.  I am open to any pole that holds up the powered LAN connected XYZ actuator.  This actuator in the patent allows the poles to be imperfect but still provide the perfect support for the guideway.  We could even use used wooden utility poles if we wanted to get really down and dirty.  It is not my favorite because of the poisons embedded in the wood fibers and the fact that they probably stood in the elements for decades giving off the protective chemicals allowing the wood to be attacked by creatures big and small again.  (Termites and dry rot) Although the poles can lean over a few inches from where they were intended and still operate the TriTrack it will look stupid to have leaning poles so firm foundations and strong pipes are my favorite.  In historic districts I can see doing age specific structures.  In modern architecture neighborhoods I can see blending the poles into the nearby look and feel.  A V is certainly a good option for reducing the number of foundations.  Making sure the V does not get hit by a truck passing under the guideway is an obvious concern.  The TriTrack beam can sit atop an AASHTO beam too with a short pole every 60 feet or less to save high strength steel and use standard rebar.  AASHTO has lots of standard beams and poles to hold up beams to pick from.  No reason to reinvent the wheel so to speak.  To reduce the skyprint I still like the simple form of a straight pole.  I do not want stiffness in the patented approach.  I want repeatable calculable deflections.  Stiffness is what they build now and it gives us an over designed system that is financially unsustainable.  Predictable and compensated for deflection is a more advanced way to deal with the reality that every beam deflects.  There are no rules so the answer to your question is yes.  We can do whatever makes the most sense for each and every pole holding the thing up.  The pole is plenty strong for vertical load.  The reason the pole is the wall thickness and diameter it is is from wind side load in a hurricane force wind.  It is a piece of cake holding up massive loads with a pipe.  Even a simple 2X4 yellow pine board can hold tremendous vertical loads or about 44,467 pounds.  You can kick it in two from the side but crushing it straight down takes 22 tons force.  

Building fancy poles would be to get longer spans than 60 feet of the simple petite beam but always being careful of the clearance for trucks below the guideway.  An AASHTO beam would be 17 clear and the TriTrack beam would then be at 21 feet and if we use the ADA 22 inch stretch and the 6 foot diameter freight bulk hauler the top guideway gets up the sky pretty tall.  Tall is the enemy of hurricane wind resistance so the 12 inch pipe that I can buy for cheap gets much more expensive if we make the beams and poles more elaborate.  

Jerry Roane   

> ...
>
> read more »

[eph]

So there are lots of options and considerations.
- trucks aren't too much of a problem along railroad tracks, but if
the 12" poles are sturdy enough to hold the guideway for 2-ton
vehicles, that's fine, no need to double-up in a V.
- I suppose it's a trade-off between more foundations/posts per km or
adding beams or trusses to support the guideway. A cost trade-off?

I was reading the double-stack rail cars have contributed to rail
freight efficiency and that the clearance can be as high as 20' 2"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-stack_rail_transport

F.

On Feb 12, 7:46 pm, Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> F.
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Michael Weidler]

Why on earth would railroads want to (or need to) actually handle the packages or pallets? This is currently done by the shipper. The shipper either already has his own spur or simply transports the TriTrack vehicle to the local "launch" site.

--- On Wed, 2/9/11, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> Subject: [t-i] Re: German Cargo Cap freight moving system To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group. To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.