Tube systems
Jerry Schneider
fellow that has designed a system for delivering small freight in
tubes (about 50 lbs max). Design details sketchy except that it's PRT
like in configuration and his development idea is to scale up to PRT size.
He was telling me about small package vacuum tube and other delivery
systems. There are a lot more of them out there than I was aware of.
He tells me they are fairly standard systems in larger new hospitals
for example. I thought of small freight as starting point for
eventual evolution to PRT systems many years ago, but drifted away
from it. He had some tantalizing numbers on what some people are
willing to pay for fast small freight delivery.
I still see some merit in it. My question is have any of us thought
seriously about this approach? or know of any work that has taken place?
It's not hard to see a PRT style small tube system having some
superior characteristics to air driven tube systems, range and
efficiency come to mind.
----------------------
Some info provided at http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/afreight.htm
Benke
doesn't seem unlikely that they get stuck at times.
How about controlled acceleration/deceleration?
How about friction issues when weights go up?
Jack Slade
You can't get stuck in an evacuated tube and get out and walk. There is no air to breathe, and not enough room to stand up. Getting the car to a station ASAP is the only thing that will work, because you have only the car's air supply to live on, and that is limited. It is not like an aircraft where outside air is compressed.
|
|
George Schrader
Sure you can !!! Get stuck in an evacuated tube and get out and walk. All it needs to be is large enough and flooded with breathable atmosphere.
Of course that could only occur in the actual damaged or disabled section. Which is likely to be measured in a few feet or yards. Vehicles will be able travel to and from the damaged section. Perhaps slowly due to the atmospheric flooding and the loss of the partial vacuum in that limited section. One could simply pass through disabled vehicles to the point where it is not damaged. Then embark on another vehicle in the unaffected system
Remember once a vehicle is in motion it becomes stored energy. The system is composed of moving vehicles whose energy can be made connectively available through adjusting their speeds and where needed, feeding that energy back into the system’s energy grid. Such a system is as well a terribly efficient electrical distribution process.
George Schrader
1208
Grace Ave
Panama
City, FL. 32401
850 769 4060 Bus. & Home
850 527 7612 George Cel
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
Jack Slade
|
George Schrader
The evacuated system I have been considering does not really have ends. It is a continuous network of structure. Though I would think there would be devices which will close in the event of a breach in the atmospheric barrier. A double door device could form a chamber. Allow a rescue vehicle to pass from the partial vacuum into a chamber which then in turn opens into the disabled area. Of course the supporting structure may have a walkway for maintenance and inspection purposes. It seems logical that such a network of structure would also accommodate utilities as well.
The cost of providing a connected network of 20’ structure does not appear to be a stumbling block as the benefits achieved in the secure and controlled environment appear to have values which are many magnitudes greater.
George Schrader
850 527 7612
Jack Slade
Talk all you want about rescue, but "rescue" means getting to somebody who is living, doesn't it? You also have to think about other vehicles that are behind it, even if they are several miles behind, but at high speed. Vehicles that are ahead of the break are not safe either... they get a sudden acceleration from the rear so that they will crash into the vehicles ahead of them.
I calculate 15PSI applied to a 3Ft circle to be just over 100,000 Lbs of thrust.
Jack Slade
Jerry Roane
Jack Slade
I knew somebody would have a calculator...can't find mine, and somehow I just never think of the one built into my PC. I was thinking of a catastrophic break, like an earthquake.
|
Robert DeDomenico
George Schrader
So we now know what it is not. So what is a teleportation system. Beam me up Scotty?
-----Original Message-----
From:
transport-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert DeDomenico
Sent: Monday, August
15, 2011 3:53 PM
To:
transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [t-i] Re: Tube systems
The discussion of pneumatic tube systems is just background on existing commercial systems. This is not a pneumatic system. It is not evacuated, nor exclusively underground. It will not even be for people until phase three. This is a teleportation system for small articles, just as today's more elaborate pneumatic tube systems are. Has anybody acquainted with this group considered or investigated a system along these lines?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"transport-innovators" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/vaRLk0gFCoMJ.
Jack Slade
It is a tubular delivery system capable of carrying small packages directly into buildings and homes. I have never seen any details, but I presume it works something like the pneumatic tube system that delivers inter-offic memos within businesses and factories. |
|
|
|
Robert DeDomenico
operation, primarily pneumatic but including non-pneumatic types.
Although, I haven't been able to substantiate any that claim to "beam"
things through space, nor find any that operate in an evacuated
enclosure. There have been publicized proposals, such as TubExpress,
CargoCap, FoodTubes, and several others, but to the best of my
knowledge none of these have yet been operationally prototyped. I had
been corresponding with Dennis about my concept, which I have been
developing and am building, and he did put the question to this group
as to whether anybody reachable here had given consideration to any
kind of similar concept.
On Aug 15, 7:58 pm, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> It is a tubular delivery system capable of carrying small packages directly into buildings and homes. I have never seen any details, but I presume it works something like the pneumatic tube system that delivers inter-offic memos within businesses and factories.
>
> Jack Slade
>
> From: George Schrader <georgeschra...@knology.net>
> Subject: RE: [t-i] Re: Tube systems
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Monday, August 15, 2011, 10:22 PM
>
> So we now know what it is not. So what is a teleportation system. Beam me up Scotty?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert DeDomenico
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 3:53 PM
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [t-i] Re: Tube systems
>
> The discussion of pneumatic tube systems is just background on existing commercial systems. This is not a pneumatic system. It is not evacuated, nor exclusively underground. It will not even be for people until phase three. This is a teleportation system for small articles, just as today's more elaborate pneumatic tube systems are. Has anybody acquainted with this group considered or investigated a system along these lines?
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
George Schrader
properties which then sends the information which sort of prints the
physical properties out.
Robert DeDomenico
don't know how to do any of that exotic stuff.
On Aug 15, 9:45 pm, "George Schrader" <georgeschra...@knology.net>
wrote:
> properties which then sends the information which sort of prints the
> physical properties out.
>
George Schrader
You do realize the the bulk of energy consumed in the transport of things is
in overcoming air resistance. Particularly at high speeds. That in a closed
tube there is an additional resistance of atmosphere against the walls. That
transporting in a partial vacuum will remove that energy requirement. Which
also increases the attainable speeds and dramatically increases the fow rate
capacity.
eph
I had envisioned a single combined people/cargo sort of thing though. It certainly makes infrastructure deployment more difficult with the larger size.
F.
George Schrader
F. What infrastructure deployment difficulties are you referring to when envisioning a single combined people/cargo system?
-----Original Message-----
From:
transport-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of eph
Sent: Friday, August
19, 2011 8:03 PM
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [t-i] Re: Tube systems
I like the idea of a tube system to carry parcels.
I had envisioned a single combined people/cargo sort of thing though. It
certainly makes infrastructure deployment more difficult with the larger size.
F.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"transport-innovators" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/FNzlsuMMl4sJ.
eph
Small parcels could move through a tube maybe 50 cm (~20 inches) in diameter or less, which is closer to utility sizing whereas people would require over 1 m diameter tubes making deployment more expensive. Also, safety standards can be relaxed - no lives at risk.
So < 50 lbs and small might be easier to deploy. I don't know if the demand for quick parcel delivery exists - not sure I would pay extra to get a parcel faster than next day or even within a few days...
F.
Jack Slade
But you are already paying a high price for slow delivery: Freight cost more, per person, than people do, and trucks and drivers are not free. I don't think this system was aimed at mailed packages, but rather all the goods that get moved to stores. Taking a lot of trucks off the streets would certainly help traffic, especially the ones that double-park because they can't find another way.
|
|
|
George Schrader
Accomplishing transport and utilities in a tube could not be more expensive than what is being incurred today.
A tube system strikes me as being a lucrative investment in permanent structure and technological components. Where in the values in the achieved efficiencies and benefits suggest that they would far outstrip what ever cost of investment could be encountered.
The US is currently incurring a minimum loss of 1.1 trillion annually. ($80B in the cost of highway maintenance + $720B energy + $300B accidents)
A large diameter tube system which will smoothly accommodate today’s vehicles and containers is not likely to be more than a $100M a mile.
Which not incuring highway maintenance, energy or accidents.
At today’s interest rate of 2% that $1.1T deficit could support 550,000 miles of tube system.
We currently have less than 50,000 of interstate highway.
It seems that same unavoidable deficit could be supporting 10x more interstate system.
Whose usage is likely to be 100 times greater.
Meaning that the actual cost of transport would become that (investment which is then divided by an enormously greater usage rate) which is a end cost which is but a few percents of what we know today.
The cost of today’s systems in their limited use is far higher.
A nearly unlimited use in automations closed distances and increased speeds delivers a whole new economic perspective.
We want to travel a great deal more than what we are, but we cannot afford the time and costs of energy and resource consumptions in today’s processes.
A tube system does not have such usage restrictions. In a secure and precisely controlled environment mechanical failure and energy requirements can be removed. The limitations in speeds can then become held to the allowable g-forces generated. How fast is too fast?
Imagine a tube interstate system. This is where all the enormous advantages are. In replacing the interstate and its connectors.
A 15’ pipe utilizing magnetic rails, electric propulsion, and regenerative braking. System capsules operating in a partial vacuum can smoothly accommodate the vehicles and cargo containers of today. Instant usage.
A beginning incremental and ever increasing accomplishment that will not only profitably occupy the idled work force and return that lost economy. But an increasing accomplishment whose enormous efficiencies of time, energy, and resources will truly revolutionize the populations abilities. Not to mention solving the large ecological and environmental problems we know today. Not petroleum free but time, energy and resource free.
And to think these abilities could have been more crudely accomplished a hundred years ago.
-----Original Message-----
From:
transport-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of eph
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 11:05 PM
To:
transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: RE: [t-i] Re: Tube
systems ... infrastructure difficulty
Pipe diameter and safety levels.
--
eph
Still, if the business case can be made, small package delivery direct to home is intriguing.
F.
E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm
other half is spent to move people. Both have equal importance in the
optimum size equation. Independent consideration results in very
close to the same optimum diameter capsules for both cargo and
passengers.
The optimum size ET3 capsule (1.3m dia. X 5m long for a 1.5m dia.
tube) can accommodate about 94% of cargo. A larger diameter would be
a little too expensive to achieve maximum market share, a little
smaller diameter would fail to achieve sufficient utility and comfort
for maximum market share.
Because of Metcalf's law, if more than one diameter standard is used
for ET3, it will likely result in less market share. Competing size
standards will fragment the market. It is important that ET3 tube
diameter be optimized to lessen the inefficiencies of market
fragmentation. e-mail me for a more detailed paper on this important
issue.
DO
--
Best regards,
The ET3 Team
(c) 2011 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth",
e-tube, e-tubes, & the logos thereof are trademarks & service marks of
et3.com Inc. For licensing visit et3.net or contact:POB 1423 Crystal
River FL 34423-1423, e...@et3.com www.et3.com
All information included or attached is intended only for the recipient
and is confidential unless otherwise noted.
E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm
It is good to see you are still interested in tube transport. My
replies follow your original message below:
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 12:26 AM, George Schrader
<georges...@knology.net> wrote:
> Accomplishing transport and utilities in a tube could not be more expensive
> than what is being incurred today.
If (and only if) the tube is mostly evacuated of air. (Otherwise the
aerodynamic resistance is 2-10 times worse).
> A tube system strikes me as being a lucrative investment in permanent
> structure and technological components. Where in the values in the achieved
> efficiencies and benefits suggest that they would far outstrip what ever
> cost of investment could be encountered.
I agree, if (and only if) the cost is low enough AND the utility high
enough to displace most existing transportation due to much greater
transportation value. This occurs in a very narrow diameter range as
shown by our considerable research on the subject. (E-mail me for a
recent peer reviewed paper containing material on the subject.)
> The US is currently incurring a minimum loss of 1.1 trillion annually. ($80B
> in the cost of highway maintenance + $720B energy + $300B accidents)
>
> A large diameter tube system which will smoothly accommodate today’s
> vehicles and containers is not likely to be more than a $100M a mile.
Your $100m/mile estimate for such a system is about right. An
optimally sized ET3 system can cost less than $3m/mile, and the cargo
utility would only be reduced by 4%. (do you drive a semi-truck for
daily use?? -- your proposal is asking everyone to burden them selves
with 30 times more cost ALL THE TIME to only occasionally (or never)
use it.)
> Which not incuring highway maintenance, energy or accidents.
> At today’s interest rate of 2% that $1.1T deficit could support 550,000
> miles of tube system.
How much transportation would use those big tubes if $3m/mile tubes
were available close by for 1/30th the cost?? (answer: about 2% (half
of transport is passenger, half is cargo, only 4% of cargo needs a
capsule larger than 1.3m dia. by 5m long.))
Our contention is that the 2% (plus the 1% that will not fit in
containers) will be able to travel via the existing modes -- saving
EVERYONE ELSE over 95% of the cost over 95% OF THE TIME !
> We currently have less than 50,000 of interstate highway.
> It seems that same unavoidable deficit could be supporting 10x more
> interstate system.
> Whose usage is likely to be 100 times greater.
The usage would be much LESS because the cost would be GREATER. By
contrast, an optimally sized ET3 system will result in cost less than
a tenth as much as road, air, or rail transport.
> Meaning that the actual cost of transport would become that (investment
> which is then divided by an enormously greater usage rate) which is a end
> cost which is but a few percents of what we know today.
Why do it if the cost will ALWAYS be 30 times more than what it could
be if sized optimally?
The key to maximizing market share is VALUE! Value for ET3 is
maximized when the diameter is no larger (or smaller) than the
diameter that produces the greatest value for the most users. The
optimum diameter for ET3 is very close to 1.5m (5') diameter tubes to
accommodate 1.3m diameter capsules.
> The cost of today’s systems in their limited use is far higher.
Not true -- see the above explanation.
> A nearly unlimited use in automations closed distances and increased speeds
> delivers a whole new economic perspective.
If (and only if) the size is optimized to produce the greatest value
possible to displace as much existing transportation as possible. In
this way the ET3 network will expand to the maximum extent to displace
as much as 90% of global transportation ($8.65T is spent on
transportation per year on a global basis).
NOTE: Air travel in the US represents only 7% of passenger travel.
Air travel is too expensive for most people. Less than a third of
Americans fly more than once per year, another third have NEVER
traveled by aircraft. What you are proposing will cost about three
times the cost of air travel -- this will ensurte that such a system
will not be used enough to recover the cost. An optimally sized ET3
system will cost less than a tenth the cost to use as air travel.
> We want to travel a great deal more than what we are, but we cannot afford
> the time and costs of energy and resource consumptions in today’s processes.
Good point, and wasting money to build a more expensive mode
represents enormous waste of assets.
> A tube system does not have such usage restrictions. In a secure and
> precisely controlled environment mechanical failure and energy requirements
> can be removed. The limitations in speeds can then become held to the
> allowable g-forces generated. How fast is too fast?
> Imagine a tube interstate system. This is where all the enormous advantages
> are. In replacing the interstate and its connectors.
We can continue to agree on the many obvious benefits of tube travel.
> A 15’ pipe utilizing magnetic rails, electric propulsion, and regenerative
> braking. System capsules operating in a partial vacuum can smoothly
> accommodate the vehicles and cargo containers of today. Instant usage.
It will not likely produce usage sufficient to recover the cost. The
reason is that existing modes would cost much less, so market
disruption would not take place. Any such system build would face
overwhelming competition from a system built to an optimum size.
A 1.5m diameter ET3 system build out to the point of global connection
(via a 14,500 mile global backbone at 4,000mph) will be capable of
delivering up to three standard euro-pallets (the most common pallet
size in the world) of cargo from any manufacture in India or China to
any Wall-mart in the US in 4 hours or less, and at less than a tenth
the cost.
If you were a merchant would you rather order a full container of just
a pallet as a minimum order? Would you rather spend 30 times more so
you could transport an occasional elephant for an eccentric customer?
Would you rather order, pay for, and store 30 refrigerators (a
container full) or just one refrigerator at a time (an ET3 capsule
full) ?
> A beginning incremental and ever increasing accomplishment that will not
> only profitably occupy the idled work force and return that lost economy.
> But an increasing accomplishment whose enormous efficiencies of time,
> energy, and resources will truly revolutionize the populations abilities.
> Not to mention solving the large ecological and environmental problems we
> know today. Not petroleum free but time, energy and resource free.
> And to think these abilities could have been more crudely accomplished a
> hundred years ago.
> GLS...@gmail.com
We can continue to agree that transportation that costs less than a
tenth as much as present transportation, (and uses less than 1/50th as
much energy) will revolutionize the global economy just as steam power
did 200 years ago.
We hope you (and eph) can agree on the enormous value of meeting in
the middle to achieve ONE size standard ET3 system (that is neither
too small or too big) to connect the entire world in a seamless
network to displace as much as 90% of global transportation.
Daryl Oster
--
Best regards,
The ET3 Team
(c) 2011 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth",
e-tube, e-tubes, & the logos thereof are trademarks & service marks of
et3.com Inc. For licensing visit et3.net or contact:POB 1423 Crystal
River FL 34423-1423, e...@et3.com www.et3.com
All information included or attached is intended only for the recipient
and is confidential unless otherwise noted.
>
>
>
eph
E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm
Hi Eph,
It is also important to optimize the pressure. Too low of pressure
requires too much energy to maintain the vacuum. The tube cost is
very sensitive to diameter (aprox D^3). Reducing tube pressure by 90%
means 90% of the load is applied, but the drag is about the same if
the capsule blocks most of the tube area -- so no drag advantage.
Reducing pressure to 10^-4 atm drops drag by a factor of a million
with only 10% more strength requirements -- breathable air is still
only 5 inches away.
DO
eph
Does the D^3 rule apply even if vehicle weight/size is the same?
5 inches away, but through a tube wall and a vacuum?
What is the cost of a space capsule compared to a car?
F.
Richard Gronning
aviation, then there will be requirements for travel above 40,000', or
2.7psi. A double hull will be required at 50,000', or 1.6 psi. The SST
had a double hull, I've heard.
Dick
George Schrader
half is spent to move people.
How did you arrive at the 50/50 usage rate
GLS...@gmail.com
-----Original Message-----
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of E T 3 Space
Travel On Earth tm
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 10:31 PM
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
--
George Schrader
An increase in structure diameter delivers a larger increase in area.
Which suggest to me that the ratio of structure and area is more efficient in larger diameters.
That a larger structure with multiple lanes is a more efficient use of structure than would be providing multiple single lane structures.
In other words in those instances in achieving egresses where a separate and parellel lane is required to slow or speed a vehicle. It may be more structurally efficient to provide a (conjoining of lanes in a larger structure) than separating the lanes into parrellel and separate structural undertakings.
850 527 7612 George Cel
-----Original Message-----
From:
transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of eph
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 8:47 AM
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"transport-innovators" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/TkGIRAcIvL0J.
eph
My questions were more about cost of small evacuated tubes VS bigger survivable-pressure tubes. How big must the tubes be - too big?
F.
Jack Slade
It is almost like the argument about the best size for other existing modes; some think a 60 passenger bus is best, but most people want to use the family car. The same arguments apply to PRT vehicles. Dr Ed Anderson's writings has probably summed it up best: If 3-passenger cars comprise 97% of the trips, what do you gain by making the cars bigger? Just to serve an additional 3%?
The same applies to freight...a vehicle that can carry one pallet can serve about the same percentage of trips. Trucks presently carry many pallets, because they need only one driver, but there no savings at all to bunch pallets together in an automated system.
Jack Slade |
|
|
Kirston Henderson
WALTER BREWER
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
eph
http://www.pipenet.it/sito_e/index_e.htm
I don't know if this makes sense, but I get somewhere between 2 and 3 times the pressure (read aerodynamic drag) based on these numbers. Maybe the pipe gets bigger as speeds increase?
F.
Jack Slade
If households are ever equipped for store-to-house deliveries, a system this size would probably be OK. Effiency should not matter that much with such small loads, and power might be best if supplied like the old tube-delivery capsules that used to take inter-office paperwork around office buildings.....done by pumping air out from the tube, in front of the capsules.
I can't get dis website, but I nospik Italian too. |
|
|
|
|
|
eph
Link to the translation of the Italian pipenet page:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pipenet.it%2Fdescrizione.htm
F.
E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm
aerodynamic friction is along the entire length of the tube instead of
just the vehicle surface area.
DO
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "transport-innovators" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/EzWrvzijy3AJ.
> 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.
>
--
Robert DeDomenico
Robert DeDomenico
while back, several times, but I never saw it posted.
Most, if not all, of the ideas proposed here will never go anywhere.
I think this is because it is so natural a human tendency to defend
that which we come up with ourselves. Our pride for an original
idea's origin tends to cloud our already subjective judgement.
I've read one individual mock my concept with his "beam me up Scotty"
comment and subject line. I see another posting warnings that we
should not "fragment the market" by not adhering to his ideas, (never
mind the fact that I recognize the flaws in the ideas he proposes.) I
should be pleased that almost nobody here took anything divulged about
my concept all that seriously.
I have now skilled and local partners in my enterprise. My eighteen
month software implementation project at work will soon be reaching a
less intensive stage, and I will have almost a year's vacation to
spend as a windfall on development. Nothing short of premature death
can stop me from assembly of a functional prototype, and I won't let
anything stop me from commencing profitable commercial operations.
From now on, posts from me will come only from media coverage after I
have accomplished what I now set out to achieve.
Best regards,
Robert DeDomenico
On Sep 4, 5:25 pm, Robert DeDomenico <dedomenicorober...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Am I being censored?
Robert DeDomenico
intrigued me since the day I thought of it, coming up on seventeen
months ago. I think you are absolutely right: the business case is
all that matters. It's the proof not only that the concept is
technically sound, but economically so as well. I can't wait to prove
the proof by doing it.
It's been interesting following this thread. I'm unable to contribute
here often on account of other obligations, and some technical
limitations, but that is no matter. Discussions in themselves don't
accomplish much, other than planning, and I've already done the
planning. I should be coming into a short season of some excess time
very soon after months of a very full schedule, and I intend to
execute my implementation plan as rapidly as time and resources allow.
Robert DeDomenico
I'll just progress my concept along to commercialization and it's
merits will be measured by the amount revenue it generates versus it's
cost to implement.
On Aug 27, 11:31 pm, E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm <e...@et3.com>
wrote:
Jack Slade
If you posted a message it was so long ago that I have forgotten what it was. Can you tell us again what concept you are promoting.
|
|
|
|
eph
F.
Jerry Roane
> Am I being censored?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
Daryl Oster
I do not know if you are referring to ET3, (or what George or Robert are writing about). If you refer to ET3, i hope you take the time to read US patent 5,950,543 you will learn how ET3 mitigates the unlikely risk you describe. There are now 5 patents in the ET3 license portfolio.
Daryl Oster
www.et3.com
Jack Slade
Daryl: I am not sure I know which post you are referring to. I try not to be super-critical of anybody's proposal, unless I think they are way out in never-never land. If there is something I do not understand about any proposal I do ask questions, and certainly answer questions/objections about my own system. We have had many discussions about what to do in a vehicle emergency.
I wish you would join in those discussions, rather than refer me to a patent #. Patents are written in legal terms that may not mean a lot to me, or lead me to further misunderstanding.
|
|
|
E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm
>> wrote: Am I being censored?
> wrote: OK, a post of mine finally went through. I had provided a response a
> while back, several times, but I never saw it posted.
Hi Robert, welcome to the group. Many of us who have participated on
several e-mail lists for many years have learned that our posts will
be less likely to be interpreted as spam if we take the time to learn
who the moderator is and properly introduce ourselves to the group.
> Most, if not all, of the ideas proposed here will never go anywhere.
Interesting way to join a group, insult most (if not all) of the
members! (I am sorry that you think you are having a rocky
reception.)
> I think this is because it is so natural a human tendency to defend
> that which we come up with ourselves. Our pride for an original
> idea's origin tends to cloud our already subjective judgement.
Of course we (115 licensees in 9 countries) are proud of our Evacuated
Tube Transport Technologies (ET3)tm system. Many licensees have
improved ET3, by contributing to it's IP, optimization and
implementation. You make a good point about being defensive, have you
looked in the mirror lately ;-).
> I've read one individual mock my concept with his "beam me up Scotty"
> comment and subject line.
I suggest you re-read my post -- and take another look in the mirror
to apply your own admonishment! I was not mocking you -- i was
referring to ET3 as just an intermediate step to a mode that will
eventually displace ET3 because it will offer better value that ET3.
Such a system was imagined 40 years ago and popularized by
Roddenberry. BTW "Star Track" is a already a $20B industry -- and a
working "transporter" prototype has not even been built yet!
> I see another posting warnings that we
> should not "fragment the market" by not adhering to his ideas, (never
> mind the fact that I recognize the flaws in the ideas he proposes.)
Please be specific of the "flaws" you claim to recognize. We
occasionally encounter people who will not take the time to learn
about ET3, yet claim to understand it and offer warnings to others.
It is often hilarious to learn about the flaws in the system these
people imagine ET3 to be. If you indeed understand ET3 (i suggest
reading US patent 5,950,543 and www.et3.com as a start to this
understanding), and still see flaws, we (the 115 licensees who
comprise ET3) are most interested in learning about them. We have
identified many areas where much more value can be added to ET3, so we
hope you do take the time to express any specific concerns you may
have. A recent peer reviewed paper is attached for your review.
On market fragmentation, and "adhering to ideas"; one idea we appear
to both adhere to is: maximizing transportation value to produce high
ROI. We hope you learn enough about ET3 values (and our considerable
research and development in tube transport) to actually compare the
ROI for your idea to ET3 ROI before wasting valuable resources that
could be put to better use in a team effort.
> I should be pleased that almost nobody here took anything divulged about
> my concept all that seriously.
The only concept i have seen attributed to you (a pneumatic tube
system large enough to move packages) appears to me to similar to
systems that have been built in Japan and Russia. The 6 inch and up
pneumatic systems i am aware of have failed to achieve market value
for many reasons. Perhaps my perception of your concept is wrong. If
you have specific ideas to discuss that have been suppressed from on
this group, i hope learn about them, and why they are being
suppressed. My e-mail is e...@et3.com and i have cc to your address in
case my message is suppressed!
> I have now skilled and local partners in my enterprise. My eighteen
> month software implementation project at work will soon be reaching a
> less intensive stage, and I will have almost a year's vacation to
> spend as a windfall on development. Nothing short of premature death
> can stop me from assembly of a functional prototype, and I won't let
> anything stop me from commencing profitable commercial operations.
> From now on, posts from me will come only from media coverage after I
> have accomplished what I now set out to achieve.
> Best regards, Robert DeDomenico
Many of us on this list have had similar delusions for our first
couple of years of the idea phase! And a few of us are making steady
progress to implementation of our various transportation innovations.
If you go to the main page for this group, you can search the archives
and learn a lot from many of the PRT industries early mistakes. Good
luck with your software innovation, perhaps your software skills will
transfer to transportation innovation.
Daryl Oster
--
Best regards,
The ET3 Team
(c) 2011 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth",
e-tube, e-tubes, & the logos thereof are trademarks & service marks of
et3.com Inc. For licensing visit et3.net or contact:POB 1423 Crystal
River FL 34423-1423, e...@et3.com www.et3.com 352-257-1310
E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm
>
> Daryl: I am not sure I know which post you are referring to.
I was referring to your comment about air entering an unlikely ET3
system breach at the speed of sound. The first ET3 patent discloses
the mitigation of this risk.
> I try not to be super-critical of anybody's proposal, unless I think they are way out in
> never-never land. If there is something I do not understand about any proposal I do ask
> questions, and certainly answer questions/objections about my own system.
I hope all can stick to the policy you are now advocating, i believe
it to be sound. It would be easy for me to imagine many faults with
something i have not taken the time to understand.
> We have had many discussions about what to do in a vehicle emergency.
> I wish you would join in those discussions, rather than refer me to a patent #.
As i recall a few members of this group agreed with Ian Ford (the
former moderator) when he asked me to: refrain from most discussions,
and not repeat ET3 related information when new members asked
questions. I told Ian i would comply if more than two would agree
with him, were you not one of them? I have posted only a few times
for the last few years, and actually enjoy being more productive with
my time (so i now thank you). Why are you now changing your mind
about my participation?
> Patents are written in legal terms that may not mean a lot to me, or lead me to further
> misunderstanding.
> Jack Slade
While patent claims contain legalese, the body of a patent must be
written so anyone "versed in the arts" can understand it to the point
of producing the patented item. You were able to articulate problems
you imagine ET3 to have, so i took you to be one "versed in the arts",
apparently i was wrong. Furthermore, as it was i who wrote the ET3
patent body, my description would likely be about the same.
Lack of knowledge is easy to cure, laziness can be curred too (but
it's a bit more difficult), unfortunately stupidity is permanent.
Perhaps i am stupid for continuing to posts to this group. Clearly
you lack knowledge of ET3, and i do not believe either of us to be
stupid, therefore we have a choice of curing my laziness of repeating
my self, OR curing your laziness of reading more about ET3 than you
would like too. Let us compromise, if you have any difficulty
understanding any of the patent, i will repeat my past explanations of
this issue made on this forum.
DO
>
> --- On Mon, 9/5/11, Daryl Oster <e...@et3.com> wrote:
>
> From: Daryl Oster <e...@et3.com>
> Subject: Re: RE: [t-i] Re: Tube systems
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Monday, September 5, 2011, 8:02 PM
>
> Hello Jack Slade,
>
> I do not know if you are referring to ET3, (or what George or Robert are writing about). If you refer to ET3, i hope you take the time to read US patent 5,950,543 you will learn how ET3 mitigates the unlikely risk you describe. There are now 5 patents in the ET3 license portfolio.
>
> Daryl Oster
> www.et3.com
--
Best regards,
The ET3 Team
(c) 2011 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth",
e-tube, e-tubes, & the logos thereof are trademarks & service marks of
et3.com Inc. For licensing visit et3.net or contact:POB 1423 Crystal
River FL 34423-1423, e...@et3.com www.et3.com
Jack Slade
No , I really did not agree with Ian or anybody else limiting conversations. If conversations
are about something too farfetched to ever be likely to work, other list members are very likely to say so, without requesting the moderator to censor him. I forgot to mention that I am now 78 yrs old/ do not like to spend as much time on the net as I used to...that's part of my problem. Anytime you have something to say that you don't want to post to the net my spam mail to the same handle does not get deleted until read once....Jack Slade
--- On Tue, 9/6/11, E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm <e...@et3.com> wrote: |
|
|
|
WALTER BREWER
----- Original Message -----From: Daryl OsterSent: Monday, September 05, 2011 4:02 PMSubject: Re: RE: [t-i] Re: Tube systems
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/j_Tr7OaxewcJ.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm
> How much larger than the vehicle must the tube be to get significant
> advantage from reduced pressure?
The greater the blockage ratio, the more advantage from reduced
pressure. A high speed train will suffer adverse drag if the blockage
ratio is more than about 25% -- this is why HSR tunnels must be much
bigger than conventional train tunnels. Because of cost, the Eurostar
slows way down for the chunnel. Conversely, the greater the blockage
ratio (the smaller the tube for a given vehicle size), the greater the
advantage from reduced pressure.
> Area increases with square of diameter, but circumference is proportional.
True, but for an evacuated tube the load from atmospheric pressure
increases with diameter too, so the tube thickness must also increase.
Therefore the tube material use is proportional to diameter squared.
The same D^2 strength issues also apply to the pressure/vacuum and
impact loads from a passing vehicle in a non-evacuated tunnel.
> Does the D^3 rule apply even if vehicle weight/size is the same?
Yes, the D^3 tube cost approximation applies because of material use
AND tooling costs. Tooling cost increases with the scale factor.
AND at the same time there is less demand for the bigger more
expensive infrastructure (the opposite of economy of scale) means that
less miles of tube are produced from the tooling to amortize the
tooling cost over. This adds another power of one to the material
stress.
This tooling scale factor shows up in the per seat cost of existing
vehicles. A $23,050 hybrid car / 5 seats = $4,610 /seat. (68.7w X
58.7h)^0.5 = 63.5
A hybrid bus has a seat cost of $530,000 / 37 seats = $14,324 / seat (
http://www.busonline.ca/regions/kel/news/hybrid_electric.cfm ) (96w X
120h)^0.5 = 107.3
"diameter" scale factor 107.3"/63.5" = 1.69
per seat cost factor = 14,324 / 4610 = 3.1
cost factor = 530,000/23,050 = 3.0
1.69^2.1 = 3.0 Scale cost factor based on "diameter" of 2.1 as
expected due to non-pressurized loadings (no internal or external
pressure requiring more material).
Let us compare two commercial jet aircraft produced the same year by
the same manufacture, with similar years of tooling service life.
This will eliminate several variables (aircraft are pressurized), but
introduces another -- FAA certification. Certification cost
constitutes a significant part of the cost, and is about the same for
the small aircraft and the large one -- so this fixed cost variable
will reduce the apparent scale cost factor. Prices from:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/
747-8 costs $317.5m / 467 passengers = $679.9k/seat
diameter = 20.1'
737-900ER costs $85.8m / 180 passengers = $476.7k/seat
diameter 12.33'
20.1' / 12.33' = 1.6302 (diameter ratio)
679.9 / 476.7= 1.426 (cost per seat ratio)
1.6302^ 0.726 = 1.426 (per seat diameter scale factor is a power of 0.726)
$317.5 / $85.8 = 3.700 (vehicle cost ratio)
1.63 ^2.677 = 3.700 so scale cost factor based on diameter ratio is a
power of 2.677 (NOTE This is in close agreement with a power of two
plus the 0.726 scale factor alone = 2.726) but a little less than the
value of three (likely due to the high fixed cost of FAA
certification).
> 5 inches away, but through a tube wall and a vacuum?
>
Note that the concord was certified to fly at 60,000 feet (about 0.1
atm pressure or 90% vacuum). In the event of sudden decompression at
68k feet altitude the typical person will loose consciousness in less
than 15 seconds ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde ) . As
disclosed in US patent 5,950,543, the close proximity to atmospheric
pressure makes a huge difference in the amount of time to achieve
survivable conditions in the unlikely event of a sudden decompression.
> What is the cost of a space capsule compared to a car?
> F.
Good question !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29
says
The total funding of Project Constellation through 2025,
inflation-adjusted and without any other increases to NASA's budget,
is estimated at $210 billion ...
The White House's Augustine Commission estimated that after
development of the Orion and its Ares I launch vehicle is completed,
the system will have a recurring cost of nearly $1 billion per flight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_%28spacecraft%29
NASA awarded a cargo delivery contract to SpaceX on December 23, 2008.
The contract calls for a minimum of 20,000 kg (44,000 lb) of cargo
over up to 12 flights to the ISS at a cost of $1.6 billion USD ...
According to Elon Musk, the developmental cost of a crewed Dragon and
Falcon 9 would be between $800 million and $1 billion.
Most of the cost is not the capsule -- but the delivery systems. An
empty orion space capsule (as above referenced) will weigh 19,000 lb.
The SpaceX capsule 6,600 lb empty weight. (it's rocket weighs
735,000lb see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 )
Also an orbital spacecraft must withstand launch, intense UV
radiation, 3 degrees K temperatures, many days in orbit, the heating
and slamming loads of re-entry, chute deployment, and splashdown.
By contrast, the ET3 capsule only weighs 400lbs empty (the pressure
hull is less than 1/4th of this). The LSS (life support system)
components for ET3 are off-the-shelf items in volume production for
rebreather SCUBA equipment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebreather
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-galvanic_fuel_cell (main
component of oxygen sensor)
(NOTE: the LSS operating conditions and equipment of SCUBA are much
more critical than for ET3 ).
We can buy off-the-shelf components to build a working ET3 capsule for
about $100k (labor excluded) at retail cost. In limited production
the cost will be about $40k per capsule, falling to less than $20k per
capsule with high volume production. With anticipated material
advances, cost could be around $10k/capsule.
DO
eph
On Tuesday, September 6, 2011 4:50:30 PM UTC-4, Daryl Oster wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:47 AM, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> How much larger than the vehicle must the tube be to get significant
> advantage from reduced pressure?The greater the blockage ratio, the more advantage from reduced
pressure. A high speed train will suffer adverse drag if the blockage
ratio is more than about 25% -- this is why HSR tunnels must be much
bigger than conventional train tunnels. Because of cost, the Eurostar
slows way down for the chunnel. Conversely, the greater the blockage
ratio (the smaller the tube for a given vehicle size), the greater the
advantage from reduced pressure.
Didn't realize the maximum pressure acting on a vessel was 1 ATM so basically there is little structural cost to go from reduced pressure to near vacuum.
What's interesting about this is that the reduced pressure tube might not need a redesign to become an evacuated tube.
Seals matter more and maintaining pressure is harder (more things leak)?
Isn't the energy cost of evacuating the tube and airlocks high? Is it (inversely) proportional to pressure?
OK, so a reduced pressure tube must be 4x larger (or more) in cross-section area to reduce blockage. Looks like blockage ratio effects is an area of continuing study.
This is speed^2 dependent and related to air being displaced at/near the speed of sound.
So reducing pressure increase the speed of sound which increases top speed.
So given an altitude equivalent pressure similar to aircraft keeps speeds similar to aircraft speeds (not spacecraft as ET3 would allow)
> Area increases with square of diameter, but circumference is proportional.
True, but for an evacuated tube the load from atmospheric pressure
increases with diameter too, so the tube thickness must also increase.
Therefore the tube material use is proportional to diameter squared.
The same D^2 strength issues also apply to the pressure/vacuum and
impact loads from a passing vehicle in a non-evacuated tunnel.
Right. So 4x more cost for the aircraft pressure VS spaceship pressure.
Going from say 1/5 th pressure (12,000 m) to 1/20th is a wash as far as speed goes? I'm guessing that at this blockage ratio and pressure, top speed is about the same?
> 5 inches away, but through a tube wall and a vacuum?
>Note that the concord was certified to fly at 60,000 feet (about 0.1
atm pressure or 90% vacuum). In the event of sudden decompression at
68k feet altitude the typical person will loose consciousness in less
than 15 seconds ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde ) . As
disclosed in US patent 5,950,543, the close proximity to atmospheric
pressure makes a huge difference in the amount of time to achieve
survivable conditions in the unlikely event of a sudden decompression.
Certainly for cargo this makes lots of sense! Even smaller diameter, no humans to worry about, no BWS rules, higher g forces...
F.
E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm
metric in transportation. I hope you consider that ROI can be high,
yet market share can be low. Out priority is on market share, and we
recognize that favorable ROI is a key to achieving the highest
possible market-share.
DO
E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm
Some of the data indicates cargo is more, other references show that
passenger share is greater. IMO some of the best presentation of
transportation data is from Dr. Jean Paul Rodrigue of Hofstra
University.
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 6:56 PM, George Schrader
<georges...@knology.net> wrote:
> Half of the $8.65T spent on transportation in a year moves cargo, the other
> half is spent to move people.
>
> How did you arrive at the 50/50 usage rate
> GLS...@gmail.com
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:12 PM, George Schrader
> <georges...@knology.net> wrote:
>> F. What infrastructure deployment difficulties are you referring to when
>> envisioning a single combined people/cargo system?
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: transport-...@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of eph
>> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 8:03 PM
>> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: [t-i] Re: Tube systems
>> I like the idea of a tube system to carry parcels.
>> I had envisioned a single combined people/cargo sort of thing though. It
>> certainly makes infrastructure deployment more difficult with the larger
>> size.
>> F.
>
> --
> 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.
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
--
E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm
<georgesc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> [George Schrader] I think that a partial vacuum will also allow a more
> complete security of processes to become realized through achieving a
> completely secure environment in the maintenance of the vacuum in egresses.
> No debris can enter the system as the capsuls will not leave the system and
> offer that opportunity to occur.
I apologize that i do not fully understand what you are saying. Can
you re-phrase so i may understand
your point? Any vacuum created on earth is a "partial vacuum". It is
not possible or practical to remove all the air from a tube (but we
can get very close fairly easily). A car or train in a tunnel
experiences more drag than a car or train in the open air. The drag
penalty increases with the blockage ratio (vehicle area to tube area
ratio) . A blockage ratio of 80% can increase drag as much as 10
times (or more at certain speeds). Removing 90% of the air from a 80%
blockage ratio tube will be required to avoid the drag increase.
Removing 90% of the air from the tube is almost as difficult and
costly as removing 99.99999% of the air. The human risks of 90%
vacuum compared to 99.99999% vacuum are about the same (likely death
for exposure more than a few minutes in either case). At some point,
removing more air costs more than the benefit gained by drag
reduction. Therefore there is a vacuum level that is optimum for ET3.
The many other benefits of tube based travel you point out are free
regardless of the vacuum level!
>
> [George Schrader] yes I know what you mean by a larger system having 30
> times the cost of an ET3. I have been comparing a cost to todays highways
> which are rediculously out of whack with even this larger system of 15'dia.
> I suspect the current highway maintenance of $200,000 a mile per year is 10
> times the cost of providing a 15ft guideway.
If the cost of a 15' diameter tube system is $100M/ mile, and the
typical minimum 30 year bond rate needed to attract investment is 5%,
then 5% of $100M = $5M/year cost for just the bond interest! (and
there will still be three to thirty times greater O&M cost for the
bigger system).
A 4 lane freeway costs about $12M/ mile. 5% of $12M = $0.6M/year.
Plus your $0.2M/year maintenance cost = $0.8M / year total cost.
ET3 at $3M/ mile is less than just the interest on a $100M/mile
system, yet can achieve 98% of the utility!
> But what are the other values in social and economic efficiencies which are also at work here.
Let's not confuse the relationship of costs, benefits, and value.
Value = benefit/cost. Eph had focused on minimum cost resulting in a
small tube diameter. You were focused on maximum benefit resulting in
a large tube diameter. The vision of the ET3 consortium is that
maximum value is the most important measure.
> I suspect they are 10, 20, and even 30 times greater than the cost of investment.
This is only correct if the system gets built, and only if use is
great enough to directly recover the investment. The national highway
system investment has recovered about $5.71 per dollar invested. A
system that costs $100M/mile present cost (compared to $12M/ mile
present cost of freeways) is not likely to be capable of attracting
sufficient use to break even. (People would continue to use the
existing highway system for most travel to save money.)
> Which leaves me to wonder in a comparison of investments in a small or large
> diameter system. Where a smaller investment will produce a cost in
> transitioning processes to conform to the smaller availability of area wil
> in effect be so great that the larger system through its ability to smoothly
> allow transition will actually cost less. Meaning that it would cost less
> to invest more than to impede the transition period and continue incurring
> todays cost of highways
A very similar (and now classic) argument was settled many years ago:
George Stephenson set his rail gauge at 4' - 8.5" (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stephenson )
and I.K. Brunel set his gauge at 7' - 0.5" (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isambard_Kingdom_Brunel ).
>
> Speeding the usage has a value too.
>
Agreed!! Due to lower cost (about half), Stephenson's guage allowed
double the miles for a given investment and therefore attracted much
more investment (much greater ROI) . In the same amount of time 8
times more miles of track was built than Brunel. Stephenson's gauge
eventually became the global standard. Over 60% of railroads in the
world now use the standard gauge. The standard is not the smallest or
least costly guage -- but the one that resulted in the greatest VALUE.
The attached graph shows how the lower cost contributed to adoption
even within the GWR line that Brunel founded!
> The investment of a larger system may be 30 times greater than ET3 but its
> also 30 times less than what is being incurred today.
The facts we have uncovered do not support this conclusion. What you
are proposing is approximately the same as the SwissMetro system first
proposed in the late 70s, and in spite of more than $10M investment in
detailed studies, tests, and models has not been built. For
reference: Brad Swartzwelter proposed adopting the SwissMetro system
for the US in his book "Faster Than Jets".
> So the difference is a few 3% of todays cost in a IDS or 0.1% in a ET3 but
> so inhibit and stall the transition period as to continue to incure a 300%
> loss in the use of continueing the cost of outstanding processes during that
> lengthy transition period.
> My point is that what is the actual difference in cost between no change and
> a tube system. That the advantages of speeding transition in a larger
> investment my be more lucrative than the smaller one and also incurring the
> continued cost in its slower and incomplete transition period.
I understand your argument and the logic you apply, it is about the
same as made by Brunel in the 1820s. Burnel was a genius engineer,
and innovator. He was wealthy, and far more educated than Stephenson.
He believed his argument for a far bigger system was correct, and
invested his own money in proving his argument. In spite of his
determination, money, and intellect; more people used the lower cost
system. After Brunel's death his railroad company abandoned his large
system in favor of the "standard" gauge that demonstrated the highest
market value.
One must admire one who is willing to invest their own money in their
ideas. I have little regard for the wealthy individuals and companies
who lobby the government to use force of law to take tax money from
others because what they advocate cannot produce a favorable return.
(If high speed passenger trains could produce a favorable ROI, why do
the wealthy railroad companies not invest their own wealth first as
Brunel did?)
> [George Schrader] the existing modes will collapse as the remaining 5% will
> not be able to support it.
The rail system in the USA reached it's zenith in 1916 with 270,000
miles of track. Now less than 130,000 miles in in use. The same will
eventually be true of roads. As a result of ET3 some roads (and
railroads, shiplines, and airlines) will also fall to disuse. There
will be some that continue to be used because they can still produce
value -- just as some canals and railroads are still used today --
many will continue to survive even after ET3 does 90% of transport.
The bottom line is that with ET3, 90% will pay less than 1/10th the
cost to travel. Asking people to pay 3 times more than present (and
30 times more than with ET3) for the many advantages you describe is
not likely to attract much of the market very fast.
> [George Schrader] I don't think people will want to travel for extensive
> periods in a MG sized vehicle.
I totally agree, that is why ET3 capsules are sized according to
proven market preferences. (see the histograms in the attached
paper). ET3 capsules are within an inch of being the same shoulder
and elbow width as the car model that has sold the most number of
vehicles in the entire world -- the Toyota Corolla. The ET3 capsule
seating module is much longer than the Corolla passenger seating area.
The ET3 capsule has over 50% more interior volume. Of all cars and
SUVs sold in the US (typically larger size than the rest of the
world), only a few (the longest full size vans, and the Ford Excursion
and Chevy Suburban) have more volume than ET3 capsules. ET3 capsules
have more volume than the largest Lincoln, Cadillac, and Mercedes
cars.
Furthermore, the ET3 access portals will be much more frequent than
economically possible with a 15' diameter tube system. Also, the ET3
passengers will be able to control their personal sized vehicle so
they can stop at any access portal. Just like a car on the freeway -
ET3 passengers can exit at the next portal when passengers get tired
of riding. This is not as possible or likely with a bus sized
vehicle filled with strangers.
>
> Tube transport is a new process whose accomplishment in global pathways will
> generate a usage rate that think may exceed an ET3. and become a similar
> cost.
I have yet to see any evidence to support this view, and our team (now
118 licensees in 9 countries) has accumulated much evidence that this
view is not likely to prevail.
> I am not saying no et3 but there seems the opportunity in a system of global
> networks where a larger structure and its ability to provide a larger area
> that the extreme demand in usage may deliver a comparable cost.
You may be correct. The ET3 license does not restrict the licensee
from building any size ET3 system they desire. We only ask that the
licensee be aware that their system will not be able to be networked
into an optimally sized system, AND that their non-optimal size system
will be subject to competition from the optimally sized tubes that
most of the consortium advocates. There are about a half dozen
licensees who once advocated a larger system size (about double the
diameter) to accommodate compact cars. Your advocacy is for a much
more extreme size increase, so i am doubtful if it would attract much
support from existing licensees, but if you acquire a license, you are
free to recruit new licensees who are willing to support your
advocacy. Be warned, if you do buy a license, and recruit others who
support your view, we will continue to promote what we have
collectively measured to represent the highest value.
You are free to buy a license to promote and build an non-optimal
(specialized) ET3 system with your own money (or money from those you
are able to attract to your ideas). Be forewarned that you and your
investors will face competition from us ET3 licensees who are focused
on a team effort to build an optimally sized global network. If you
build an ET3 system big enough to haul buses and shipping containers,
you will likely face competition that is able to deliver 98% of the
utility to move goods and people, but at 1/30th the cost. How long do
you think your system would survive with such competition? How do you
think the ROI for investors will compare?
>
> [George Schrader] How many people choose the cheapest car?
Far more people than choose the most expensive car!! Note, we are not
advocating the cheapest ET3 possible for movement of people and cargo;
that would be a 2' diameter X 6.5' long capsule capable of
transporting a single 99th percentile adult laying down (this is what
Eph and a small minority of licensees advocate). We are advocating
the diameter most likely to produce the greatest long term value.
Only if the system is built to the same diameter, can it be networked
together on a global basis for eventual door-to door use.
> [George Schrader] I suspect that an achievement will see a per mile increase
> in usage that will be at least 100 times greater and more probably a 1,000
> times greater. Which means that the investment in these uprecedented high
> use routes will become divided by that increased usage into a user cost
> which could be less than 1% of what we know today. We will be free to travel
> the earth
I agree this is possible IF (and only if) the size of ET3 is optimized
to maximize transportation value. IMO, selecting the correct diameter
is the single most important parameter to get right to produce maximum
long term global value. It is possible that there is credible
evidence that we have not considered in the optimization of tube
diameter. It is critical to get the diameter correct for ET3, so we
will continue to search for and consider evidence supporting a larger
(or smaller) standard ET3 diameter.
At 350mph, the capacity of a pair of 5' diameter ET3 tubes is that of
a 40 lane freeway (but 1/4th the per-mile cost). At 4000mph, the
capacity is more than 10 times greater -- or 400 lanes! If this
proves to be insufficient in the future, more tubes can be built (just
as more lanes are added to some freeways). Building more parallel
tubes (instead of bigger diameter tubes) improves fault tolerance if
one or more tubes (or access portals) should fail.
George, thank you for taking the time to write your thoughts. There
is much we agree on with regard to the advantages of ET3
implementation. Our discussions over the years have been beneficial
and instructional for many licensees, and have likely attracted a few
to acquire licenses. We hope you to join the consortium so we can
compensate you for the value that you add.
E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:11 PM, E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm
<e...@et3.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:11 AM, George Schrader
> <georgesc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> [George Schrader] I think that a partial vacuum will also allow a more
...
> Agreed!! Due to lower cost (about half), Stephenson's guage allowed
> double the miles for a given investment and therefore attracted much
> more investment (much greater ROI) . In the same amount of time 8
> times more miles of track was built than Brunel. Stephenson's gauge
> eventually became the global standard. Over 60% of railroads in the
> world now use the standard gauge. The standard is not the smallest or
> least costly guage -- but the one that resulted in the greatest VALUE.
> The attached graph shows how the lower cost contributed to adoption
> even within the GWR line that Brunel founded!
eph
There is an argument however to cater to the 1 or 2 passenger grouping that represents > 90% of commuter traffic which causes congestion.
I'm not even convinced lying down as suggested for the ET3 capsule is an idea that will be popular. That's a bigger concession than number of passengers if you ask me. Comfort is important.
F.
Michael Weidler
From: Robert DeDomenico <dedomenic...@gmail.com>
To: transport-innovators <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2011 8:28 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Tube systems ... more expensive than what? conjoining lanes
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.