Re:Innovate Transport in America? Lotsa Laffs ...
on
Pipeline Mass Transit?
·
· Score: 1
As far as safety, the ETT patent available on www.et3.com discloses how air can be quickly admitted along the length the tube in the event of a sudden failure. This air will slow the capsules at a uniform safe rate, and provide emergency pressurization far quicker than an airplane doing an emergency decent from 45,000 feet.
The chance of failure is much less for ETT, the parts are not as highly stressed as on aircraft, and not nearly as complex - the environment is highly controlled, not variable with temperature extreams, and wind shear, thunder storms, hail storms, etc.
You are correct that ETT is ideally suited to trips over ten or twenty miles. Automated PRT like skytran or higherway is more attractive for strictly urban use. ETT is also "dual mode" small (300lb) electric or fuelcell urban road vehicles can be carried in an ETT capsule.
You are correct; the first ETT systems will not likely be transcontinental, just like the first railroads were local to meet a given need. The first ETT systems will most likely operate at 350mph on 25 to 250mile routes. These routes will serve as feeder routes for an eventual national and global ETT network. We will address this on our next website upgrade.
Please consider that sail to steam took 100 years, wagon to rail took 50 years, horse and buggy to automobiles took 25 years, and it is likely that the shift to ETT will take 12 years. (We could do it in the US in 3 years by launching an all out effort - that's not likely). We have developed much higher capacity for change, and people now expect change more than they resist it.
The ultra capacity of ETT is not needed to justify building it. Capacity is mentioned to illustrate that there will be plenty of capacity for growth as demand increases, and as more nodes are added to the network. For instance, the per hour passenger capacity of one pair of tubes is greater than all coast to coast interstate highways and all coast to coast air travel. Major branching at both ends can eventually use this capacity.
Low speed ETT (up to 350mph) or so can be placed on existing unused rail ROW, powerline ROW, and freeway medians at very low cost (less than $2m/mile). Acceleration of a 1200lb capsule to 350mph takes less than 2kw*h, at one g acceleration the time is less than 20 seconds, the distance less than one mile, and the peak power less than 1200hp. The total kinetic energy is less than 40% of a fully loaded semi at 70mph. For those that think 1g is too much, consider that the new rollercoaster and amusement park rides use linear motors for up to 3g of acceleration, and many cars on the road are capable of about one g deceleration.
Tunneling is expensive, and should only be used only when necessary to save ROW expense in high value areas, to provide enhanced security, or go through topographic barriers, etc. Tunneling to the depth of providing gravity powering is not cost effective compared to linear motors.
Re:Innovate Transport in America? Lotsa Laffs ...
on
Pipeline Mass Transit?
·
· Score: 1
The tube cost for a 350mph ETT is less than $2m/mile installed on existing ROW (right of way). ETT needs less than 5% of the ROW of a freeway. ROW is 60% of a freeway cost on average. The digging or earth moving for ETT is much less than building a freeway. You should read the ETT patent on www.et3.com, you should start to understand what I am talking about.
Re:Innovate Transport in America? Lotsa Laffs ...
on
Pipeline Mass Transit?
·
· Score: 1
You bring up a good point about energy. A 1200lb GVT ETT capsule moving 350mpg has less than 40% of the energy of a 40ton truck moving 70mph. The chemical energy in a gasoline tanker truck is far more destruction power than a 1200lb ETT capsule moving at 4000mph. And the path is much less certain. It sounds to me like you may have a phobia about being out of control. Flying in a commercial airliner is on the average 18 times safer than driving; but the pilot is in control. I submit for your consideration that you share control of your safety with everyone on the road that passes within 15 feet of your car while in motion; (ever had that happen?). Going down the highway in your car at 60mph you cover 88 feet in one second. The average human reaction time under the best of conditions is.2 seconds or 17.6'. Plenty of trucks loose tire treads or worse, a load, or swerve to miss a pedestrian, or for no reason at all.
Parallel processes are proven to be far faster than serial ones. Our business model takes advantage of this. By offering those with the production capacity to participate, ETT will be implemented many years faster. If you have a better suggestion lets hear it, if we adopt it, you may earn some compensatory shares as a licensee - co-developer.
Subways usually collide due to operator error or mechanical failure; ETT is automated, and maglev has no moving parts, reducing failure risk. You are correct, if a capsule ruptures, those inside could die; but the risk is minute compared say with a wing falling off of an airplane, or a tire on a car blowing out.
We prefer to think of our ETT implementation plan as being more like LINUX, or "open source" but with profit potential, and share ownership for those who do the work. The company et3.com Inc. is worker owned - shares are not for sale. Unlike most companies, et3.com Inc. has no employees, has no buildings, and pays no salaries. We have been in profitable operation since inception, but the profits are just enough to keep the company alive. Our real profits will come when ETT gets built. That is our mission, and that is where the big pay-off is - for everyone.
Energy is the money of our economy, conservation is the best way to invest energy. "FREE" power costs a lot of energy to build; often much more than the device will produce before it stops working.
Re:Innovate Transport in America? Lotsa Laffs ...
on
Pipeline Mass Transit?
·
· Score: 1
STRUCTURE: The patent discloses redundant, automatic tube alignment structure, why don't you read it?
DRIVE: Both magnetic and mechanical are disclosed in the patent - and they are not needed along the whole length.
Safety: ETT eliminates or substantially reduces the biggest causes of airplane crashes: pilot error, weather, and mechanical failure.
FINANCE: less initial cost than roads, less land for right-of-way, less energy used, no pilots and far less attendants all, less wasted time = less finance risk.
LAWSUITS: Since ETT will be far safer than driving, insurance should be less costly in time.
TUNNELS: not needed except through mountains - just like trains, except ETT tunnels cost only a tenth as much since they are so much smaller. READ THE PATENT it explains ETT for you.
Our cost analysis shows underground ETT infrastructure is more than a couple of orders of magnitude less expensive than other underground transportation systems. Tunnel size is the reason. With ETT, only one bore 4m in diameter with 2 evacuated tubes inside (1.5m dia ea) has more passenger carrying capacity than 80 lanes of freeway! At least read the patent before you "shoot from the hip" and condemn something you apparently know very little about. ETT can be above ground - no tunnel needed, also the materials needed to support 1200lb vehicles no closer than 50' apart is a lot less cost than what is needed to support 200,000lb train cars, or 80,000lb trucks on 4 lanes bumper to bumper.
We calculate that a pedal powered ETT will be able to reach 350mph or faster. A 500 mile race with an Indy car would be fairly close. (0.45 kw*hr to reach 350mph). No contest if the pit crew pedaled too.
If you make an observation at least back it up with some facts. Compare ETT points of failure with aircraft points of failure, or automotive points of failure. Have you ever drove on a 2 lane highway at 60mph or faster? If so, chances are you passed at least one other car going the other way. You were 5 feet away from instant death - you trusted that person with your life. Do you know what they were smoking? Do you know if they have a death wish? Did you check the air in their tires? Did you make sure their lug nuts were tight? If not who did? At least read the patent (check the target) before you take pop-shots.
You are correct, the total energy should be considered, so if you would have read the patent, and got out your calculator you would agree that ETT construction uses less than a tenth as much energy as building cars and the roads they run on. ETT uses less than a tenth as much materials (400lbs for a 6 place vehicle vs 4000lbs for a SUV).
Re:Innovate Transport in America? Lotsa Laffs ...
on
Pipeline Mass Transit?
·
· Score: 1
Your "would you get in one of these" comment applies to ANY transportation. BTW 50k people in the us die each year in autos, do you still drive? I thought so.
Re:Innovate Transport in America? Lotsa Laffs ...
on
Pipeline Mass Transit?
·
· Score: 1
Again -- read the patent, our calculations show the cost to be less than a tenth of what you are guessing.
It is apparent you have not read the patent either - or you would realize the drawing you must be looking at is for a seating module that is slid into place in a pressure hull - so the doors take no load, they supply insulation from the acceleration reaction surfaces, and keep the passengers from getting their limbs sheared off when the seating module is loaded into the pressure hull.
If you read the patent you will see that the hatches are all designed as you indicate. READ THE PATENT, then take your best shots or you just look foolish to those who have.
There are 3 (grossly redundant) misconceptions about ETT that need to be clear up: If one reads the patent (http://www.et3.com/US_Pat5950543ETT.htm ) virtually all the other misconceptions will be cleared up too.
Misconception 1) Vacuum can't be maintained (or to costly to maintain) in thousands of miles of tubes.
Answer 1) You watch TV don't you? Your TV, (CRT too) operates by virtue of a fairly decent vacuum just behind the glass - loose the vacuum - no pitchure. IMy grandma has a TV 20 years old - still works fine, and she hasn't taken it down to the vacuum recharge station lately. Now imagine the hundreds of millions of TV's in the world lined up in a row. A tube is eiser to seal than the shape of a TV tube. Electronic vacuum leak detection is a well developed art, so is ferro-magnetic fluid leak proof sealing technology, so is glass melting. Glass can be used for ETT sealing, but there are better materials, or combinations of glass with other materials. TV's need a much better vacuum than ETT needs to work. For a 350mph ETT the cost to maintain the optimal quality of vacuum is less than 50cents for a 100 mile trip at a volume of only 7000 trips per day.
Misconception 2) The cost of the tube / tunnels / maglev etc. will be astronomical.
Ans. 2) Compare the structure and maglev needed to support 1200lb ETT capsules no closer than 50foot spacing with that necessary to support 200ton locomotives, or 4 lanes of bumper to bumper 40ton trucks.
Our preliminary cost estimates for a 350mph ETT system having 2 elevated tubes ( 5' dia.) combined into a "I-beam" show that less than 16 tons of material is needed for a 100' span. Compare this with the 380tons of material for an 80' span of the MagLev train being built in China.
Most ETT systems will not have to be underground as this triples the cost. When tunneling is required, 2 ETT tubes will fit in a single tunnel tube 4meters in diameter, leaving room for two 6'6"by 2' walk ways on each side for maint, and escape. Compare the tunneling expense with the need for 2 tunnels 7meters in diameter for a 2 way train. There are thousands of miles of small tunnels under the cities all over the world, they bring us water, and keep our toilets from overflowing.
Our estimates show the cost of 350 mph ETT is about 1/5th the cost of freeways, and the capacity is 8 times greater. A 100 mile trip will use less than one dollar worth of electricity to move 6 people, this is including the cost of maintaining the vacuum AND retire the debt on the guideway. The capacity of one tube is 140,000persons per hour at 280mph - double the speed and the capacity doubles.
Compare the tooling and materials and labor to build 400lb (empty weight) ETT capsules with that needed to build 50ton train cars.
Misconception 3) The ETT patent is invalid because of prior art.
Ans. 3) READ THE PATENT http://www.et3.com/US_Pat5950543ETT.htm - the patent cover page lists more than a dozen prior art references far more pertinent to ETT than the scifi books, movies, and the respected Swissmetro project purported to invalidate the ETT patent.
Actually reading the patent will clear up the other misconceptions about ETT.
Daryl, Oster CEO et3.com Inc. et3@et3.com
Slashdot Mirror
As far as safety, the ETT patent available on www.et3.com discloses how air can be quickly admitted along the length the tube in the event of a sudden failure. This air will slow the capsules at a uniform safe rate, and provide emergency pressurization far quicker than an airplane doing an emergency decent from 45,000 feet.
The chance of failure is much less for ETT, the parts are not as highly stressed as on aircraft, and not nearly as complex - the environment is highly controlled, not variable with temperature extreams, and wind shear, thunder storms, hail storms, etc.
You are correct that ETT is ideally suited to trips over ten or twenty miles. Automated PRT like skytran or higherway is more attractive for strictly urban use. ETT is also "dual mode" small (300lb) electric or fuelcell urban road vehicles can be carried in an ETT capsule.
You are correct; the first ETT systems will not likely be transcontinental, just like the first railroads were local to meet a given need. The first ETT systems will most likely operate at 350mph on 25 to 250mile routes. These routes will serve as feeder routes for an eventual national and global ETT network. We will address this on our next website upgrade.
Please consider that sail to steam took 100 years, wagon to rail took 50 years, horse and buggy to automobiles took 25 years, and it is likely that the shift to ETT will take 12 years. (We could do it in the US in 3 years by launching an all out effort - that's not likely). We have developed much higher capacity for change, and people now expect change more than they resist it.
The ultra capacity of ETT is not needed to justify building it. Capacity is mentioned to illustrate that there will be plenty of capacity for growth as demand increases, and as more nodes are added to the network. For instance, the per hour passenger capacity of one pair of tubes is greater than all coast to coast interstate highways and all coast to coast air travel. Major branching at both ends can eventually use this capacity.
Low speed ETT (up to 350mph) or so can be placed on existing unused rail ROW, powerline ROW, and freeway medians at very low cost (less than $2m/mile). Acceleration of a 1200lb capsule to 350mph takes less than 2kw*h, at one g acceleration the time is less than 20 seconds, the distance less than one mile, and the peak power less than 1200hp. The total kinetic energy is less than 40% of a fully loaded semi at 70mph. For those that think 1g is too much, consider that the new rollercoaster and amusement park rides use linear motors for up to 3g of acceleration, and many cars on the road are capable of about one g deceleration.
Tunneling is expensive, and should only be used only when necessary to save ROW expense in high value areas, to provide enhanced security, or go through topographic barriers, etc. Tunneling to the depth of providing gravity powering is not cost effective compared to linear motors.
The tube cost for a 350mph ETT is less than $2m/mile installed on existing ROW (right of way). ETT needs less than 5% of the ROW of a freeway. ROW is 60% of a freeway cost on average. The digging or earth moving for ETT is much less than building a freeway. You should read the ETT patent on www.et3.com, you should start to understand what I am talking about.
You bring up a good point about energy. A 1200lb GVT ETT capsule moving 350mpg has less than 40% of the energy of a 40ton truck moving 70mph. The chemical energy in a gasoline tanker truck is far more destruction power than a 1200lb ETT capsule moving at 4000mph. And the path is much less certain. It sounds to me like you may have a phobia about being out of control. Flying in a commercial airliner is on the average 18 times safer than driving; but the pilot is in control. I submit for your consideration that you share control of your safety with everyone on the road that passes within 15 feet of your car while in motion; (ever had that happen?). Going down the highway in your car at 60mph you cover 88 feet in one second. The average human reaction time under the best of conditions is .2 seconds or 17.6'. Plenty of trucks loose tire treads or worse, a load, or swerve to miss a pedestrian, or for no reason at all.
Parallel processes are proven to be far faster than serial ones. Our business model takes advantage of this. By offering those with the production capacity to participate, ETT will be implemented many years faster. If you have a better suggestion lets hear it, if we adopt it, you may earn some compensatory shares as a licensee - co-developer.
Subways usually collide due to operator error or mechanical failure; ETT is automated, and maglev has no moving parts, reducing failure risk. You are correct, if a capsule ruptures, those inside could die; but the risk is minute compared say with a wing falling off of an airplane, or a tire on a car blowing out.
We prefer to think of our ETT implementation plan as being more like LINUX, or "open source" but with profit potential, and share ownership for those who do the work. The company et3.com Inc. is worker owned - shares are not for sale. Unlike most companies, et3.com Inc. has no employees, has no buildings, and pays no salaries. We have been in profitable operation since inception, but the profits are just enough to keep the company alive. Our real profits will come when ETT gets built. That is our mission, and that is where the big pay-off is - for everyone.
Energy is the money of our economy, conservation is the best way to invest energy. "FREE" power costs a lot of energy to build; often much more than the device will produce before it stops working.
STRUCTURE: The patent discloses redundant, automatic tube alignment structure, why don't you read it? DRIVE: Both magnetic and mechanical are disclosed in the patent - and they are not needed along the whole length. Safety: ETT eliminates or substantially reduces the biggest causes of airplane crashes: pilot error, weather, and mechanical failure. FINANCE: less initial cost than roads, less land for right-of-way, less energy used, no pilots and far less attendants all, less wasted time = less finance risk. LAWSUITS: Since ETT will be far safer than driving, insurance should be less costly in time. TUNNELS: not needed except through mountains - just like trains, except ETT tunnels cost only a tenth as much since they are so much smaller. READ THE PATENT it explains ETT for you.
Our cost analysis shows underground ETT infrastructure is more than a couple of orders of magnitude less expensive than other underground transportation systems. Tunnel size is the reason. With ETT, only one bore 4m in diameter with 2 evacuated tubes inside (1.5m dia ea) has more passenger carrying capacity than 80 lanes of freeway! At least read the patent before you "shoot from the hip" and condemn something you apparently know very little about. ETT can be above ground - no tunnel needed, also the materials needed to support 1200lb vehicles no closer than 50' apart is a lot less cost than what is needed to support 200,000lb train cars, or 80,000lb trucks on 4 lanes bumper to bumper.
We calculate that a pedal powered ETT will be able to reach 350mph or faster. A 500 mile race with an Indy car would be fairly close. (0.45 kw*hr to reach 350mph). No contest if the pit crew pedaled too.
If you make an observation at least back it up with some facts. Compare ETT points of failure with aircraft points of failure, or automotive points of failure. Have you ever drove on a 2 lane highway at 60mph or faster? If so, chances are you passed at least one other car going the other way. You were 5 feet away from instant death - you trusted that person with your life. Do you know what they were smoking? Do you know if they have a death wish? Did you check the air in their tires? Did you make sure their lug nuts were tight? If not who did? At least read the patent (check the target) before you take pop-shots.
You are correct, the total energy should be considered, so if you would have read the patent, and got out your calculator you would agree that ETT construction uses less than a tenth as much energy as building cars and the roads they run on. ETT uses less than a tenth as much materials (400lbs for a 6 place vehicle vs 4000lbs for a SUV).
Your "would you get in one of these" comment applies to ANY transportation. BTW 50k people in the us die each year in autos, do you still drive? I thought so.
Again -- read the patent, our calculations show the cost to be less than a tenth of what you are guessing.
It is apparent you have not read the patent either - or you would realize the drawing you must be looking at is for a seating module that is slid into place in a pressure hull - so the doors take no load, they supply insulation from the acceleration reaction surfaces, and keep the passengers from getting their limbs sheared off when the seating module is loaded into the pressure hull. If you read the patent you will see that the hatches are all designed as you indicate. READ THE PATENT, then take your best shots or you just look foolish to those who have.
READ THE PATENT it explains all this and much more. (non-conductive tubes = no magnetic drag)
There are 3 (grossly redundant) misconceptions about ETT that need to be clear up: If one reads the patent (http://www.et3.com/US_Pat5950543ETT.htm ) virtually all the other misconceptions will be cleared up too. Misconception 1) Vacuum can't be maintained (or to costly to maintain) in thousands of miles of tubes. Answer 1) You watch TV don't you? Your TV, (CRT too) operates by virtue of a fairly decent vacuum just behind the glass - loose the vacuum - no pitchure. IMy grandma has a TV 20 years old - still works fine, and she hasn't taken it down to the vacuum recharge station lately. Now imagine the hundreds of millions of TV's in the world lined up in a row. A tube is eiser to seal than the shape of a TV tube. Electronic vacuum leak detection is a well developed art, so is ferro-magnetic fluid leak proof sealing technology, so is glass melting. Glass can be used for ETT sealing, but there are better materials, or combinations of glass with other materials. TV's need a much better vacuum than ETT needs to work. For a 350mph ETT the cost to maintain the optimal quality of vacuum is less than 50cents for a 100 mile trip at a volume of only 7000 trips per day. Misconception 2) The cost of the tube / tunnels / maglev etc. will be astronomical. Ans. 2) Compare the structure and maglev needed to support 1200lb ETT capsules no closer than 50foot spacing with that necessary to support 200ton locomotives, or 4 lanes of bumper to bumper 40ton trucks. Our preliminary cost estimates for a 350mph ETT system having 2 elevated tubes ( 5' dia.) combined into a "I-beam" show that less than 16 tons of material is needed for a 100' span. Compare this with the 380tons of material for an 80' span of the MagLev train being built in China. Most ETT systems will not have to be underground as this triples the cost. When tunneling is required, 2 ETT tubes will fit in a single tunnel tube 4meters in diameter, leaving room for two 6'6"by 2' walk ways on each side for maint, and escape. Compare the tunneling expense with the need for 2 tunnels 7meters in diameter for a 2 way train. There are thousands of miles of small tunnels under the cities all over the world, they bring us water, and keep our toilets from overflowing. Our estimates show the cost of 350 mph ETT is about 1/5th the cost of freeways, and the capacity is 8 times greater. A 100 mile trip will use less than one dollar worth of electricity to move 6 people, this is including the cost of maintaining the vacuum AND retire the debt on the guideway. The capacity of one tube is 140,000persons per hour at 280mph - double the speed and the capacity doubles. Compare the tooling and materials and labor to build 400lb (empty weight) ETT capsules with that needed to build 50ton train cars. Misconception 3) The ETT patent is invalid because of prior art. Ans. 3) READ THE PATENT http://www.et3.com/US_Pat5950543ETT.htm - the patent cover page lists more than a dozen prior art references far more pertinent to ETT than the scifi books, movies, and the respected Swissmetro project purported to invalidate the ETT patent. Actually reading the patent will clear up the other misconceptions about ETT. Daryl, Oster CEO et3.com Inc. et3@et3.com