Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

7657RE: [carfree_cities] RE: ETT and Canterbury Tales

Expand Messages
  • Daryl Oster
    Sep 16, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Jason Meggs [mailto:jmeggs@...]

      > The ETT idea sounds good in many ways, if what's been said is true. Of
      > course I must be very skeptical, but replacing 'freeways' and airplane
      > trips, removing the travel-emission of noise and pollution, greatly
      > reducing the environmental impacts, including opening up habitat, all
      > sound wonderful. They could be great connectors within carfree cities and
      > in particular, between them. I'm not advocating for hypermobility, but if
      > I had to choose cars and planes over EET, I'd choose EET given what
      > *little* I know about it.
      > But an international cross-oceanic network of *vacuum* tubes?

      Marine crossings will be expensive, and most of the tech issues have been
      worked out. The best place to cross will be the Bering Strait - less than
      100 miles, and less than 200' deep water. The discovery channel did a piece
      on a trans-Atlantic tube big enough for huge maglev trains; ETT could be
      built on the same route for less than 1/20th of the cost.

      > One earthquake, serious crash, or attack on the tubes could cause some
      > very serious problems. It's a systemic weakness that wasn't addressed in
      > the email about EET.

      Transportation is dangerous; car accidents are the leading cause of
      accidental death in the US. ETT substantially eliminates the MAJOR causes
      of transportation related fatalities - safety is a systemic strength of ETT
      - not a weakness. Earth quakes, car-jackings, terrorist activity, etc. cause
      transportation related death, however, all combined these causes represent
      less than 1% of fatalities.

      ETT is at less risk for earth quakes than automobile bridges and elevated
      highways. The BART tube under the bay sustained no damage, compared with
      the huge amount of damage caused to above ground modes. (Tubes are
      inherently a strong structure). ETT capsules are not a likely target for
      hijackers, one can't elude apprehension in an ETT capsule as a car or
      aircraft can, and automated control systems will not capitulate to demands.

      > And then, how is emergency access going to work?

      Is not a better question to ask: how can we make emergency access
      unnecessary? The ETT patent document on www.et3.com describes emergency
      egress, and keep in mind that ETT eliminates over 95% of transportation
      related risk - so egress means will likely go unused.

      > I can envision fixes for some of this, which increase expense and inrease
      > failure probabilities. I'm not suggesting nobody has thought of them. But
      > I'd like to see much more detail about the EET idea before hanging any
      > hopes on it or investing much of any energy in it.

      Several hundred pages of details are worked out. A good place to start
      looking over the rough details is the ETT patent document available on the
      website. I am happy to forward detail on any finer points you may have an
      interest in.

      > (And how viable is it to maintain the vacuum, during normal use?)
      > Jason Meggs
      > Berkeley, CA, USA

      That is one of the first questions many intelligent people ask. I usually
      respond with a question most people can relate to, but most take for
      granted: How many times do you have to take your TV down to the vacuum
      filling station? -- TV's require a thousand times better vacuum than ETT.

      Vacuum science is highly developed, and mature; yet most people (even
      scientists) do not have much knowledge of vacuum equipment and processes.
      The adage "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is eclipsed by
      ETT - the payoff for the small amount of energy used to create and maintain
      the vacuum is more than paid back by the huge amount of energy saved (more
      than 100:1).

      Jason you made good comments and observations on ETT. Many people do not
      take the time to consider the many possibilities for ETT to improve global
      sustainability and equity; thanks for your consideration.

      Daryl Oster
      (c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
      e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
      of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3@... ,
      www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310>
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic