7658RE: [carfree_cities] RE: ETT and Canterbury Tales
- Sep 16, 2004Daryl,
Thanks for the reply -- I'm actually reminded of an idea that was floating
around some time ago to create bicycle commute tubes at street level, with
air pressure/wind in the travel direction. There would be two tubes, side
by side, one for each direction. This would mean protection from rain and
hostile winds year-round, and perhaps an easy 25 MPH trip inside the tube.
I'd like more details about that idea as well.
I'm glad there are hundreds of pages of details worked out about the ETT
idea. But one question I'd like to know up front before searching for
those documents, and searching through them, is:
What happens if there's a rupture of the vacuum tube?
- For close-approaching trains to the rupture?
- How long does repair take?
- How long does it take to bring the system online (restore vacuum after
Berkeley, CA, USA
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Daryl Oster wrote:
>> -----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>
> To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
> Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>