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

7664censorship of carfree diaolog

Expand Messages
  • Daryl Oster
    Sep 17, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: J.H. Crawford [mailto:mailbox@...]
      > Hi All,
      > I'm declaring this discussion over.

      A typical treatment to a paradigm challenge is censorship:

      Since ETT could help solve the problem (cities choked with cars) better than
      insisting on a return to the old paradigm (trains and bikes), you the
      moderator will choke off any information germane to the discussion that is
      outside of YOUR personal definition of the problem.

      For several examples of this tactic in action (protecting the paradigm) --
      see the book: "Innovation and Public Policy - The case of personal rapid
      transit" by Prof. Catherine G. Burke - University of Southern CA, 1979.

      > ETT is just another one of these pie-in-the-sky ideas
      > that keep us from focusing on the real questions. The
      > basic idea has been around for more than a century,
      > and if there were anything to it, we would know by now.
      > (A prototype system built in southern Manhattan was
      > quickly abandoned.)

      What you are calling a prototype was in fact a PNEUMATIC system (like used
      at bank drive-up windows).

      You are correct that pneumatic systems like the one installed by Alfred
      Beach, the editor of "Scientific American" in NYC have not seen much use for
      passenger or cargo transportation. They are not efficient in large sizes
      since they rely on the movement of air for propulsion (the tubes were NOT
      evacuated). ETT is NOT such a system as you allege.

      In fact the thrust of my argument is a way to solve the well established
      problem of car choked cities in a way that IS PROVEN to work. Cars replaced
      trains and bikes because they were more sustainable - they offered a higher
      benefit to cost ratio.

      Offering a higher benefit to cost ratio than cars will stand the best chance
      of their successful elimination. Suggesting what is socially unsustainable
      IS a "pie in the sky solution". Regardless of your likely noble intentions,
      what in fact you are calling "focusing on the real questions" is
      characteristic of the typical rail industry sponsored ploys to legislate or
      force the continued unsustainable use of heavily subsidized trains. This
      tactic of the rail industry sells trains that go unused; the rail industry
      could care less -- as long as they can squeeze a little more profit from
      their colossal train production assets and political machine.

      > The amount of energy required to maintain the vacuum
      > is not trivial, the claims of low cost are entirely
      > unsubstantiated, and it would appear that little or
      > no serious engineering has been done on this proposal.

      Ah, another typical response - lies to discredit:

      In fact, the engineering behind ETT is serious; serious enough that the ETT
      is part of the 10 national 5 year plan for China, and the following Chinese
      organizations partnered with us on our proposal for the Florida High Speed
      Rail Authority (FHSRA). Our partners in China included:

      *The Design Institute for the Chinese Ministry of Rail.

      * The superconductivity R& D center of South west Transportation University
      in Chengdu.

      * Northern transportation university in Beijing; (These two universities
      train about 70% of the transportation engineers in China.)

      * The General Research Institute for Non-Ferrous Metals in Beijing.

      * The Magnetic Materials Manufactures association of China (produces 90% of
      the world supply of Nd-Fe super magnets).

      * Professor Wang, the inventor of the worlds first (dec 2000) High
      Temperature Superconductor Maglev (HTSM) to carry passengers.

      * Dr. Zhang Yaoping, PhD in Transportation Engineering, principal of a
      Beijing Spacecraft technologies company; etc.

      The FHSRA engineering experts did not challenge our substantial engineering,
      or our detailed cost analysis, and they even confirmed the likelihood of our
      ability to meet our performance claims. Our proposal was eliminated from
      consideration due to political reasons, (mostly the reasons typified in
      Burke's book referenced above).

      The energy used to maintain the vacuum is less than 1/100th of the energy
      that would be used to overcome aerodynamic forces during a typical journey
      of more than about 10 km by freeway, or by aircraft.

      > Therefore, anyone wanting to discuss this can go start
      > a new group for that purpose. Not here.
      > Regards,
      > J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
      > mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com

      If you are truly interested in car free cities, you must investigate ETT as
      a potential path to achieving that worthy goal. Otherwise you risk becoming
      part of the problem set contributing to car proliferation.

      Judging by the varied, and reasonable responses to my initial post; your
      threat to censor on-topic, respectful dialog is not warranted. Your message
      could be interpreted to indicate that you may have a hidden agenda to
      protect. I will give you the benefit of doubt, and guess that your action
      is just one of failing to fully check your target before pulling the

      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