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

RE: ETT and Canterbury Tales

Expand Messages
  • CEB
    Well, there was a two-headed giant who made the locals bring him sheep on feast days...oh, we are in Canterbury already, gotta go.. Like any technology, ETT
    Message 1 of 13 , Sep 16, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      "Well, there was a two-headed giant who made the locals bring him sheep on feast days...oh, we are in Canterbury already, gotta go.."

      Like any technology, ETT is no panacea. As for me, the most fun train ride I ever had was on the way to the Towards Carfree Cities conference in Berlin:

      I rode by bike on part of our proposed Greenway directly into the main train station without getting off bike, bought a frequent train user discount pass for 3 EUR, then walked and rode my bike to the other train station, put bikein cargo car for .66 EUR on the fast train to from Prague to Decin near the border, watching the landscape go by quickly enough....then rode bike really fast for 23km across border in beautiful Elbe river valley in order to catch first of several nice air-conditioned DB regional trains (which always take bikes)....then at one stop we got delayed and missed following connections because a train broke down... BUT I met lots of really great people from Poland and Germany who were using discount weekend group ticket... had great talks....on last train into Berlin this kind of electronic oompa-oompa music would play at every stop and so I goofed off and pretended to clap.....finally got off train in Berlin two hours late and Ecotopia Bike Tour people who there by coincidence and when they saw me they clapped!

      It takes a long time to get somewhere because it takes a long time to get somewhere....how would "The Canterbury Tales" ever have been written if we all travelled around as pieces of advert-reading meat in anti-gravity vacuum tubes?

      I am no apologist for sloth. Everything has its appropriate use. First, reduce the need for mobility.....

      Todd, Steering Committee, World Carfree Network




      ______________________________________________________________
      > Od: "Daryl Oster" <et3@...>
      > Komu: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
      > Datum: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:53:06 -0400
      > Předmět: RE: [carfree_cities] Check out this page on NOLA.com
      >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: rickrise@... via NOLA.com [mailto:rickrise@...]
      > > http://nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-
      > > 2/1095226178121450.xml
      > > Richard says:
      > > Reading this makes me think of the question of evacuating carfree cities
      > > in a similar situation, which makes me think of two more things:
      > > 1) Watching the French empty Place de la Bastille of 1,000,000 parade
      > > watchers in about half an hour using only hte Metro (no one was allowed to
      > > drive or even walk out),
      > > and 2) Japanese bullet trains carrying 2,000 passengers each, operating at
      > > *5 minute* headways--which is routine in for them.
      > > Seems to me that well-designed carfree cities, using current technology
      > > and practices, could do a much better job of disaster evacuation (assuming
      > > they were ever built in below-sea-levelswamps in the first place) than the
      > > mess described in this story.
      >
      >
      > Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT) (see intro below) is a far better tool for
      > evacuation (no pun intended) than cars and buss, trains, or planes because
      > ETT is:
      >
      > * Lower cost (ETT is 1/4 the cost of a 4 lane highway, 1/10 the cost of a
      > train track).
      >
      > * The capacity of one ETT tube with a 350mph design speed (172,000 p/hour)
      > is the same as 10 lanes of freeway, or 6 rail lines.
      >
      > * The speed of ETT is consistent regardless of demand.
      >
      > * Unlike cars and planes, ETT operates in any weather conditions without
      > slowing (like 10 inches/hour rain).
      >
      > * Unlike rail, ETT capacity is distributed over as many as several hundred
      > off-line stations.
      >
      > * Car sized ETT vehicles operate on demand, not on a schedule.
      >
      > * Compared with trains, ETT power and energy needs are less than 1/50th as
      > much per passenger-mile.
      >
      > * ETT can use any form of renewable energy, like wind power.
      >
      > * ETT is achievable with highly proven off-the-shelf components and
      > technologies.
      >
      >
      > 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
      >
      >
      > ETT Introduction
      > Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT) is a new kind of transportation system that
      > requires less than two percent of the energy of cars or planes; it is also
      > much safer and faster. Any individual or company may profit by
      > participating in the plan to implement ETT.
      >
      > The earth has been traveling around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour longer
      > than recorded history; yet no energy is used because there is no friction in
      > space. It is impractical to travel in orbit; so ETT works by creating space
      > like travel conditions on the ground. Air is permanently removed from 2
      > tubes (one for each direction) along a travel route; so travel takes place
      > without air resistance. Pressurized passenger capsules (like a 6 person biz
      > jet cabin), travel in the tubes on nearly frictionless Maglev. Airlocks
      > allow access without admitting air to the tubes. Linear electric motors
      > accelerate the capsules. During most of the trip the capsules coast; using
      > no power. When the capsules brake, linear generators recover most of the
      > electrical energy used to accelerate the capsules.
      >
      > Riding ETT will be like traveling in a silent airplane in a semi-reclined
      > position, perhaps watching a movie. The ride will be smoother than any
      > luxury car or airplane, and not in chaotic traffic conditions or 6 miles
      > above the ground. Depending on distance traveled ETT speed can easily be up
      > to 350 mph for trips between neighborhoods or towns, to 4,000 mph for
      > international travel that would take you from DC to Beijing in 2 hours at
      > about a tenth the cost of airfare. "Free" travel could be possible if you
      > watch ads en route.
      >
      > ETT can be networked as are interstate highways, SUV sized capsules will be
      > able to travel non-stop anywhere in the ETT network. Unlike trains, the ETT
      > system uses passive switching that does not limit the frequency of vehicles
      > in the tubes. You wouldnt have to waste time to get to an airport
      > several smaller terminals can be disbursed where they are needed. Unlike
      > cars and planes, automated ETT virtually eliminates the chances of
      > collision. Instead of waiting for a scheduled train or plane the ETT
      > capsules wait for passengers. ETT runs continuously in any weather, so you
      > travel whenever you want to; without consulting the weather report. The
      > MoPod is a hybrid vehicle small enough to fit inside of an ETT capsule, yet
      > able to carry 2 people on local streets and highways while getting 200mpg.
      > Drive you personal MoPod from your house to the ETT station in a few
      > minutes. Drive the MoPod directly into an ETT capsule to make a 100 mile
      > commute in less than a half hour.
      >
      > Constructing a highway or railroad causes twenty times more environmental
      > damage as building ETT. ETT needs much less materials to support 1200lb
      > vehicles, than are required to support 200ton trains. ETT is compatible
      > with mountains, and wetlands, and will not contribute to storm runoff like
      > pavement. Wildlife can migrate unobstructed and will never be killed by
      > ETT. The lifespan is long, and per tube capacity is high (can exceed 80
      > lanes of traffic), so waste and cost is low. ETT can use renewable,
      > non-polluting energy like wind, or hydroelectric so ETT is sustainable
      > without reliance on fossil fuels or hydrogen that is costly and wasteful to
      > produce.
      >
      > Using serial processes, it took cars 14 years to supersede horses. Now,
      > people demand faster change; so many companies in electronics and software
      > industries collaborate in parallel to bring technologies more complex than
      > ETT to market in months instead of years. These "parallel" methods can be
      > used for ETT implementation. Many companies have already spent billions
      > developing ETT; although they may not be aware of it yet! For instance,
      > hundreds of companies worldwide make and install pipelines (tubes), vacuum
      > pumps, and the electronics to operate them. Everything exists to start
      > building ETT now, mostly with off-the-shelf parts.
      >
      > ETT development can take place using "open source" or chaordic methods but
      > with ownership incentive. The ETT Patent is assigned to et3.com Inc. (et3
      > stands for Evacuated Tube Transport Technologies), an open cooperative
      > collaboration. An inclusive license agreement offers incentives to
      > companies or individuals capable of producing parts, or providing services,
      > required for ETT implementation. You or your company can collaborate in
      > parallel with others, using the et3.com websites to plan and build ETT
      > systems using off-the-shelf materials, assets, parts, technologies,
      > skills, and production capacities.
      >
      > ETT infrastructure cost is less than 10% of the cost of high-speed rail
      > (HSR). Unlike HSR, ETT can pay it's own way through user fees that are
      > lower cost than buss fare. Because of opportunity for profitable operation,
      > ETT may be built without taxation. A simple 350mph ETT system will cost a
      > quarter the amount of an interstate highway. The capacity will be 8 times
      > greater. ETT is the only sustainable transportation technology that offers
      > a global improvement in lifestyle, and is currently achievable. We must act
      > now, energy experts believe global oil production will peak within 10 years,
      > and reliance on import oil is the nation's biggest security risk.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > 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
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Jason Meggs
      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
      Message 2 of 13 , Sep 16, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        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?

        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.

        And then, how is emergency access going to work?

        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.

        (And how viable is it to maintain the vacuum, during normal use?)

        Jason Meggs
        Berkeley, CA, USA


        On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, CEB wrote:

        > "Well, there was a two-headed giant who made the locals bring him sheep
        > on feast days...oh, we are in Canterbury already, gotta go.."
        >
        > Like any technology, ETT is no panacea. As for me, the most fun train
        > ride I ever had was on the way to the Towards Carfree Cities conference
        > in Berlin:
        >
        > I rode by bike on part of our proposed Greenway directly into the main
        > train station without getting off bike, bought a frequent train user
        > discount pass for 3 EUR, then walked and rode my bike to the other train
        > station, put bikein cargo car for .66 EUR on the fast train to from
        > Prague to Decin near the border, watching the landscape go by quickly
        > enough....then rode bike really fast for 23km across border in beautiful
        > Elbe river valley in order to catch first of several nice
        > air-conditioned DB regional trains (which always take bikes)....then at
        > one stop we got delayed and missed following connections because a train
        > broke down... BUT I met lots of really great people from Poland and
        > Germany who were using discount weekend group ticket... had great
        > talks....on last train into Berlin this kind of electronic oompa-oompa
        > music would play at every stop and so I goofed off and pretended to
        > clap.....finally got off train in Berlin two hours late and Ecotopia
        > Bike Tour people who there by coincidence and when they saw me they
        > clapped!
        >
        > It takes a long time to get somewhere because it takes a long time to
        > get somewhere....how would "The Canterbury Tales" ever have been written
        > if we all travelled around as pieces of advert-reading meat in
        > anti-gravity vacuum tubes?
        >
        > I am no apologist for sloth. Everything has its appropriate use. First,
        > reduce the need for mobility.....
        >
        > Todd, Steering Committee, World Carfree Network
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ______________________________________________________________
        >> Od: "Daryl Oster" <et3@...>
        >> Komu: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
        >> Datum: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:53:06 -0400
        >> PYedmt: RE: [carfree_cities] Check out this page on NOLA.com
        >>
        >>> -----Original Message-----
        >>> From: rickrise@... via NOLA.com [mailto:rickrise@...]
        >>> http://nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-
        >>> 2/1095226178121450.xml
        >>> Richard says:
        >>> Reading this makes me think of the question of evacuating carfree cities
        >>> in a similar situation, which makes me think of two more things:
        >>> 1) Watching the French empty Place de la Bastille of 1,000,000 parade
        >>> watchers in about half an hour using only hte Metro (no one was allowed to
        >>> drive or even walk out),
        >>> and 2) Japanese bullet trains carrying 2,000 passengers each, operating at
        >>> *5 minute* headways--which is routine in for them.
        >>> Seems to me that well-designed carfree cities, using current technology
        >>> and practices, could do a much better job of disaster evacuation (assuming
        >>> they were ever built in below-sea-levelswamps in the first place) than the
        >>> mess described in this story.
        >>
        >>
        >> Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT) (see intro below) is a far better tool for
        >> evacuation (no pun intended) than cars and buss, trains, or planes because
        >> ETT is:
        >>
        >> * Lower cost (ETT is 1/4 the cost of a 4 lane highway, 1/10 the cost of a
        >> train track).
        >>
        >> * The capacity of one ETT tube with a 350mph design speed (172,000 p/hour)
        >> is the same as 10 lanes of freeway, or 6 rail lines.
        >>
        >> * The speed of ETT is consistent regardless of demand.
        >>
        >> * Unlike cars and planes, ETT operates in any weather conditions without
        >> slowing (like 10 inches/hour rain).
        >>
        >> * Unlike rail, ETT capacity is distributed over as many as several hundred
        >> off-line stations.
        >>
        >> * Car sized ETT vehicles operate on demand, not on a schedule.
        >>
        >> * Compared with trains, ETT power and energy needs are less than 1/50th as
        >> much per passenger-mile.
        >>
        >> * ETT can use any form of renewable energy, like wind power.
        >>
        >> * ETT is achievable with highly proven off-the-shelf components and
        >> technologies.
        >>
        >>
        >> 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
        >>
        >>
        >> ETT Introduction
        >> Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT) is a new kind of transportation system that
        >> requires less than two percent of the energy of cars or planes; it is also
        >> much safer and faster. Any individual or company may profit by
        >> participating in the plan to implement ETT.
        >>
        >> The earth has been traveling around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour longer
        >> than recorded history; yet no energy is used because there is no friction in
        >> space. It is impractical to travel in orbit; so ETT works by creating space
        >> like travel conditions on the ground. Air is permanently removed from 2
        >> tubes (one for each direction) along a travel route; so travel takes place
        >> without air resistance. Pressurized passenger capsules (like a 6 person biz
        >> jet cabin), travel in the tubes on nearly frictionless Maglev. Airlocks
        >> allow access without admitting air to the tubes. Linear electric motors
        >> accelerate the capsules. During most of the trip the capsules coast; using
        >> no power. When the capsules brake, linear generators recover most of the
        >> electrical energy used to accelerate the capsules.
        >>
        >> Riding ETT will be like traveling in a silent airplane in a semi-reclined
        >> position, perhaps watching a movie. The ride will be smoother than any
        >> luxury car or airplane, and not in chaotic traffic conditions or 6 miles
        >> above the ground. Depending on distance traveled ETT speed can easily be up
        >> to 350 mph for trips between neighborhoods or towns, to 4,000 mph for
        >> international travel that would take you from DC to Beijing in 2 hours at
        >> about a tenth the cost of airfare. "Free" travel could be possible if you
        >> watch ads en route.
        >>
        >> ETT can be networked as are interstate highways, SUV sized capsules will be
        >> able to travel non-stop anywhere in the ETT network. Unlike trains, the ETT
        >> system uses passive switching that does not limit the frequency of vehicles
        >> in the tubes. You wouldnt have to waste time to get to an airport
        >> several smaller terminals can be disbursed where they are needed. Unlike
        >> cars and planes, automated ETT virtually eliminates the chances of
        >> collision. Instead of waiting for a scheduled train or plane the ETT
        >> capsules wait for passengers. ETT runs continuously in any weather, so you
        >> travel whenever you want to; without consulting the weather report. The
        >> MoPod is a hybrid vehicle small enough to fit inside of an ETT capsule, yet
        >> able to carry 2 people on local streets and highways while getting 200mpg.
        >> Drive you personal MoPod from your house to the ETT station in a few
        >> minutes. Drive the MoPod directly into an ETT capsule to make a 100 mile
        >> commute in less than a half hour.
        >>
        >> Constructing a highway or railroad causes twenty times more environmental
        >> damage as building ETT. ETT needs much less materials to support 1200lb
        >> vehicles, than are required to support 200ton trains. ETT is compatible
        >> with mountains, and wetlands, and will not contribute to storm runoff like
        >> pavement. Wildlife can migrate unobstructed and will never be killed by
        >> ETT. The lifespan is long, and per tube capacity is high (can exceed 80
        >> lanes of traffic), so waste and cost is low. ETT can use renewable,
        >> non-polluting energy like wind, or hydroelectric so ETT is sustainable
        >> without reliance on fossil fuels or hydrogen that is costly and wasteful to
        >> produce.
        >>
        >> Using serial processes, it took cars 14 years to supersede horses. Now,
        >> people demand faster change; so many companies in electronics and software
        >> industries collaborate in parallel to bring technologies more complex than
        >> ETT to market in months instead of years. These "parallel" methods can be
        >> used for ETT implementation. Many companies have already spent billions
        >> developing ETT; although they may not be aware of it yet! For instance,
        >> hundreds of companies worldwide make and install pipelines (tubes), vacuum
        >> pumps, and the electronics to operate them. Everything exists to start
        >> building ETT now, mostly with off-the-shelf parts.
        >>
        >> ETT development can take place using "open source" or chaordic methods but
        >> with ownership incentive. The ETT Patent is assigned to et3.com Inc. (et3
        >> stands for Evacuated Tube Transport Technologies), an open cooperative
        >> collaboration. An inclusive license agreement offers incentives to
        >> companies or individuals capable of producing parts, or providing services,
        >> required for ETT implementation. You or your company can collaborate in
        >> parallel with others, using the et3.com websites to plan and build ETT
        >> systems using off-the-shelf materials, assets, parts, technologies,
        >> skills, and production capacities.
        >>
        >> ETT infrastructure cost is less than 10% of the cost of high-speed rail
        >> (HSR). Unlike HSR, ETT can pay it's own way through user fees that are
        >> lower cost than buss fare. Because of opportunity for profitable operation,
        >> ETT may be built without taxation. A simple 350mph ETT system will cost a
        >> quarter the amount of an interstate highway. The capacity will be 8 times
        >> greater. ETT is the only sustainable transportation technology that offers
        >> a global improvement in lifestyle, and is currently achievable. We must act
        >> now, energy experts believe global oil production will peak within 10 years,
        >> and reliance on import oil is the nation's biggest security risk.
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> 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
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > 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
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Daryl Oster
        ... [CLIP]... Todd, are you saying bikes and trains are the panacea? At one time trains and bikes had overwhelming market share, as they were seen as a
        Message 3 of 13 , Sep 16, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: CEB [mailto:cyklopraha@...]

          > Like any technology, ETT is no panacea. As for me, the most fun train ride
          > I ever had was on the way to the Towards Carfree Cities conference in
          > Berlin:
          >
          > I rode by bike on part of our proposed Greenway directly into the main
          > train station
          [CLIP]...

          Todd, are you saying bikes and trains are the panacea? At one time trains
          and bikes had overwhelming market share, as they were seen as a panacea
          verses the toil of walking or forcing an animal to toil. Eventually bikes
          and trains proved to be unsustainable because of the greater efficiency of
          the car, motorcycle and airplane.

          Bikes and trains cannot solve the problems of cars and planes - the proof is
          70 years old! ETT can and will solve most of the problems of cars and
          planes (and eventually cause a few new problems). A small minority refuse
          to use cars, preferring walking, horses, trains or bikes; the same will be
          true with ETT - some will insist on cars and flight - perhaps if even just
          occasionally for fun.


          > It takes a long time to get somewhere because it takes a long time to get
          > somewhere....how would "The Canterbury Tales" ever have been written if we
          > all travelled around as pieces of advert-reading meat in anti-gravity
          > vacuum tubes?
          >
          > I am no apologist for sloth. Everything has its appropriate use. First,
          > reduce the need for mobility.....
          >
          > Todd, Steering Committee, World Carfree Network


          Todd, do you apply your anti-tech arguments to e-mail vs snail mail? I know
          several people who praise the virtues of postal mail, and look down their
          noises on those of us who only use e-mail. Reducing the need for mobility
          is like reducing the need for communication -- yes it COULD work, but it is
          not socially sustainable, as the vast majority of people are interested in
          improving the quality of life through more choices, and the time to exercise
          them.

          Yes we could all live in isolation on mini-farms, or live as nomadic
          hunter-gathers, the environmental impact would be much worse, and many more
          species would be extinct -- or there would be a big die-off in human
          population.

          Most people who live in urban environs believe they can get by quite well
          without mobility. In fact urbanites are wholly dependant on long distance
          mobility of food, water, and waste for their very existence.

          Most people (even car hating urbanites) quickly see the huge social,
          environmental, safety, and energy advantages of ETT compared with trains,
          cars and planes.




          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>
        • Jym Dyer
          ... =v= What an odd statement. The latter three are *far* less efficient and sustainable than the former three! =v= Indeed, I would argue that the domination
          Message 4 of 13 , Sep 16, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            > Eventually bikes and trains proved to be unsustainable because
            > of the greater efficiency of the car, motorcycle and airplane.

            =v= What an odd statement. The latter three are *far* less
            efficient and sustainable than the former three!

            =v= Indeed, I would argue that the domination of cars and planes
            can be attributed in part to their inefficiency. These modes
            consume more oil, thereby making oil interests wealthier and
            more powerful than when trains were doing the consuming. These
            interest have in turn arranged massive subsidies for fuel, the
            building and maintenance of roads and airports, and just about
            everything else that has to do with cars and planes. Actual
            costs become "externalities," out of sight, out of mind, for
            others to pay. (Perhaps this qualifies as "efficiency" in a
            certain convoluted economic model? Help me out here.)

            =v= Sustainable? The "externalized" costs of ecological
            damage from (non-newable) gasoline, exhaust, roads, airports,
            ozone depletion, toxic tire dust, and even lead poisoning from
            cars' wheel weights are Staggering! While bikes and rail are
            of course not zero-impact, they aren't even in the same league
            as cars and airplanes.
            <_Jym_>
            --
            Ads below? Just ignore 'em.
          • Daryl Oster
            ... 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
            Message 5 of 13 , 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>
            • Jason Meggs
              Daryl, 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
              Message 6 of 13 , Sep 16, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Daryl,

                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?

                - System-wide?
                - 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
                repair)?

                Jason Meggs
                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
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • Daryl Oster
                ... Read the government publication ORNL energy use in transportation, also some recent papers showing train energy use per passenger mile to exceed car energy
                Message 7 of 13 , Sep 17, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Jym Dyer [mailto:jym@...]
                  >
                  > > Eventually bikes and trains proved to be unsustainable because
                  > > of the greater efficiency of the car, motorcycle and airplane.
                  >
                  > =v= What an odd statement. The latter three are *far* less
                  > efficient and sustainable than the former three!

                  Read the government publication ORNL energy use in transportation, also some
                  recent papers showing train energy use per passenger mile to exceed car
                  energy use per passenger mile. I'll dig up the references for you when I
                  return home next week.

                  Most of the rail proliferation of the mid to late 1800s was a result of the
                  HUGE government subsidy of the unprecedented wealth grant of up to one mile
                  of free land on either side of the railroad- once the land profit was
                  extracted, rail started it's steady decline (it is way too costly to haul
                  people efficiently - good for huge loads of coal though (it's original
                  design purpose, and still about the only profitable use).

                  Verses walking, a bicycle will justify it's expense in only a couple hundred
                  miles. Verses a bicycle, a car will justify it's expense in about 30,000
                  miles. (just compare the cost of food and time saved, to the cost of the
                  vehicle, operator time, and fuel). Remember efficiency has more than one
                  dimension - it all boils down to money -- the universal measuring device.

                  >
                  > =v= Indeed, I would argue that the domination of cars and planes
                  > can be attributed in part to their inefficiency. These modes
                  > consume more oil, thereby making oil interests wealthier and
                  > more powerful than when trains were doing the consuming. These
                  > interest have in turn arranged massive subsidies for fuel, the
                  > building and maintenance of roads and airports, and just about
                  > everything else that has to do with cars and planes. Actual
                  > costs become "externalities," out of sight, out of mind, for
                  > others to pay. (Perhaps this qualifies as "efficiency" in a
                  > certain convoluted economic model? Help me out here.)

                  Improved roads predated cars by thousands of years, and their cost justified
                  in lower cost (less environmental damage than walking on new paths around
                  the mud). The cost of roads is more than paid by all the vehicle taxes,
                  fuel taxes, tire tax, battery tax, and let's not forget sales tax every time
                  the vehicle is sold. Much of the use taxes have been "borrowed" for many
                  other non-transportation related government programs, (especially the layers
                  of sales tax and corporate income taxes on all those profits you cite).

                  The only hope of mitigating the gross environmental and social problems of
                  the automobile is to advance (by adopting ETT and other ultra efficient
                  transportation means); the reason is that the automobile mitigated even
                  worse problems associated with animals, bikes and trains, so we cannot
                  return to the old ways that have already proven unsustainable.
                  (please remember, sustainability has 3 dimensions: environmental, energy,
                  and social).


                  >
                  > =v= Sustainable? The "externalized" costs of ecological
                  > damage from (non-newable) gasoline, exhaust, roads, airports,
                  > ozone depletion, toxic tire dust, and even lead poisoning from
                  > cars' wheel weights are Staggering! While bikes and rail are
                  > of course not zero-impact, they aren't even in the same league
                  > as cars and airplanes.
                  > <_Jym_>


                  I agree, cars cause a lot of damage, walking and bikes are defiantly worse
                  if you compare on a passenger mile total cost basis. - How much land would
                  it take to grow enough food, and provide enough unimproved path ways through
                  filthy conditions, and stripped land (ever been to India or China?) to walk
                  or ride a bike to carry what A 18 wheel truck carries in a year? It is easy
                  to complain about the car, when we don't have to walk through ankle deep
                  horse and cattle dung on our way to work every day! Horses and ox teams eat
                  all the time -- not just when they are producing useful work. Do the math,
                  as I have, and you may realize that we are deep into a dead end with the
                  dependency on fossil fuel - the only way out is to improve transportation
                  efficiency (considering ALL resources) by another factor of ten or more, as
                  the automobile did. With ETT the efficiency can improve by 2 orders of
                  magnitude; but ETT can only replace about 80% of present transportation.


                  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
                • Daryl Oster
                  ... I met a man at NVT2000 in aspen with the same [good] idea - several advantages - and moving the air in the tube would take about the same amount of energy
                  Message 8 of 13 , Sep 17, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: Jason Meggs [mailto:jmeggs@...]
                    > Daryl,


                    > 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 met a man at NVT2000 in aspen with the same [good] idea - several
                    advantages - and moving the air in the tube would take about the same amount
                    of energy as the sum of the individually bikes if they were electrified as
                    mopeds. The advantage of the bike tunnels being greater range with out
                    recharge, protection from weather (a biggie) - but at much bigger capital
                    cost.


                    >
                    > 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?

                    Small rupture - the vehicles slow down as they pass the point of the leak;
                    sensors direct repair personnel to fix the leak.

                    Big rupture (like a [very rare] meteor strike)- small valves flood the tube
                    at a rate to produce survivable deceleration for most of the occupants.


                    > - System-wide?
                    > - For close-approaching trains to the rupture?

                    Trains are not used - the capsules are individual - like cars on a highway.


                    > - How long does repair take?
                    >


                    Depends on the extent and location of damage. A couple hours - up to a
                    couple days. Stats for gas lines, and other large pipes show that major
                    ruptures are very rare - (much less frequency than airline crashes). Most
                    pipe ruptures are the result of neglect - easy to avoid with proper
                    management.

                    > - How long does it take to bring the system online (restore vacuum after
                    > repair)?
                    > Jason Meggs
                    > Berkeley, CA, USA


                    It depends on the design speed of the system - likely a few hours for a low
                    speed (350mph) to a day or two for a very high speed system.


                    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>
                  • J.H. Crawford
                    Hi All, I m declaring this discussion over. ETT is just another one of these pie-in-the-sky ideas that keep us from focusing on the real questions. The basic
                    Message 9 of 13 , Sep 17, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi All,

                      I'm declaring this discussion over.

                      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.)

                      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.

                      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
                    • CEB
                      Ok, ok, everyone has made their points except has anyone mentioned if ETT is fun? Todd
                      Message 10 of 13 , Sep 17, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Ok, ok, everyone has made their points except has anyone mentioned if ETT is fun?

                        Todd

                        ______________________________________________________________
                        > Od: "Daryl Oster" <et3@...>
                        > Komu: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
                        > Datum: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:09:52 -0400
                        > Předmět: RE: [carfree_cities] RE: ETT and Canterbury Tales
                        >
                        >
                        > > -----Original Message-----
                        > > From: Jason Meggs [mailto:jmeggs@...]
                        > > Daryl,
                        >
                        >
                        > > 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 met a man at NVT2000 in aspen with the same [good] idea - several
                        > advantages - and moving the air in the tube would take about the same amount
                        > of energy as the sum of the individually bikes if they were electrified as
                        > mopeds. The advantage of the bike tunnels being greater range with out
                        > recharge, protection from weather (a biggie) - but at much bigger capital
                        > cost.
                        >
                        >
                        > >
                        > > 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?
                        >
                        > Small rupture - the vehicles slow down as they pass the point of the leak;
                        > sensors direct repair personnel to fix the leak.
                        >
                        > Big rupture (like a [very rare] meteor strike)- small valves flood the tube
                        > at a rate to produce survivable deceleration for most of the occupants.
                        >
                        >
                        > > - System-wide?
                        > > - For close-approaching trains to the rupture?
                        >
                        > Trains are not used - the capsules are individual - like cars on a highway.
                        >
                        >
                        > > - How long does repair take?
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        > Depends on the extent and location of damage. A couple hours - up to a
                        > couple days. Stats for gas lines, and other large pipes show that major
                        > ruptures are very rare - (much less frequency than airline crashes). Most
                        > pipe ruptures are the result of neglect - easy to avoid with proper
                        > management.
                        >
                        > > - How long does it take to bring the system online (restore vacuum after
                        > > repair)?
                        > > Jason Meggs
                        > > Berkeley, CA, USA
                        >
                        >
                        > It depends on the design speed of the system - likely a few hours for a low
                        > speed (350mph) to a day or two for a very high speed system.
                        >
                        >
                        > 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
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • Simon Baddeley
                        Cars will spread but in an increasingly tightly regulated and bureaucratised road environment. In this sense the arguments about efficiency make a sort of
                        Message 11 of 13 , Sep 17, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Cars will spread but in an increasingly tightly regulated and bureaucratised
                          road environment. In this sense the arguments about efficiency make a sort
                          of sense - especially for road freight, and as the internal combustion
                          engine is replaced by more eco-friendly power sources).

                          But the freedom of the car is highly conditional - but try explaining that
                          to the new breed of highly politicised petrol heads taken in by those ads of
                          cars driving along empty roads (in Bosnia? South East Turkey?).

                          These dopes are equipping (or buying pre-equipped) cars with telemetry and
                          accompanying paperwork that will further embed their "personal transport
                          units" in a regulated infrastructure equivalent to that which now manages
                          flying. The last real car drivers are the fly boy joy riders but they will
                          increasingly become out priced outlaws - as has happened with motorcycles
                          now mainly used by the wealthy or dispatch riders. Cars will be highly
                          controlled office spaces from which "drivers" (actually the old type driver
                          - unless on a test track - is becoming increasingly a passenger) will
                          communicate their wish not only to find a parking space but a travel slot in
                          convoys. Explore the websites on the future of the car. Sure it will be
                          designed to play on the old toad dreams (poop poop) of the freedom of the
                          road - but I predict the opening of the Jeremy Clarkson Heritage Motorway -
                          a stretch of 20 miles or so of asphalt where nostalgic drivers can gather at
                          weekends to recover the joys of vroom vroom and speedophilia.

                          Simon (who started cycling after the freedom went out of driving)



                          > From: Jym Dyer <jym@...>
                          > Organization: Still We Ride
                          > Reply-To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
                          > Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:56:02 -0700 (PDT)
                          > To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
                          > Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] RE: ETT and Canterbury Tales
                          >
                          >> Eventually bikes and trains proved to be unsustainable because
                          >> of the greater efficiency of the car, motorcycle and airplane.
                          >
                          > =v= What an odd statement. The latter three are *far* less
                          > efficient and sustainable than the former three!
                          >
                        • Daryl Oster
                          ... 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
                          Message 12 of 13 , 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
                            trigger.

                            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
                          • J.H. Crawford
                            Mr Oster is being dropped from the group as of now. ... No, this is an appropriate response to someone who refuses to stick to the subject. --
                            Message 13 of 13 , Sep 17, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Mr Oster is being dropped from the group as of now.

                              At 16:04 2004-09-17, you wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              >> -----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:

                              No, this is an appropriate response to someone who refuses
                              to stick to the subject.




                              -- ### --

                              J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                              mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.