Author Topic: Evacuated Tube Transport  (Read 10079 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline iskdude57

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
Evacuated Tube Transport
« on: July 02, 2014, 09:34:40 pm »
The future of intraplanetary transporation is here.  It's called Evacuated tube transport which is similar to the hyperloop as popularized by billionaire elon musk famous for his Tesla Electric Cars. 

http://www.et3.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03kVU2FYl6U

This is hands-down the best and most efficient form of transportation.  Takes up much less space than a highway or train and uses much less energy and still allows you to farm underneath it if people so wish.  Of course we probably won't ever see though, but still this alone would cause an economic boom if it were ever realized.


Offline iskdude57

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
Re: Evacuated Tube Transport
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2014, 09:46:38 pm »
How would you like to go to China and back for 50 bucks?  And it would only take a couple of hours to get there at 4000 mph!!  Yes that's right, 4 thousand miles per hour!!!  Well much better than a plane ticket for 1600 dollars today.

What about getting around the country for what would have to be a fraction of 50 dollars, traveling around the country at around 380 mph...  If only we weren't so primitive, sigh...

Shipping would be much quicker that's for sure instead of a few days to a couple weeks it'd be at most a few days to probably for sure the next day maybe even the same day depending on where you're getting your item shipped from.

Offline fred.greek

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
Re: Evacuated Tube Transport
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2014, 04:59:01 pm »
You are inside a metal tube, held at something like normal air pressure.  Outside is a vacuum, so your tube can travel REAL FAST. 
There are miles, perhaps thousands, between "stations".
What happens if your tube springs a leak, losing pressure.  It's not like an aircraft pilot who can just decide to descend into lower thicker air.
What happens if the travel tube springs a leak, and your tube, traveling at thousands of miles per hour, suddenly slams into what is essentially a "solid" wall of air?
What happens of the wall of the travel tube is disrupted, bent, etc., and your tube no longer "fits", you slam into a metal on metal collision at thousands of miles per hour.
Ignoring the travel dangers, what is the cost to "just" build a vacuum chamber, thousands of miles long?
Retired but still working in the garden...

Offline iskdude57

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
Re: Evacuated Tube Transport
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2014, 05:38:13 pm »
All the technology exists already, they are already working on a preliminary testing plot in California, well they're trying to get through the red tape for it.  The factories and equipment for making oil pipelines would be used.

  This would actually be the safest mode of transportation by comparison to a railway crash or a plane crash;  One capsule would be affected and thus at most 6 people would die or get in an accident while the rest could stop and probably go back.  Also a car is statistically speaking considered the most dangerous compared to a plane or a train.  There would be monitoring systems in place and the electric motor is on board so I'm sure people could reverse in such an event...  There would be a pretty decent distance between capsules, especially for international travel.  I'm sure most problems could be resolved through engineering...

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Evacuated Tube Transport
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2014, 05:49:14 pm »
According to physics professor Richard Muller, the problem with evacuated tube transport is still and always has been that it breaks down all the time.

Probably won't go anywhere.

Offline iskdude57

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
Re: Evacuated Tube Transport
« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2014, 01:18:03 am »
Quote
According to physics professor Richard Muller, the problem with evacuated tube transport is still and always has been that it breaks down all the time.

Probably won't go anywhere.

That doesn't sound right, I just looked into standard atmospheric pressure at sea level and it's only about 15 psi.  After all steel holds up pretty good with submarines at much much more greater pressures than atmospheric pressure.  They have to be going far down deep into the sea with the weight of ocean water above them plus the weight of the atmosphere...

If you could give some more info about this Richard Muller character I'll look into it. 

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,555
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: Evacuated Tube Transport
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2014, 02:14:03 am »
That doesn't sound right, I just looked into standard atmospheric pressure at sea level and it's only about 15 psi.  After all steel holds up pretty good with submarines at much much more greater pressures than atmospheric pressure.  They have to be going far down deep into the sea with the weight of ocean water above them plus the weight of the atmosphere...

If you could give some more info about this Richard Muller character I'll look into it.  

If you have a thick, strong, temperature stabilized, relatively homogenous material for support all round... you will have an exquisitely stable tubular structure under pressure or even moderate vacuum conditions... also, the larger the cross section of the tube and the projectile, the looser the tolerances can be... how can you construct this optimum to meet these criterion... you begin with one of these...



Oldyoti

"Letting a bunch of foreign banks take over your
country, and send us off to war... by the way, the
same Mega-bankers through the media they own
will demonize us in Europe and in the media they
own here, say the war is good... they're blaming
this whole stinking world government on the
American People...an' we're PAYING FOR IT!"

~Alex Jones, on the air, 11/13/11

Offline iskdude57

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
Re: Evacuated Tube Transport
« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2014, 08:47:08 am »
Quote
If you have a thick, strong, temperature stabilized, relatively homogenous material for support all round... you will have an exquisitely stable tubular structure under pressure or even moderate vacuum conditions... also, the larger the cross section of the tube and the projectile, the looser the tolerances can be... how can you construct this optimum to meet these criterion... you begin with one of these...

Not sure what you're getting at...  Anyways 15 psi is nothing my car tire is rated at 45 psi max, i usually fill it u to about 40.  I'm sure any type of steel could hold u pretty good.  But if need be they could use higher quality steels, after all et3 is not only cheap and efficient to utilize, it's also super duper cheap to make.  At about 1/4 the cost of a highway and 1/10th the cost of a train.  So putting in extra cash to make it more robust and higher quality shouldn't be an issue...

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,555
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: Evacuated Tube Transport
« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2014, 12:02:01 pm »
This technology has been around for a very long time. From the deposit tubes at the drive-up at your local bank to direct communications back in the old days between floors in office buildings. These work very well on the small scale. When you scale it up and put it outside exposed to the elements the tube material is exposed to thermal stresses caused by climate extremes which causes thermal expansion and contraction which causes fitting and buckling problems over the length of the tube. Train rails have a designed-in gap where each rail meets the next to compensate for this expansion and contraction.  You cannot do this with a vacuum/pressure tube for obvious reasons.

How do you solve this problem, you tunnel below ground where the ambient temperature is a constant 55 to 60 degrees using existing tunneling technology for the majority of your line. Not all tunneling machines are as huge as the one I pictured above.... the elite have been secretly using this tunneling technology for this type of transport, this very thing, underground for decades.

Oldyoti

"The obligations of our representatives in Washington
are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world,
precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy
and economic turmoil to our people."

~Ron Paul

Offline poncho

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
Re: Evacuated Tube Transport
« Reply #9 on: July 04, 2014, 12:29:34 pm »
This technology has been around for a very long time. From the deposit tubes at the drive-up at your local bank to direct communications back in the old days between floors in office buildings. These work very well on the small scale. When you scale it up and put it outside exposed to the elements the tube material is exposed to thermal stresses caused by climate extremes which causes thermal expansion and contraction which causes fitting and buckling problems over the length of the tube. Train rails have a designed-in gap where each rail meets the next to compensate for this expansion and contraction.  You cannot do this with a vacuum/pressure tube for obvious reasons.

How do you solve this problem, you tunnel below ground where the ambient temperature is a constant 55 to 60 degrees using existing tunneling technology for the majority of your line. Not all tunneling machines are as huge as the one I pictured above.... the elite have been secretly using this tunneling technology for this type of transport, this very thing, underground for decades.

Oldyoti

"The obligations of our representatives in Washington
are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world,
precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy
and economic turmoil to our people."

~Ron Paul


I have to concur with this.  It is the only safe way to create these tubes.

If you had an outside tunnel, it is exposed to all kinds of things that would make it break in area's. (E.g. flooding, car crashes into it, terrorist blowing up the outside.)  And when you consider a 1000 mile long tunnel that needs to stay without any atmosphere, that becomes unfeasible.  The odds of a section of the tube being in a broken state is very high.   Then when it breaks somewhere, the entire tunnel will flood with atmosphere at a very fast rate.  It will take a long time to vacuum it all out again.

On the other hand, if you put this underground, the earth itself is your first and best layer of defense.  It will protect the layers of tunnels.  And even if those layers of tunnels get breached, there will probably not be a rush of air into the tunnel.  The surrounding earth has no such air to push into the tunnel.
Is it full proof?  Of course not.  But it does limit the kinds of dangers.  For example, I would not build major stretches of this along the ring of fire or any area prone to earthquakes.  But instead I would build the longest stretches in area's with very little seismic activity.

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,555
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: Evacuated Tube Transport
« Reply #10 on: July 04, 2014, 03:49:31 pm »
I have to concur with this.  It is the only safe way to create these tubes.

If you had an outside tunnel, it is exposed to all kinds of things that would make it break in area's. (E.g. flooding, car crashes into it, terrorist blowing up the outside.)  And when you consider a 1000 mile long tunnel that needs to stay without any atmosphere, that becomes unfeasible.  The odds of a section of the tube being in a broken state is very high.   Then when it breaks somewhere, the entire tunnel will flood with atmosphere at a very fast rate.  It will take a long time to vacuum it all out again.

On the other hand, if you put this underground, the earth itself is your first and best layer of defense.  It will protect the layers of tunnels.  And even if those layers of tunnels get breached, there will probably not be a rush of air into the tunnel.  The surrounding earth has no such air to push into the tunnel.
Is it full proof?  Of course not.  But it does limit the kinds of dangers.  For example, I would not build major stretches of this along the ring of fire or any area prone to earthquakes.  But instead I would build the longest stretches in area's with very little seismic activity.

As you know, Poncho, Denver International Airport is not only an air terminal and anyone who was in the area and paying attention when it was being constructed saw some very counter intuitive things happening... I grew up on a farm at 17000 E.Smith Road, about 4 miles as the crow flies southwest of where the main terminal of DIA is now.

When I was a teen, in the late spring, I would go a few miles north and east of our farm to shoot prairie dogs at long range. I once watched as a coyoté swoop in and snatch one I just shot... I never have shot coyotés, they served to keep the rodents down and back then were seen as a beneficial predator. With the Prairie dog in his mouth, he sprinted away toward his den, and his mate busy nursing their newborn pups. I knew the lay of that land upon which that airport sits.

This was the scene 50 years ago across the miles long and 300+ yard wide creek basin east of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, just south and west of where the main concourse of the Denver International Airport is today. The street level of the concourse today, is a gently sloping hill, about 200 feet above the level of the wide creek bed of years ago it sits on. 

Today the whole of the ancient basin has been filled in and more.... a huge amount of earth was needed to accomplish this. It would have to be trucked in, yet all of the trucks that drove by my home during the time of DIA's construction were not bringing dirt in, but were removing it from the airport. Truck after truck for months were hauling dirt away... this was in the late 1980's early '90s and went on for well over a year.

How do you create a rising plain from a huge basin with aesthetically placed hills here and there, and have enough fill dirt for elevating and leveling the miles long runways placed in the 4 directions by hauling dirt OUT?? Ask yourself that question... the answer is obvious.

Oldyoti

"War is never economically beneficial
except for those in position to profit
from war expenditures."
~Ron Paul

Offline iskdude57

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
Re: Evacuated Tube Transport
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2014, 08:26:29 pm »
I'm sure a lot of technology and ideas are old, this one is at least a century old in terms of technology.  I doubt they'd be doing this if they didn't think i was feasible.  Lots of things haven't been tried or looked at because people just tend to follow the staus quo.  Things like red tape, lack of funding, public support etc etc etc...  Americans aren't known for their progressiveness.  And I mean that in the very literal definition of the word.  After all we don't even know where our tax dollars go, so how can people possibly be so forward minded as to promote next generation transportation... 


I don't know the technical details of how such a system will overcome temperature extremes.  But I would assume that it's already taken care of since well oil pipelines exist now don't they?  Some atmospheric pressure makes such a difference that oil pipelines cannot withstand the temperatures whereas before they do?


 

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,555
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: Evacuated Tube Transport
« Reply #12 on: July 04, 2014, 11:35:50 pm »
I'm sure a lot of technology and ideas are old, this one is at least a century old in terms of technology.  I doubt they'd be doing this if they didn't think i was feasible.  Lots of things haven't been tried or looked at because people just tend to follow the staus quo.  Things like red tape, lack of funding, public support etc etc etc...  Americans aren't known for their progressiveness.  And I mean that in the very literal definition of the word.  After all we don't even know where our tax dollars go, so how can people possibly be so forward minded as to promote next generation transportation...  


I don't know the technical details of how such a system will overcome temperature extremes.  But I would assume that it's already taken care of since well oil pipelines exist now don't they?  Some atmospheric pressure makes such a difference that oil pipelines cannot withstand the temperatures whereas before they do?

And until you know where your tax dollars go you shouldn't pay them... because once you find out where they have gone since they were initiated on the average individual in 1950, you won't want to pay them.

Oil pipelines use zig-zaging, slip joints, floating rollers, and other means to compensate for the axial expansion... only one of which could be modified and possibly used with above ground tube transport. The others constrict the inside of the tube or have sharp bends. The reason for above ground pipelines in any case, is to overcome greater problems that would occur in that area if it were buried. Like to step over fault zones, Perm a-frost, areas of shifting tundra, and hard rock sub-strait, as well as environmental concerns, all of which are found in Alaska. So the lion's share of the Alaska pipeline is above ground. It is also small in diameter, generally 4 to 6 feet per strand.

Oldyoti

"You wanna get rid of drug crime in this country?
Fine, let's just get rid of all the federal drug laws."

~Ron Paul



Offline poncho

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
Re: Evacuated Tube Transport
« Reply #13 on: July 05, 2014, 02:29:20 pm »
As you know, Poncho, Denver International Airport is not only an air terminal and anyone who was in the area and paying attention when it was being constructed saw some very counter intuitive things happening... I grew up on a farm at 17000 E.Smith Road, about 4 miles as the crow flies southwest of where the main terminal of DIA is now.

When I was a teen, in the late spring, I would go a few miles north and east of our farm to shoot prairie dogs at long range. I once watched as a coyoté swoop in and snatch one I just shot... I never have shot coyotés, they served to keep the rodents down and back then were seen as a beneficial predator. With the Prairie dog in his mouth, he sprinted away toward his den, and his mate busy nursing their newborn pups. I knew the lay of that land upon which that airport sits.

This was the scene 50 years ago across the miles long and 300+ yard wide creek basin east of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, just south and west of where the main concourse of the Denver International Airport is today. The street level of the concourse today, is a gently sloping hill, about 200 feet above the level of the wide creek bed of years ago it sits on.  

Today the whole of the ancient basin has been filled in and more.... a huge amount of earth was needed to accomplish this. It would have to be trucked in, yet all of the trucks that drove by my home during the time of DIA's construction were not bringing dirt in, but were removing it from the airport. Truck after truck for months were hauling dirt away... this was in the late 1980's early '90s and went on for well over a year.

How do you create a rising plain from a huge basin with aesthetically placed hills here and there, and have enough fill dirt for elevating and leveling the miles long runways placed in the 4 directions by hauling dirt OUT?? Ask yourself that question... the answer is obvious.

Oldyoti

"War is never economically beneficial
except for those in position to profit
from war expenditures."
~Ron Paul


I agree 100%.  I've only seen the trucks removing dirt not bringing it in.   DIA construction has been a great mechanism to hide what else is being done.  I have seen a lot of prefabricated concrete slabs being brought in.

I'm fairly certain that DIA connects with the arsenal (underground areas), Peterson AFB and Cheyenne Mountain.

I kills me when people think that government having underground bases and tunnels is crazy conspiracy talk.  Yet they are ok with miner's in the 1800's digging miles into the earth with pick axes and dynamite.  The complete lacking of common sense is baffling.