[sustran] Re: Help the Shell Foundation - ETT, ULPV, PRT

[Daryl]

Konstantinos Tsourlakis wrote:
>Do you have any data (cost,efficiency,public acceptance e.t.c.) about any
>real implementation of such a system (ETT, ULPV, PRT e.t.c.), because in
>order to make a fair comparision one has to put actual figures (e.g. of
>rail systems) next to actual figures (of other systems) and not only plans
>and estimations

The answer to your question for ETT is no, an ETT system to transport people
has not been built, but the construction and operating costs have been
extensively compared.  You bring up a valid point, that when choosing a
transportation system the costs should be compared as accurately, fairly and
impartial as possible if the best choice is to be made.  The fairest
comparisons start with a rigorous identification of: the transportation
goals, underlying scientific principals, and likelihood of long-term
sustainability if widely adopted.

Comparing the predicted parameters of different transportation systems by
using standard scientific methodology filters out the effect of economic
factors that are not constants.  For instance there is often a large
disparity between costs of scientifically equivalent rail systems that are
built by different companies, or in different locations.

The costs of existing transit systems like cars; airplanes, motorcycles,
bicycles, trains and ships are well known.  As are the manufacturing costs,
the development costs, the maintenance costs, the energy use, the speed,
etc.

Combining the best of the elements used in similar transportation systems
generally results in incremental, and predictable gains.  This approach is
used to expand the marketability of existing products by creating slightly
different products.  Usually this route of improvement results in "channeled
thinking" and the perpetuation of basic flaws, along with some occasional
gains.

Often there are improvement mandates, or goals to reach by a given time;
this approach is used to mitigate inherent flaws.  Usually this type of
improvement results in greater costs, and perhaps even subsidies to attempt
to "force the wheel out of the rut". These two approaches are highly evident
in the transportation industry.

Random experimentation leads to unpredictable results, occasionally the
results are totally unexpected, either negatively or positively, many
important discoveries where made using this approach. This approach has a
very low success rate and its use is limited to low cost iterations.

Occasionally, clean sheet of paper designs seek to use improvements from
many varied fields, without the preconceptions of channeled thinking
approaches, or without subsidizing, or continuing to perpetuate well known
flaws.  This approach relies on using data from fields outside the existing
transportation field.  The majority who are used to and trained in the
"channeled thinking" approaches often resists this approach. Perhaps the
resistance is because they must learn new material, or rely on different
processes, beyond what they are familiar with.  Using this approach resulted
in the steam ship, locomotive, and aircraft; all quantum leaps.

The Wrights observed nature (birds), and knew flight to be possible. They
used math, known scientific data and experimental measurements (wind tunnel)
to accurately predict the power, weight, lift, speed, and other parameters
of flight, before the first aircraft was built. They gathered verifiable
knowledge from several diverse, mature fields.

Transportation is a requirement for survival.  Without the ability to get to
food, water, and shelter (or have them brought to us) we would all die.
This is why transportation is the biggest growth market in the world, and
the growth rate is double the growth rate of the gross world product.
Almost all of our current transportation systems are dependant on oil
production.  Energy experts predict that world oil production will peak
around 2010.  Our current systems are not sustainable; WE MUST CHANGE TO
SURVIVE.

If a prerequisite of transportation system planning is that the system must
be in operation, and fully tested before it will be considered, then we are
doomed to the use of endless permutations of existing systems only.  No
quantum leap would be possible. How would Orville and Wilbur Wright have
answered your question in the year 1901?  Your question is good, but please
consider the cost of asking it every time a new system is proposed, and
automatically throwing out the proposal if an affirmative answer is not
given.  Ask the questions: What happens if we don't change?  How can we get
the most SUSTAINABLE transportation for the least total cost?   What
developments and proven technologies from other fields can be used to make
the biggest gains in transportation efficiency?  What happens if everyone on
the planet where using this method?

For ETT:
ETT makes the observation that virtually 100% efficient transportation is
possible (the motion of the planets), and seeks to put into practice the
principals making this possible to achieve a hundred fold or better
improvement in efficiency.  Vacuum production, tube construction,
automation, electrical energy systems, life support systems, environmental,
and transportation engineering are all established fields.  Vacuum is used
in countless industrial processes, and the cost of producing and maintaining
a vacuum is well known.   Tube and pipeline production and installation
costs are well known, for any size tube from a fraction of a meter to
several meters in diameter.  All the materials and most subsystems for ETT
production are basic commodities, with numerous sources worldwide.  The
underling principals of ETT are all individually well known, and there is
extensive data supporting the calculated energy and cost savings, capacity,
and speeds claimed for ETT, all available on the www.et3.com web site.

For ULPVs:
Bicycle, motorcycle, motor scooter, aircraft, and automotive cost and
performance data are firmly established.  Experimentation in human powered
vehicles has proven that aerodynamics is a huge factor in efficiency and
speed.  A typical athlete can achieve about 38mph on a traditional bicycle,
and about 73mph in a fully streamlined human powered vehicle (HPV), or about
157mph if drafting a high-powered racecar with a special bicycle.  The HPVs
use materials and aerodynamic techniques perfected in aircraft production.
The cost weight and fuel consumption of a scooter capable of 35mph are well
known.  Applying the aerodynamic lessons learned with HPVs, predicts that
the speed and fuel efficiency can be doubled, while keeping the weight about
the same.  Thus many of the benefits of scooters and cars may be achieved
for about the same cost of a typical scooter.  The average vehicle on the
road caries about 1.3 persons.  A ULPV only requires half the lane space,
and can carry more than the passenger car averages.  Thus converting a
single car lane to two "ULPV only" lanes will double existing infrastructure
capacity.  The cost of the conversion is the cost of a stripe down the
center of the lane, plus a few signs, and cameras for enforcement.

For PRT:
I will leave it to you to search out and study the dozen or two websites
advocating various systems classified as PRT.  Most of the designs are
sound, and compared to rail; the operating and the initial cost advantages
are undeniable.


Best Regards,
Daryl Oster,
et3.com Inc.  P.O. Box 1423 Crystal River FL 34423-1423 http://www.et3.com
(352)795-5415  cell(352)257-8337

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
[mailto:owner-sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org]On Behalf Of Konstantinos
Tsourlakis
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 3:50 PM
To: sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
Subject: [sustran] [sustran] Re: FW: H*elp the Shell Foundation to do good
with their new Sustainability


Do you have any data (cost,efficiency,public acceptance e.t.c.) about any
real implementation of such a system (ETT, ULPV, PRT e.t.c.), because in
order to make a fair comparision one has to put actual figures (e.g. of
rail systems) next to actual figures (of other systems) and not only plans

and estimations

>
>
>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 00:49:30 -0700
>From: "Daryl Oster" <et3 at fx2.com>
>Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: H*elp the Shell Foundation to do good with
their new Sustainability
>
>Planning Sustainable, High Benefit To Cost Transportation.
>Copyright '01, Daryl Oster, Crystal River FL
>
>The automobile and airplane result in prosperity, that is not
sustainable.
>Experts see oil production peaking around 2010
(http://www.hubbertpeak.com).
>The sustainability movement is based on observations that traditional
>planning yields: global warming, acid storm runoff, wildlife harm, bad
air,
>noise, accidents, crumbling infrastructure, and congestion. A new quantum
>leap is needed.
>
>Advocating a return to old ways is popular.  Rail systems are being
proposed
>as sustainable transportation. Trains are appropriate vehicles to move
>elephant sized cargo, not humans; http://www.publicpurpose.com displays
the
>failure of rail.
>
>Bicycles are sustainable, but weather exposure, meager speed and pathetic
>capacity limit use; so the car gains ground.  The "sustainable
communities",
>and "smart growth" initiatives, are also bids to return to old ways.
They
>oppose social expectations of expanding affluence, limiting success.
>
>Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT), Ultra Low Power Vehicles (ULPV), and
>Personal Rapid Transport (PRT) are sustainable transportation
technologies
>that do not challenge social momentum.
>ETT is:
>* FAST - to 500 kph for regional use, (6000 kph international).
>* CONVENIENT- runs continuously without delays.
>* EFFICIENT- a human powered ETT can achieve 500kph.
>* CLEAN- environmentally benign using renewable energy.
>* SAFE- isolated guideway eliminates collisions in any weather.
>* ACHIEVABLE- equipment exists to build ETT with common components.
>* SCALEABLE - capacity can be inexpensively added as demand grows.
>The automated, silent ETT works by removing resistance. Ultra
lightweight,
>pressurized cabins travel in tubes on thin steel wheels, or P-MagLev.  No
>air is in the tube to cause resistance.  Acceleration energy is recovered
>when slowing.(See http://www.et3.com/intro.htm )
>
>ULPVs are:
>* Under 5kw to minimize energy use and emissions.
>* Under 100kg to maximize acceleration, and minimize material use.
>* Enclosed for usability in varying conditions.
>* Streamlined to reach highway speeds.
>* Narrow - double lane capacity with a stripe.
>* Low cost without subsidies.
>* fit in ETT capsules for fast, distant travel with personal transport
>convenience.
>
>Automated PRT costs 10% to build and operate verses light rail, and is
twice
>as fast. (http://www.artwerkz.com/h/ links to other PRT here as well)
>
>Government and industry must achieve public purpose at minimum cost.
>Proposals must be compared on a benefit to cost basis;  and show capital
and
>energy costs for use factors from 5% up to maximum capacity.  This will
show
>relative risk if use fails expectations.
>
>Failure to implement high benefit to cost technologies will result in
>moribund economies, degrading environment, starvation, and war, as people
>struggle to survive without cheap energy.
>
>For a sustainable transportation plan to succeed short term it must
offer;
>improved convenience, capacity, and speed at lower cost.  For long term,
it
>must specify systems that offer a tenfold improvement in energy
efficiency,
>and improve environmental conditions with tenfold reduction in emissions.
>
>Planning and funding a sustainable transit initiative using the
appropriate
>application of high cost to benefit technologies like ETT, ULPV, and PRT
>will yield results unobtainable any other way.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Daryl Oster, CEO et3.com Inc.