ETT Q&A

Ask you questions here: also contains questions asked elsewhere on the Pickens Plan forums and blogs.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Daryl Oster on July 25, 2008 at 8:55am: Meredith asked 3 questions:
"why hasn't this gotten off the ground in a big, big, big way? By the way, what are the dangers of traveling at those kinds of speeds? How do these capsules keep from running into each other?"

Answers:
1) ETT is being implemented in Asia, we are about 5 years behind them now but could quickly pass them up as the programs in Asia are meager (from what i have seen from the photos they have sent since our last visits to the projects). For the reason it is not being implemented here-- everyone reading this, ask your self why you are not doing anything about making it happen??

2) Initial ETT will travel at 350mph, at that speed the Kinetic Energy (KE is potential for damage) of a capsule is less than half the KE of a 40ton truck moving 70mph on the freeway. Speeds will gradually be developed to higher speeds as longer routes are built so the dangers can be managed (the KE of a capsule at 4000mph = 50 trucks worth). Remember that tube (pipeline) transportation is already highly proven to be far less risk of loss than road or rail transport for liquid and compressed gas cargos -- moving over a third of all ton-miles in the US -- with less than 1/100th the loss. There are some well understood risks added by the vacuum, and others are reduced by the vacuum -- time will tell the net result.

3) All vehicles travel at exactly the same speed. There are small linear motor/generators positioned periodically in the tubes to strictly enforce the exact speed and therefore the spacing between capsules to less than an inch variation through out the trip. automated redundant sensors, computers and controllers are more MUCH more accurate and reliable than human operators --this is highly proven in industrial automation processes.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Daryl Oster on July 25, 2008 at 8:55am: Adrian Martin PE asked 3 questions:

1. What are the friction characteristics of the assembly, and how often would components need replacement?

Of course the preferred suspension technology is maglev, and ETT uses a new passive form invented in China called HTSM. The friction of HTSM has been measured by researchers in Japan to be 10ee-6, and in the US as low as 10ee-7 (if the vehicle weighed a million pounds the magnetic friction could be less than one pound). With no friction, and very little air in the system (10ee-6 atm pressure) wear would almost nil. The only moving parts being the airlock, and it's gate valves (currently the seals on commercially available gate valves last over a million cycles).

2. How sensitive is the tube to elevation drift due to masts being founded in highly expansive soils?

As you know, this depends on the design speed, and the characteristics of the specific soils. As disclosed in the patent, (available on www.et3.com )higher speed systems will require active alignment to mitigate alignment changes due to earth forces.

3. What could be done to lower the cost per mile of tube installation, and how does your published estimate of construction cost compare with other high-speed train rail assemblies?

The per mile cost is as low as we could come up with, and is for ideal soils and topography. That said, it is likely that many ways to save cost will be found. The tube material for instance is reported to have been duplicated under license in China, and available there at one third the cost per yard - this indicates to me that with high volume (and competition) there will be significant savings.
Our detailed cost study was for Orlando-Tampa, and done in 2002 dollars, compared directly with the other bids for the FHSRA RFP, the cost advantage was more than a factor of 10 reduction in cost compared to elevated and electrified High Speed Rail having the same capacity, but much lower design speed.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Daryl Oster on July 25, 2008 at 9:02am: HMJ wrote:
Daryl,
SwissMetro has been discussed here for many years, even my son wanted to get involved. But the cost in our soil is prohibitive and there would be too many stops and short distances.
But I am sure that ETT is an excellent solution for the US, linking cities like NY and Boston.
Hydro is great but it would be a pity to fill all the beautiful mountain valleys with water. We will certainly need it to store electric power. But we have already quite a lot of artificial lakes and I saw lots of them when flying over Canada, in particular in the western part.
Best regards,
Hans

Hans,
In 2002, the chief aerodynamics of SwissMetro visited us in Florida for a few days and we had some very good discussions. Many tunnels are needed in Switzerland, so comparing all underground is valid. ETT cost savings (over 20:1) relate mostly to the much smaller tunnel diameter needed, also the tunnel is not evacuated but is conventional, and houses the evacuated tubes.

We agree that routes between major cities 200-400 miles apart is the most profitable target market for ETT.

Personally i prefer the view across a mountain lake than to see a mountain ridge covered with wind turbines. The lake also provides flood control, irrigation, recreation, fishing, and transportation. Lakes are not economically feasible in many locations, however wind turbines are (and i like to see them too). Both have many benefits.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Daryl Oster on July 25, 2008 at 9:06am: HMJ wrote:
Daryl,
You are absolutely right on what you said on the subject of transportation. It is key to all economies.
But you you also agree that the transition to gas is only a temporary solution. Gas will also peak, and not much later if everybody starts burning it. Therefore we should be looking for a sustainable solution for the transportation issue based on wind or solar power. Maybe one day we only transport when the sun is shining just like sailing boats that sail when there is wind.
Best regards,
Hans J Matter
Hans,
Thank you for your comments. Good point that the long term solution to sustainable transportation being renewable electric power like: hydro-electric, wind, photo voltaic, or solar concentrator engines.

Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT)™ can accomplish 50 times more transportation per kWh than electric cars or trains.

ETT is cleaner, lower cost, safer, faster, and electric (so it can use Pickens wind power or PV or any other source of electric power to it's highest and best use).

As far as "transport only when the sun is shining", energy storage is also a key issue that must be addressed. Hydro-electric power is very good in this regard.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Daryl Oster on July 25, 2008 at 9:10am: Lawrence Murray said…
We have the technologies, we have the plans, we need to get started! can I help?

Lawrence,
There is much to do to implement ETT, and much we must to do on the Pickens Plan. My opinion is that a coordinated effort will be best, hence my spending time on this forum. As far as i am concerned, i have been working on achieving the ultimate goal of the PickensPlan (US energy independence) since many years before Boon announced the PickensPlan -- it is the potential synergies of a coordinated and integrated national approach using the best options (ETT being one of several) that cause me to invest some time here.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Daryl Oster on July 25, 2008 at 9:20am: At 12:18pm on July 23rd, 2008, mike fallwell said…
Thanks Daryl,
I was sceptical at first glance.
Very interesting!
How long have you been working on this?

Mike, i have been working on ETT my whole life (but only aware of it for the last 24 years or so). The first patent issued in September of 1999. Most people are skeptical at first; the claims sound so incredible! Those with an open mind soon realize that ETT is based on firm science and highly proven principals and processes that we have complete mastery of.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Daryl Oster on July 25, 2008 at 9:36am: At 10:29pm on July 23rd, 2008, 'Virginia R. said…
This sounds very interesting to me... Did you ever read the book or see the video perhaps that was out a few years back by Richard Hoagland, "The Monuments of Mars"? Not that this sounds like science fiction to me, it just reminds me very much of seeing the pictures on mars of tube looking things... perhaps a similar transportation system existed at some point in the past on mars?? Just a thought... I think this sounds like it could work. What kind of cost are we talking about here?

Virginia,
I have looked at the NASA photos Hoagland refers to and it is true that there appear to be tube like structures on mars -- also could be sand dunes in the bottom of old river beds as some have pointed out -- interesting to speculate about.
We did a detailed cost study in 2002-2003 for the Florida High Speed Rail Authority (FHSRA). The RFP for Tampa-Orlando was 96 miles and called for 3 stations and vehicles to meet the minimum capacity stipulated was $253m in 2002 dollars. That is less than 1/10th that of High Speed Rail and about 1/4th the cost of a 4 lane freeway.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Daryl Oster on July 26, 2008 at 9:26am: At 3:41pm on July 25th, 2008, 'Virginia R. had two questions:
Do you have many investors yet?
What type of cost do you project to the consumers?

1) Much of the investment required for ETT implementation has been made by the many companies that presently have the means to implement ETT or portions thereof. The company et3.com Inc. holds the patent for ETT, and is an open consortium of licensees who desire to leverage their collective investments to implement ETT. Shares of the company are compensatory shares under SEC rule 701 issued to licensees who perform services to achieve the company mission of ETT implementation. The company is privately owned by the licensees of the company. The company is not publicly traded; we do not solicit or accept investment from the general public.

2) The cost of ETT transportation can be about 1/10th the cost of flying for any route with enough demand to warrant the construction of a 6 lane freeway.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Daryl Oster on July 26, 2008 at 9:39am: At 6:01pm on July 25th, 2008, Ann Gagliardi said…
Tell me, have I seen a documentary on ETT on the Discovery channel recently? I seem to recall something about this..

Ann,
A few years ago the Discovery Channel did a program for extreme engineering about a transatlantic tunnel. The tunnel was to be evacuated and accommodate big maglev trains that would carry passengers from NY to Paris in an hour or so. The idea is credited to Frank Davidson – the man who founded and chaired the “English Channel Tunnel Study Group” for the 35+ years it took to see the project to completion – he is considered to be the father of the Chunnel.

Frank Davidson is very excited about ETT, as it will allow the realization of his dream at less than 1/20th of the cost. He invited us to spend a week with his family in France to introduce ETT in France, Frank is a valued member of our advisory board.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Daryl Oster on July 26, 2008 at 11:47am: At 10:17pm on July 25th, 2008, Meredith said…
Hi Daryl, Thanks for explaining the concepts more and answering my questions. It just sounds fascinating! What can one person do to help you with your project?

The company et3.com Inc. is consortium that is open to any individual or company to get involved with ETT implementation to what ever extent they desire and are able to. While we believe that anyone can help, we also recognize that only a small percentage of the population has the contacts, skills, IP, or production assets that are needed most at this point in ETT implementation.

Some desire to help by telling others about ETT (either in writing or speech), some with appropriate credentials are helping by confirming the credibility of our work, others want to improve the IP, still others may have underutilized production assets that could be applied to ETT production.

We welcome any help, one need not be a licensee, however we do not compensate a
non-licensee for voluntary help.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Daryl Oster on July 27, 2008 at 11:40pm: Questions by James Pilcher
Q) What are the environmental difficulties with ETT?
A) Visual intrusion is the only E.I. that is worse than other modes – unless it is underground – that increases the cost by approximately a factor of three (still 1/4th the cost of above ground HSR). All other EI is much less for ETT, especially noise – the biggest NIMBY issue for transportation. We can easily show that all impacts

Q) How do seismic conditions affect the cost ratios?
A) I am sorry to say I just do not know the answer. Active alignment control increases the cost about 25%, and that is to accommodate slow earth movements, and relatively small amplitudes of plus or minus a half a foot.

We have not priced fast actuators, or evaluated the power required to operate them, how long the typical event is, the typical frequency and amplitude, etc. My rough guess is that they would be more than double the cost, perhaps much more.

Also, I have not investigated the cost differential for seismic rated foundations, but I suspect that due to the light weight, and the fact that wind loads requirements in FL are very high, I would be surprised if the foundation differential would increase by as much as the active alignment.

Q) What are the political considerations blocking the path?
A) Nothing – and everything! There is no political path to government implementation of innovative transportation. History for the last 500 years shows that governments always support the status quo, and that all innovation in transportation (with a couple rare exceptions) takes place in the private sector first.

Private implementation of ETT is our focus. Fortunately in CA, (and some other states) the law says that the government must provide the ROW for a privately funded and built utility. Even more fortunately is the fact that thousands of miles of private ROW exist (RAIL and power line). A licensee in CA is presently investigating ETT for CA, as it is our belief that ETT has the potential to be politically neutral, offering both political factions what they say that they want.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by James Pilcher on July 28, 2008 at 11:19am: Thanks for the answers. I hope we can get a system up and running here. Something linking Sacramento, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego has been a long over-argued dream of Californians. If it were to reach up to Seattle through Portland, linking all of the major West Coast Cities you would have the support of the people.

The seismic considerations are, for the most part, engineering. The codes will require that you build for the worst possible scenario, an 8.0+ temblor lasting over 60 seconds at peak usage periods for the system. You will be required to provide adequate escape and survival means for any passengers that are riding the system during such and event. MOST builders and operators are required to pay the bill for any necessary training and equipment that local rescue workers would need to deal with possible emergencies. There will be endless considerations but these are the surmountable and if all of those involved are operating with goodwill.

The biggest problem will be environmental. Not just mitigating the disturbance of habitat of.....something. And there will be something, many of them. There are groups here that will not allow any improvement in transportation, no matter the savings in, time, money, fuel, AND pollution. A proposed high speed link from San Francisco to Sacramento was canceled because the SOUND of passing cars MIGHT disurb the mating practices of one of our many endangered birds in the Sacramento River Delta.

I want to go on and on with examples of purported environmentalists blocking one after another major project in this state. There are many cases of two or more environmental groups fighting each in court and in the press over transportation issues.

In this state you will be dealing with many; too many spoiled, egotistical, children holding veto power. I know how cynical I sound but I may not be cynical enough.

It is a shame but ETT may not be permitted into California until it has had decades of proven operation to overcome any reasonable and and unreasonable opposition.

Jim; ▶ Reply to This