New York to Beijing in two hours without leaving the ground?

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Mar 16, 2010
59,455
6,793
1,900
The Good insane United states of America
New York to Beijing in two hours without leaving the ground?

An ETT (Evacuated Tube Transport) line in which car-sized passenger/cargo capsules would travel

The basic plan is, well, as old as the enabling patent, US Patent 5950543, whose description is quite thorough. Issued in 1999, there remain seven years on the term of the patent, which is assigned to ET3.com, Inc., a licensing organization that hopes to head an alliance of players to fund and construct demonstration facilities.

The short version of the ETT story is as follows: put a superconducting maglev train in evacuated tubes, then accelerate using linear electric motors until the design velocity is attained. As the motors are integrated into the evacuated tubes, the conveyance capsules which travel in the tube need have no moving or electrically activated parts - passive superconductors allow the capsules to float in the tube, while eddy currents induced in conducting materials drive the capsules. Efficiency of such a system would be high, as the electric energy required to accelerate a capsule could largely be recaptured as it slows.





The most practical model system is based on car-sized passenger/cargo capsules that travel in 1.5 m (5 ft) diameter vacuum maglev tubes. The maglev tubes are permanently maintained at near vacuum conditions, and the capsules are inserted into and removed from the tubes through airlocks at stations along the route. After the capsules are accelerated to the design velocity (some 4,000 mph or 6,500 km/h), they coast for the remainder of the trip. There is no drag from traveling through air, and although small oscillations in the maglev suspension do cause a bit of inefficiency, it is a tiny fraction of the rather immense kinetic energy of an occupied capsule - which with a car of about 550 kg (1,212.5 lb) traveling at 4,000 mph is just about 244 kWh.

The capsule speed will depend on the length of the trip, as it takes time to accelerate. Given a nominal acceleration of 1 g, it takes about 3 minutes to reach 4,000 mph, at which point the capsule has traveled over 100 miles (161 km). ET3.com, Inc. believes that a reasonable speed for shorter trips is 370 mph (600 km/h). While tubes could be networked like freeways, with capsules automatically routed along their trip, local and long-distance trips would require separate maglev tubes to avoid unreasonable scheduling delays. Around the world in just over six hours isn't orbital velocity, but the practical benefits would be nearly the same - vital goods and talent delivered quickly to where they are needed.

Members of the ET3 consortium have worked with parties in China, where they say more than a dozen licenses for the company have been sold. As an open consortium, licensees become owners of the company and the group claims more than 60 licenses have also been sold in five different countries, with interest from several more. But with licenses selling through the ET3 website for US$100, a lot more people will need to get on board to turn the dreams of those behind the concept into a reality. The company is developing a 3D Virtual Ride for the system with those interested in hitching a ride able to submit their contact details here. Unfortunately, the prelaunch for the virtual ride was set for last year and it still hasn't eventuated.

Promising concept or pipe dream? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section.

Source: ET3
New York to Beijing in two hours without leaving the ground?
 
Why China? Why not London? Tokyo?

Why not? They are fast becoming our only economic rival. It would not be smart to discount the reality of China's future.

To the OP though, it is a pipe dream. The science is there, has been for over a decade but the investment is not for the MASSIVE infrastructure that would be required for such a project. Not only is that infrastructure massive, it needs to materialize in its entirety before it can even get used once. That requires too much logistically speaking to be attractive or it would have been done already. At some point in our future, something like this will have to be done but it is a long way off before people are going to be ready to actually build it.
 
Meanwhile we can't manage to catch up with the rest of the world with high speed rail.

There is no market demand for it, therefore there is no reason to build it.
There was no market demand for a cell phone before someone built one and marketed it. There was no demand for computers when Bell Labs patented the first electric computer. Demand only develops for a new product once it's built, priced, and made available. The question is will there be demand if it's built? Hopefully, someone will investigate this idea.
 
Why China? Why not London? Tokyo?

Because it's cheaper to build a tunnel under the Bering Strait than it is across the Atlantic Ocean, and once you get over to Russia, you can send them along the same routes as their high speed trains.

And, Tokyo is located in Japan, a very high earthquake zone. Can you imagine being in a tunnel like that when a quake hits? You'd end up as raspberry puree once the vehicle left the tube.
 
Last edited:
Why China? Why not London? Tokyo?

Because it's cheaper to build a tunnel under the Bering Strait than it is across the Atlantic Ocean, and once you get over to Russia, you can send them along the same routes as their high speed trains.

And, Tokyo is located in Japan, a very high earthquake zone. Can you imagine being in a tunnel like that when a quake hits? You'd end up as raspberry puree once the vehicle left the tube.
Can you imagine being in an airliner at 30,000 and experience a total loss of power?
 
I had a pretty good "evacuated tube transport" this morning. It's amazing what modern science can do for constipation.
 
Meanwhile we can't manage to catch up with the rest of the world with high speed rail.

There is no market demand for it, therefore there is no reason to build it.
There's plenty of demand for high speed rail.
And there's demand for a tube to Beijing?

No there is not, at least not at the price that it would cost. That has been thoroughly looked at. There is a reason that it is not here. Hell, there is not even a real market for normal, cheaper rail let alone what you are talking about.
 
There is no market demand for it, therefore there is no reason to build it.
There's plenty of demand for high speed rail.
And there's demand for a tube to Beijing?

No there is not, at least not at the price that it would cost. That has been thoroughly looked at. There is a reason that it is not here. Hell, there is not even a real market for normal, cheaper rail let alone what you are talking about.
"Normal rail" is outdated. High Speed Rail is being used in Europe and Asia to great extent, and should be used here.
 
There's plenty of demand for high speed rail.
And there's demand for a tube to Beijing?

No there is not, at least not at the price that it would cost. That has been thoroughly looked at. There is a reason that it is not here. Hell, there is not even a real market for normal, cheaper rail let alone what you are talking about.
"Normal rail" is outdated. High Speed Rail is being used in Europe and Asia to great extent, and should be used here.


Did you notice he talked about a market for it and you talked about "should"?
 
Why China? Why not London? Tokyo?

Because it's cheaper to build a tunnel under the Bering Strait than it is across the Atlantic Ocean, and once you get over to Russia, you can send them along the same routes as their high speed trains.

And, Tokyo is located in Japan, a very high earthquake zone. Can you imagine being in a tunnel like that when a quake hits? You'd end up as raspberry puree once the vehicle left the tube.



You don't think there are earthquakes in China?
 
Meanwhile we can't manage to catch up with the rest of the world with high speed rail.

There is no market demand for it, therefore there is no reason to build it.
There was no market demand for a cell phone before someone built one and marketed it. There was no demand for computers when Bell Labs patented the first electric computer. Demand only develops for a new product once it's built, priced, and made available. The question is will there be demand if it's built? Hopefully, someone will investigate this idea.



Money-losing Amtrak operates as 'Soviet-style monopoly,' congressman says | NOLA.com
 
Why China? Why not London? Tokyo?

Because it's cheaper to build a tunnel under the Bering Strait than it is across the Atlantic Ocean, and once you get over to Russia, you can send them along the same routes as their high speed trains.

And, Tokyo is located in Japan, a very high earthquake zone. Can you imagine being in a tunnel like that when a quake hits? You'd end up as raspberry puree once the vehicle left the tube.
Can you imagine being in an airliner at 30,000 and experience a total loss of power?

No, I fly on Boeing aircraft........never touch Airbus for that reason.......pilots aren't allowed to pilot without the permission of it's computer.
 
There's plenty of demand for high speed rail.
And there's demand for a tube to Beijing?

No there is not, at least not at the price that it would cost. That has been thoroughly looked at. There is a reason that it is not here. Hell, there is not even a real market for normal, cheaper rail let alone what you are talking about.
"Normal rail" is outdated. High Speed Rail is being used in Europe and Asia to great extent, and should be used here.

We have aircraft that makes rail of any kind outdated......move to Asia or Europe.
 
There's plenty of demand for high speed rail.
And there's demand for a tube to Beijing?

No there is not, at least not at the price that it would cost. That has been thoroughly looked at. There is a reason that it is not here. Hell, there is not even a real market for normal, cheaper rail let alone what you are talking about.
"Normal rail" is outdated. High Speed Rail is being used in Europe and Asia to great extent, and should be used here.

Rail in Europe is used for a few reasons. One, the price of fuel is so taxed that virtually no one can actually afford to drive anywhere of consequence. Another reason is that the state heavily subsidizes rail. In other words, rail is an absolute fail unless you force people to use it.

No, there is no actual market for rail as far as transportation of people goes. There is a real and vibrant market for what you call 'outdated' rail systems for freight transportation and that is about it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top