Re: [Vo]:Future transportation with cold fusion and robots
They have human drivers so they are expensive. The drivers are often surly... A slur such as 'surly' surely does not apply to the great majority of drivers.
Re: [Vo]:Future transportation with cold fusion and robots
I know I've already mentioned Evacuated Tube Transports in another topic (similar to SwissMetro), but I feel the benefits of such a system have not been fully realized. ETT could easily be built with current existing technologies, its just a matter of engineering, and gathering resources (expensive). -Assuming a straight global backbone ET3 track, the speeds could reach up to 2000mph, offering faster travel than aircraft or any other method. -Extremely energy/resource efficient -High density computer automated traffic I would imagine it would be more economical to build above ground, and its only a 5ft diameter tube, comparable to building an oil pipeline. Global shipping trade and traveling could be largely reduced with distributed hubs across the world, and as Jed said autonomous cars/taxis for local travel. http://www.et3.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03kVU2FYl6U (Highly recommend) I would like to see more educated debates about this technology, weighing in on the pros and cons of adopting such a system.
Re: [Vo]:Future transportation with cold fusion and robots
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: A slur such as 'surly' surely does not apply to the great majority of drivers. Perhaps you have not taken many taxies in Atlanta or New York City. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Future transportation with cold fusion and robots
Drowning Trout drowningtro...@gmail.com wrote: -Assuming a straight global backbone ET3 track, the speeds could reach up to 2000mph . . . I think that is a really, really bad idea. If something goes wrong with the control system for few milliseconds, the train would collide with the wall and both the train and the tunnel would be vaporized. It might take weeks or months to repair. If the tunnel was underwater (as some proposed systems would be) the entire tunnel would fill with water. You cannot have emergency airlocks or compartments with trains going through that fast. A disaster with an airplane kills only the passengers and crew. It does not disable the whole transportation system. , offering faster travel than aircraft or any other method. That is Mach 4. There have been military airplanes faster than that. There is no reason why commercial aircraft cannot be made that fast, especially when cold fusion makes the cost of fuel negligible. -Extremely energy/resource efficient This would make no difference with cold fusion. It would save a few dollars in fuel every year. -High density computer automated traffic VTOL aircraft traffic can be high density and eventually it will be fully automated. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Future transportation with cold fusion and robots
Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 22:48 Freitag, 6.April 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Future transportation with cold fusion and robots I think that is a really, really bad idea. The reason I'm not very sympathetic to LENR or any 'infinite energy' ideas, is that too many idiots out there would be doing the wrong things. (what is 'wrong'?, You could ask. but the answer to this question is quite easy /to me at least.) So I positively hope that this whole LENR thing is complete bogus. The reason, why I'm engaged in this, is that I/my group does not want to be in the backseat, if this turns out to be real, and finally the idiots take over, and ultimately ruin the planet. This would be the absolute worst case! Hans im Glueck. You know. All told already 200years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_in_Luck; Guenter.
Re: [Vo]:Future transportation with cold fusion and robots
I wrote: VTOL aircraft traffic can be high density and eventually it will be fully automated. Conventional fossil fuel VTOL can have higher traffic density than regular aircraft because the aircraft can slow down or hover before landing, whereas regular airplanes have to keep moving in a holding pattern. I think airplanes in a holding pattern are at least 5 km apart. (3 nautical miles?) Cold fusion VTOL can have higher density than fossil fuel ones because they could hover indefinitely. For example, when bad weather backs up traffic over an airport, incoming aircraft could hover above the rain clouds, in static horizontal arrays with the aircraft much closer together than today's airplanes flying a holding pattern. You would not want them in a vertical array. Traffic density would also be higher because VTOL do not have to move horizontally before reaching cruising altitude. They would go straight up. Some of them do not do this nowadays because it wastes fuel. They transition to horizontal flight as soon as they are clear of the ground, instead of going straight up. Suppose there were 10 aircraft taking off in one timeslot, all heading in different directions. They could all rise from the tarmac at the same time, as long as they rose from widely separated gates. After they reach cruising altitude they would fan out in different directions. The trick would be to have a westbound flight take off from the west side of the airport, so it does not have to cross paths with an eastbound flight. They would both rise straight up, then head away from the airport in opposite directions. Airplanes would take off an land a few hundred meters from the terminal gates they use. They would not need runways. The runway is the worst bottleneck. - Jed
