Edited 28 Sep 2017 07:21, 5 years ago, edited by eddyb

You'd better ask whoever wrote that letter to clarify it because your description of its contents makes no sense. So you admit that despite your great efforts to get some interest in this project, not one person has written to you to say they think it's a good idea. Does that tell you anything?

It tells me that thanks to feedback from good people like you on different forums Magtube now is quite viable and I believe that any problems in the past have all been addressed. Some people who have openly opposed it for whatever reason will double down on their opposition and some are sitting on the fence.

So you've addressed the following list from 'rain shadow' at the Ars Technica forum

back-of-the-envelope calculations on velocity or pressure are not proof of feasability of the overall system. not even close. anything of this scale will probably need 10K pages of detailed engineering analysis including EVERY ASPECT not just the ones that we are bringing up. off the top of my head:

* thermal behahvior and limits of every single part, piece, fastener, assembly, and installation
* electrical power consumption, delivery, heat dissipation
* signalling, block control, deadman/failsafes, fire suppression systems, intrusion detection, leak detection, chemical/biological detection, earthquake/flood detection and of course some sort of plan for what exactly to do when something is detected
* management of and inspection for metal fatigue from pressure and temperature changes, vibration, age, oxidation, spalling
* serviceability of every single part
* management of static loads and dynamic stress on every structural part, whether moving or not
* unbalanced loads (i.e. all the passengers move to one side to avoid or gawk at something, or all start dancing to a popular tune and setting up a cabin resonance)
* human health and safety at every stage from walking into the terminal, or buying a bottle of water, or barrelling down the track, or vomiting into a barf bag, or having a heart attack 500 km from the nearest station
* hardening against terrorism, disgruntled workers and customers, unintentional chemical/temperature/pressure events from carry on consumer products, wildlife, exterior situations like 50C heatwaves, -40C cold, above ground issues like damage from car accidents impinging on the tube's structure or reinforcement
* provisions for smokers, pets, disabled, preferred customers, odd size cargo, inspection/maintenance vehicles
* proper attitude towards and management of stakeholder needs: regulatory approvals, right of way restrictions, insurance requirements, architectural conventions for light/space/color of terminals and carriages, psychological limits of customers stuck in a tube, PR for when things go wrong
* dynamics of financing. changing tolerance for risk after unrelated events, interest rate shifts for different financing stages throughout project, economic downturn decimates ridership expectations, executive turmoil/scandal
* perhaps the most subtle but maybe most critical point is that systems like this are vertically integrated--essentially a monopoly, as allowing quantas or united to drive their carriages down your tracks would be bizarre and introduce a layer of complexity that might doom the project. however, the internal competition within the airline industry has often been its savior. inefficient airlines can fail and the system of air travel continues. but if a vertically integrated transit system fails, only government intervention can save it, and then you end up with something more like amtrack and less like hopping onto expedia and having 100 ways to get from point A to point B for $149.

really, i'm sure the above doesn't even cover 1% of the issues involved in bringing a large infrastructure project to life.

so far it sounds most similar to a mix of an airport terminal and a metro subway, but with much longer distances and much higher speeds. given that metro systems are horrifically expensive already, adding more speed and distance just takes something that is already 10's of billions and makes it 100's of billions.

Just having a laugh re reading the top of your head problems and would like to point out Magtube is a vacuum tunnel so there is not too much to worry about car accidents or wildlife and there would be ten years to find out what colour the door handles etc. would be.

Edited 28 Sep 2017 07:18, 5 years ago, edited by eddyb

You'd better ask whoever wrote that letter to clarify it because your description of its contents makes no sense. So you admit that despite your great efforts to get some interest in this project, not one person has written to you to say they think it's a good idea. Does that tell you anything?

It tells me that thanks to feedback from good people like you on different forums Magtube now is quite viable and I believe that any problems in the past have all been addressed. Some people who have openly opposed it for whatever reason will double down on their opposition and some are sitting on the fence.

So you've addressed the following list from 'rain shadow' at the Ars Technica forum

back-of-the-envelope calculations on velocity or pressure are not proof of feasability of the overall system. not even close. anything of this scale will probably need 10K pages of detailed engineering analysis including EVERY ASPECT not just the ones that we are bringing up. off the top of my head:

* thermal behahvior and limits of every single part, piece, fastener, assembly, and installation
* electrical power consumption, delivery, heat dissipation
* signalling, block control, deadman/failsafes, fire suppression systems, intrusion detection, leak detection, chemical/biological detection, earthquake/flood detection and of course some sort of plan for what exactly to do when something is detected
* management of and inspection for metal fatigue from pressure and temperature changes, vibration, age, oxidation, spalling
* serviceability of every single part
* management of static loads and dynamic stress on every structural part, whether moving or not
* unbalanced loads (i.e. all the passengers move to one side to avoid or gawk at something, or all start dancing to a popular tune and setting up a cabin resonance)
* human health and safety at every stage from walking into the terminal, or buying a bottle of water, or barrelling down the track, or vomiting into a barf bag, or having a heart attack 500 km from the nearest station
* hardening against terrorism, disgruntled workers and customers, unintentional chemical/temperature/pressure events from carry on consumer products, wildlife, exterior situations like 50C heatwaves, -40C cold, above ground issues like damage from car accidents impinging on the tube's structure or reinforcement
* provisions for smokers, pets, disabled, preferred customers, odd size cargo, inspection/maintenance vehicles
* proper attitude towards and management of stakeholder needs: regulatory approvals, right of way restrictions, insurance requirements, architectural conventions for light/space/color of terminals and carriages, psychological limits of customers stuck in a tube, PR for when things go wrong
* dynamics of financing. changing tolerance for risk after unrelated events, interest rate shifts for different financing stages throughout project, economic downturn decimates ridership expectations, executive turmoil/scandal
* perhaps the most subtle but maybe most critical point is that systems like this are vertically integrated--essentially a monopoly, as allowing quantas or united to drive their carriages down your tracks would be bizarre and introduce a layer of complexity that might doom the project. however, the internal competition within the airline industry has often been its savior. inefficient airlines can fail and the system of air travel continues. but if a vertically integrated transit system fails, only government intervention can save it, and then you end up with something more like amtrack and less like hopping onto expedia and having 100 ways to get from point A to point B for $149.

really, i'm sure the above doesn't even cover 1% of the issues involved in bringing a large infrastructure project to life.

so far it sounds most similar to a mix of an airport terminal and a metro subway, but with much longer distances and much higher speeds. given that metro systems are horrifically expensive already, adding more speed and distance just takes something that is already 10's of billions and makes it 100's of billions.

Just having a laugh re reading the top of your head problems and would like to point out Magtube is a vacuum tunnel.