Faster by train.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've got the Harry Harrison book, and a good read it is too. Contains all the points mentioned in the Press release. The book was set in an "alternate universe" with the rebel George Washington, having been soundly defeated by the mighty British Empire. Featured some other notable points, including nuclear powered trains (but not travelling through the tunnel), a stop just off Ireland to change trains onto the fast Maglev jobs, modular construction of the floating tunnel sections, and most bizzarely of all, huge prop aircraft powered by pulverised coal, piloted by mustashioed ex RAF Captains, and now run by P and O.
They weren't too keen on Electronic computers either, prefering the more reliable mechanical machines produced by the Babbage Company
Realistically looking aead a good few years, aircraft are inherantly inefficient, using a huge amount of energy just to keep at altitude, and to overcome drag. If energy becomes sufficently expensive a transport method that uses uses no fuel to just keep going in a staight line, could become very attractive. With regenerative braking, energy cost would be very low.
now all we need is a Space Elevator (from Arthur C Clarkes' , the Fountains of Paradise, although he didn't come up with the idea, instead giving credit to a Russian scientist) and we would be laughing.
[This message has been edited by Pdub (edited 28 June 2001).]
They weren't too keen on Electronic computers either, prefering the more reliable mechanical machines produced by the Babbage Company
Realistically looking aead a good few years, aircraft are inherantly inefficient, using a huge amount of energy just to keep at altitude, and to overcome drag. If energy becomes sufficently expensive a transport method that uses uses no fuel to just keep going in a staight line, could become very attractive. With regenerative braking, energy cost would be very low.
now all we need is a Space Elevator (from Arthur C Clarkes' , the Fountains of Paradise, although he didn't come up with the idea, instead giving credit to a Russian scientist) and we would be laughing.
[This message has been edited by Pdub (edited 28 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nowt new under the sun eh! Didn't Brunel have some design for Vacuum trains. Also featured in the first Dan Dare adventure. Any way have any of these twonks tried figuring out how much energy its going to take to hold a high vacuum over that volume of tunnel. Oh yeah and what if the car loses pressurisation, you can't push the nose down to get to a breathable atmosphere in a tunnel can you!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pdub
"aircraft are inherantly inefficient"
Just took 330 peeps to PMI at about 113mpg per peep. Try doing that in you Ford Fiesta and doing it in two hours.
I think that relative to road and sea transport we are relatively efficient. Rail transport perhaps less so. But if you want to live dangerously...sit at the front of a train and eat a hamburger.
"aircraft are inherantly inefficient"
Just took 330 peeps to PMI at about 113mpg per peep. Try doing that in you Ford Fiesta and doing it in two hours.
I think that relative to road and sea transport we are relatively efficient. Rail transport perhaps less so. But if you want to live dangerously...sit at the front of a train and eat a hamburger.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I worked for a while with the pneumatic tube systems they have in places like Sainsburies, the tubes ran for quite a distance from the checkouts to the cash room way at the back of the store, those carriers used to travel at phenomenal speeds, we had to install a knife valve ahead of the carriers to slow them down or they would have blasted thru the recieving station.
They did not work on a vacuumn, just reduced air pressure ahead of the carrier and atmospheric pressure behind, very efficient, often thought a scaled up version would be worth looking at.
[This message has been edited by tony draper (edited 28 June 2001).]
They did not work on a vacuumn, just reduced air pressure ahead of the carrier and atmospheric pressure behind, very efficient, often thought a scaled up version would be worth looking at.
[This message has been edited by tony draper (edited 28 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
The boffins seem to have overlooked the fact that the Atlantic is still expanding by a few cm. a year, and has the mid-oceanic ridge running down the middle which spews out vast amounts of lava every year and interesting phenomena known as "black smokers" which belch sulphur-rich plumes at up to 1000 degrees C on to the sea floor. Not to mention the frequent earthquakes associated with sea floor spreading.
Methinks I'll stick with the airlines...
Methinks I'll stick with the airlines...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Another quick thought - imagine the situation with one tunnel (hopefully paired) between Europe/ America. And you thought LHR was crowded!!
Also there is a safety problem with Clarke's space elevator, as pointed out in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series; the cable is not in orbit and if anything break it then the result is catastrophic - much heavier/faster than the 'dinosaur killer' meteor (although the impact site would be a narrow strip around the equator)
Also there is a safety problem with Clarke's space elevator, as pointed out in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series; the cable is not in orbit and if anything break it then the result is catastrophic - much heavier/faster than the 'dinosaur killer' meteor (although the impact site would be a narrow strip around the equator)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bally Heck, we'll assume me and 3 mates leap into the mighty Ford at say 40mpg. Thats an average of 160mpg per passenger 
Two hours is more tricky though
I'm not saying aircraft are inefficient compared to other current options, (although sea transport is best on a mpg per tonne basis - mind you speed isn't too hot) just that compared to something running in a vacuum (no drag) supported on superconducting magnets (no power required) and using regenerative braking to stop (getting back almost all the energy back you put in to accelerate), they do look a tad profligate.
kala, old Harry, stuck an "floating" bridge at the mid-atlantic ridge, that is the sections were buoyant and held down by cables, with enough slack in the bridge to last a good few years.
Mycroft, you cure that problem, by having a large mass (stray asteroids would work nicley, also giving you a carbon source for the diamond filament that needs inventing before construction, Bucky balls would work too) in geostationary orbit with the elevator coming down from it, and indeed one going up from it for "slingshot" launches. That way if the tether comes lose at the base nothing dramatic happens at all. The only problem is a sever above ground level, in that case only the portion below the break comes down, the rest stays where it is (roughly). Worst case scenario isn't too bad really, as only the tower bit comes down, and thats only going to weigh a few thousand tonnes.
The best has to be the incremental cost to orbit though, its in the region of a few pounds per tonne in energy terms, assuming what goes up eventually comes down as well (link 2 cars together, one goes up one goes down, your only paying to lift the difference between the 2 cars weights)
And for those in a hurry, how about just hitching a ride up in your BoeingBus A7157 glider? "ladies and gentleman, this is your captain speaking, we're just reaching our starting height of 200 miles above Africa and we'll be starting our glide into New York in just a moment"
Somehow I don't think that will catch on, for a start getting the gliders back to the site will be a bugger
Two hours is more tricky though
I'm not saying aircraft are inefficient compared to other current options, (although sea transport is best on a mpg per tonne basis - mind you speed isn't too hot) just that compared to something running in a vacuum (no drag) supported on superconducting magnets (no power required) and using regenerative braking to stop (getting back almost all the energy back you put in to accelerate), they do look a tad profligate.
kala, old Harry, stuck an "floating" bridge at the mid-atlantic ridge, that is the sections were buoyant and held down by cables, with enough slack in the bridge to last a good few years.
Mycroft, you cure that problem, by having a large mass (stray asteroids would work nicley, also giving you a carbon source for the diamond filament that needs inventing before construction, Bucky balls would work too) in geostationary orbit with the elevator coming down from it, and indeed one going up from it for "slingshot" launches. That way if the tether comes lose at the base nothing dramatic happens at all. The only problem is a sever above ground level, in that case only the portion below the break comes down, the rest stays where it is (roughly). Worst case scenario isn't too bad really, as only the tower bit comes down, and thats only going to weigh a few thousand tonnes.
The best has to be the incremental cost to orbit though, its in the region of a few pounds per tonne in energy terms, assuming what goes up eventually comes down as well (link 2 cars together, one goes up one goes down, your only paying to lift the difference between the 2 cars weights)
And for those in a hurry, how about just hitching a ride up in your BoeingBus A7157 glider? "ladies and gentleman, this is your captain speaking, we're just reaching our starting height of 200 miles above Africa and we'll be starting our glide into New York in just a moment"
Somehow I don't think that will catch on, for a start getting the gliders back to the site will be a bugger
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...and most bizzarely of all, huge prop aircraft powered by pulverised coal, piloted by mustashioed ex RAF Captains... "
Sounds a bit like the old 48 squadron, one of whose Flight Engineer's once described his job as "Stoker on a Charlie 130"
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Sounds a bit like the old 48 squadron, one of whose Flight Engineer's once described his job as "Stoker on a Charlie 130"
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
