Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Evacuated Tube Transport could take you to China in two hours
Ever look at a pneumatic tube at a bank and think, "Why couldn't I travel like that?" A new form of high-tech transportation called Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT) could take passengers in car-sized capsules traveling through tubes so fast that you could make it from New York to Beijing in two hours. Unlike pneumatic tubes that work with air and suction, the ETT works via magnetic levitation and frictionless tubes. The ETT could travel up to 4,000 miles per hour for long trips (over twice the speed of the supersonic Concorde jet), or 370 miles per hour for shorter trips, and tubes would be routed like freeways to avoid congestion. ETT proponents claim it's silent, cheaper than planes and faster than jets, though an extensive network of tube rails would have to be constructed to connect the network.While the capsules may look a bit claustrophobic, the ET3 consortium claims that the transport would provide more room per passenger than airplanes or cars, and TVs could be provided to "provide distraction from negative thoughts." Tubes would be constructed with emergency escape hatches and EMT facilities in case of emergency, and the braking system would be automatic with multiple backups (unlike the Springfield monorail).
Licenses for the ET3 concept are said to have been sold in five countries, and you can sign up for the "first 3D Virtual Ride" (coming in Q2 of 2011, oops!) on the ET3 website, but a prototype has yet to be developed. ET3 hopes that with more support, low-cost world travel could be possible in a decade. The question remains, would we still have to turn off our electronic devices for the trip?
Filed under: Transportation, News













Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Robert Mar 27th 2012 2:55PM
This is just a stupid idea. It is completely untenable. It's proponents are fools.
Jordet Mar 27th 2012 5:50PM
Airplanes are a stupid idea. Completely "untenable." The Wright Brothers are fools!
Robert Mar 27th 2012 8:41PM
Jordet, you are a fool.
joemadeus Mar 27th 2012 9:04PM
Has nobody on this project considered Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?
Adam Mar 28th 2012 4:50AM
its something which i really want to looking for in near future. I love to be in this capsules. it will revolutionize our transportation industry.
when its is expected to be a reality? or just a fiction?
Goiter McFundus Mar 28th 2012 7:10AM
Didn't we see this crap idea in Popular Mechanics back in 1958, 1962, 1966, 1970 ect... I think the SST was the best idea for international travel, but alas, the environmental NAZIS killed off that technological achievment. Welcome to the stone age of international travel.
Mcfly696 Mar 28th 2012 10:20AM
Why is it that stupid people seem to be the only ones that bandy about the word "nazi" in regards to anyone they disagree with? Can't you just say that you strongly disagree? Why do you have to go the extreme hyperbole route? That's just childish.
IVANIVONOVICH Mar 28th 2012 12:40PM
The only problem with the SST is the sudden noise it makes as it flys over head (sonic boom). Having been hit by one of these, I'll stick with the conventional aircraft. This is the only reason the concord was restricted to trans-ocean flights (when flying over land, the concord was restricted to under trans-sonic speeds, thus making it a fuel hog).
dean Mar 28th 2012 9:44AM
And how many nuke plants is it gonna take to power this ???
ANG Mar 28th 2012 8:11AM
first cure a common cold
Angelomario Mar 28th 2012 8:26AM
What manner of construction(technology) will be used to safely transverse
the oceans?
Bob Johnson Mar 28th 2012 10:09AM
Since a strong evacuated tube is postulated, one could put that tube underwater. At a depth of approximately 150 ft, that tube would be free from wave and storm action above. A thought for a suspension technique at that depth would be to support it with 'balloons" that were filled with air of the right pressure to support the tube + people-car in transit. Note that the tube would have to be very straight to withstand the centrifugal forces at such velocities around any bends in the tube.
Harry Hurt Mar 28th 2012 9:41AM
If it works by magnetism, what is "evacuated"? I wonder how much a ticket will cost. It would be an excellent shipping mode. Will there be a driver, or will it all be automated? Probably won't happen in our lifetime, but who cares? One place I do NOT want to go is China.
Robert Mar 28th 2012 10:01AM
"Evacuted" describes the cranial cavity of anybody who takes this crap seriously!
Ekuwa May 15th 2012 7:38PM
Evacuated means the tube that the pod travels threw will be in a vacuum state. No air in the tube means the pod doesn't have wind resistance. Because it doesn't have to fight the wind or friction because it's floating on magnets, it will take little energy to reach high speeds. It will probably be automated.
ray Mar 28th 2012 9:53AM
It really isn't much more than a glorified train. The real problem is crossing oceans. You certainly don't want to be on top, where the storms rage. And to cross on the bottom brings grave problems with depth and pressure. Why didn't out illustrious writer bring any of these problems to the surface in his article?
Robert Mar 28th 2012 10:01AM
"Evacuated" describes the cranial cavity of anybody who takes this piece of crap seriously!
jsphzhng Mar 28th 2012 9:58AM
Now how many tubes we have to build around the world to get all those ppl moving through? The is the most stupid crazy idea ever!!
Robert Mar 28th 2012 10:01AM
Hey Meg,
Why did you even write this article?
Did somebody ask you how stupid people could be?
LOL
Don Mar 28th 2012 10:08AM
Its an interesting concept but quite a long way off. The expense of construction in present day terms alone will be quite forbidding.