this is from the HB PDF

Mag-Vac-Tunnel Transportation (MVTT)

(DRAFT)

This is similar to an idea which was first broached in America in 1906 when Robert Goddard, the father of modern rocketry, suggested a “Vac-Train” route from Boston to New York that would travel at over 1000 mph.

In Russia, Boris Weinberg built a model at Tomsk University in 1909. In the 1980s a Rand Corporation engineer called Robert Salter proposed a Vac-train from New York to LA whose only speed limitation would be imposed by the curvature of the earth. He was concerned that at around 15,000 MPH passengers would approach weightlessness and be subject to nausea. Even reducing speed to accommodate this limitation, however, he suggested that the NY to LA trip would take about 21 minutes.

Mr. Daryl Oster (CEO of ET3 Corp.) has been working on the project for years and has obtained some patents on the concept—and more recently the courageous entrepreneur Elon Musk had entered the fray. In 2013 the idea sparked the creation of Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT), and then in 2015, Hyperloop Technologies, in Los Angeles. Suddenly there was popular enthusiasm for a concept which promised to reduce energy requirements for transportation by something like 90% and then, through regenerative braking technology, recover much of the remaining 10%.

It would as a consequence also reduce pollution exponentially and give us a chance to heal our natural world. And as if this weren’t enough to make this idea attractive to America, the jobs generated before, during, and after construction of such a transcendent system had the potential, almost single-handedly, to reconstitute her middle class and, like the moon shot, boost America’s self-confidence.

Of course anything this big is bound to have unintended consequences and unexpected obstacles as well, so our approach must be flexible as well as inexorable. We have been equal to such projects in the past—they are part of our heritage—and we can do this for our future. People still exist in this country like Daryl Oster and Elon Musk who are motivated at least as much by vision as by profit, and who have repeatedly risked their all for their dreams.

The benefits to our country if we build this are incalculable—and the damage we will do if we allow other nations to preempt us on this is likewise incalculable. So if we want renewal instead of decay we need to act and we must begin here in this country and NOW—and we must recognize that in order to succeed at all, our entrepreneurs will need the energy of the rest of us.

This project doesn’t need to start big. For less than 1/10th of 1% of what we spent on a terrible mistake in the Middle East we can work through the growing pains of MVTT and determine if it is indeed as viable and vitally important as it appears. For another 1% of what we wasted in the Middle East, we could have it running 50 to 100 feet below the Long Island Expressway and initiate a new era in energy efficiency and job vitality for America—and environmental health for the world.

That should be enough to give you an idea of the nature of MTS but you will find a more complete description on Humanity’s Brain which delves into such issues as construction across oceans and earthquake-prone areas, disaster prevention and recovery, traffic density, fatal distance, operating system software integrity, post-disaster repair, physical, and digital fail safes—and most importantly the implementation strategy. We can begin with a computer model which simulates the operation of the entire system with all the components including all safety features interacting dynamically so that we can hone and perfect the dynamic and reduce problems for our first physical model even before we build it.

In 1981, I acquired 150 acres on the coast of Maine where I hoped to build a model of MVTT, Thw technology had moved forward immeasurably since Goddard’s time, new possibilities were incorporated into the plan: Carbon fiber carrier cylinders, solar panel energy sources, lightning-fast computer technologies yielding macro and micro control, superconductors etc.

I saw that emerging computer technology could greatly enhance functionality and make the system safer as well, and since this was my forte, I continued to evolve my ideas. Besides, I was frustrated that conventional thinking about the use of magnetically levitated and propelled transportation kept yielding only marginally better and extremely expensive alternatives to traditional rail.

The adherents didn’t seem willing to take the grand leap necessary to truly reap the benefits and stayed well within typical rail parameters, not only looking just like traditional rail but also operating like traditional rail, only a bit quieter and faster. First of all it seemed me that the benefits to such technology could be dramatically improved, and the costs dramatically reduced only if the system were designed to operate in a vacuum because: a) Only a vacuum (or close to it) would allow speeds upwards of 2,000 Mph and thus dramatically reduced travel times. b) Only In a vacuum would the cost for propulsion coils (the most expensive element of the system) be dramatically reduced since they would not be needed to overcome air resistance but only for initial acceleration, periodic adjustment, and final deceleration - and therefore present only in key locations. c) Only in a vacuum would the energy expended in propulsion be therefore dramatically reduced. d) In a vacuum the energy expended in Magnetic Levitation would also be drastically reduced because each payload would be in the tube only a fraction of the time needed at lower speeds. I was also frustrated by the focus on the stop and go rail-like configurations that were being discussed for the vacuum tube version. Early on I had dismissed the popular idea that the Cannon-tube should be a form of mass transit like the train or the plane. The stop and go and scheduling necessary for these public modes of transport wasted much time and, if the travel velocities and costs were comparable, would always be trumped by the flexibility and continuous readiness of the individualized vehicle. And the advent of lightning-fast computer technology made individualized vehicles eminently possible within such a system. And by including individualized vehicles, the positive impact on the environment would be far greater. And the most expensive parts of the infrastructure would be almost identical in either case or possibly even less for individualized vehicles because the propulsion coils necessary to accelerate a massive train would probably be reduced in size for significantly smaller payloads. And how much more cost efficient to split that cost among all of us rather than just train-goers anyway. Of course that wasn’t to say that my Mag-tube System (MTS) wouldn’t accommodate public, many-passenger vehicles where it made sense though large trains would not be essential. Besides, keeping in mind the magnitude of the certain opposition to this disruptive technology, I saw an opportunity to lubricate MTS implementation process by supporting wherever possible the transportation systems currently in use. This meant that the design would accommodate most current ground transportation vehicles within appropriately designed travel containers (bullets) which, when ready to travel, would be sealed and subjected to integrity tests and then shunted on their way. But because the current vehicles were not specifically designed for MTS and would not be as efficient in its use as they might be, they would be charged a little more to use it. This would exert subtle pressure for a gradual evolution to more cost effective vehicles. The finally evolved passenger vehicle, for example, might be an electric car capable of four hours of local travel outside the system. Physical comfort within these vehicles would be at least on a par with that of current automobiles - with plenty of space and with additional measures provided to avoid any sense of claustrophobia within the tube. Vehicle windows for example might convert to LCD screens to provide a sense of space and/or to provide entertainment while in the tube. I originally figured that with no air, the bullets could travel at least 1000 mph with very little energy after initial acceleration. Entrance and exit tubes would serve for acceleration and deceleration and sensors throughout the tubes would keep track of the precise location of all vehicles at all times. Linear electro magnets would be used for acceleration just as in magnetic canons, but they would also be used for deceleration where they could regenerate electricity lost, and they would also be appropriately scattered throughout the system in order to power precise and relative vehicle location of all vehicles simultaneously within the system and to deflect vehicles to other MTS tubes according to destination. The tubes wouldn’t need to be big because what was lost in space available could easily be regained by velocity. Triple lanes on the Long Island Expressway for example could easily be replaced by a single tube within which 12 foot diameter “Bullets” could stack vehicles in groups of four to eight (if automobiles) and one to two (if buses or trucks) with similar density and travel at 600 mph and arrive in one tenth the time. By now, however, I suspected that speeds upwards of 3000 mph might be possible which would automatically reduce vehicle density in the tube to .02% of equivalent traffic volumes at 60mph - each arriving in 1/50th of the time required today. This meant that far fewer tubes would be necessary to handle far greater traffic volume than typical expressways and this too would mean that such a system might be a good deal cheaper to build in the long run than any alternative system. In any case the computer would be programmed to continually balance, safety, density, duration, and velocity for optimal efficiency. I spent a good deal of time thinking about just how incoming traffic could be folded into the high-speed main line, and likewise about how it could arrive at its destination without causing a huge pileup, particularly for high population destinations. I arrived at a kind of layered manifold arrangement which coordinated acceleration and deceleration with start and finish destination requirements respectively. Acceleration would proceed in stages from 20 mph in local tubes, through various levels of layered manifold intermediate tubes, doubling in velocity at each stage, and finally to the main tube and maximum velocities. Deceleration would proceed along these same layers but in reverse, finally exiting at 20 mph. At each stage of deceleration, the tubes could double in number to compensate for halved velocities in order to maintain density levels, and in order to provide for numerous possible destination locations. Traffic coming into Manhattan for example would repeatedly fan out as it decelerated so that by the time it arrived in the city it would be traveling 20 Mph and distributed to hundreds of locations where facilities would be in place to launch the contents of the bullets onto the city streets. The reverse would be true for traffic leaving the city. Thus the same layered manifolds would serve three purposes: acceleration, deceleration, and geographic distribution. Single destinations so heavily traveled that they approached saturation on single exit tube service would need additional tubes. Single destinations with very little traffic could eliminate intermediate tubes and go directly to the exit tube where all deceleration would occur. The entire system would be continuously monitored and controlled by one very fast computer system with simultaneously operating triple backup computers at different physical locations. I did a rough calculation of the energy requirements necessary for a typical trip in this almost frictionless system using current retail costs per kilowatt hour and current fuel costs and was startled to see that, depending on overall distance, costs per vehicle would be a tiny fraction of the cost of traveling an equivalent distance by car – somewhere around 1/50 - and the longer the trip, the greater the savings. And of course the ancillary benefits would be enormous as well. There would be no pollution (at least locally) and if the system became popular, potentially billions of hours of travel time would be saved for potentially millions of individuals. I was beginning to appreciate the vast importance of such a system – and the vast array of obstacles which would inevitably be presented by society itself. Construction Options Magnetic levitation would keep bullets suspended and isolated from contact with the mag-tubes themselves while travelling at high speeds, and graphite coated tracks and computer activated shock absorbers (which would be present in any case) would support bullets at slow speeds. (all bullets would be capable of slow self-propulsion if necessary for any reason (power outage, internal maintenance, etc.). I suspected that cost could be reduced if one acceleration and deceleration coil set were shared at start and finish points by placing departure and arrival tubes closely together and driving the process with carefully calibrated computer technology to prevent conflict, but this idea would require testing to determine viability. The first construction option I considered was a route bored at an average depth of 50 to100 feet below ground level. The bore would be lined with the strongest concrete and fiber or steel amalgam available and would house the smaller vacu-tube itself whose components would be manufactured offsite and assembled within the outside diameter tunnel as each twokilometer section was completed. This alternative might be considered prohibitively expensive except that boring technology has largely automated the process which has become dramatically more efficient in the last twenty years. Furthermore, the anticipated eighteen foot outside diameter bore size has only about half or less of the cross-section area of the twenty-four foot or greater bore used for most of the world’s “bullet trains” and would reduce the cost of the boring machinery, the energy needed, and at the same time increase speed of construction. The current boring speed record of slightly over an average of 1 Kilometer per month for 10 to 14 foot diameter bores is held by Robbins Tunnel Boring Machine Inc. The boring velocity of these machines generally increases as the bore size decreases, but at this diameter, ten of these machines could bore 10 kilometers per month or 120 kilometers per year; 100 could bore 1200 kilometers per year. Our bore velocity in difficult substrate would be slower but this at least gives us a general idea of what is involved. Furthermore, with a competitive project of this size, improvements in quality and velocity, and reductions in cost are almost certain. Besides being optimal for arrow-straight routes, this option would also be ideal for bypass or access to the modern city. And property acquisition costs should be far less than those necessary to current transportation methods since land owners would retain almost all surface rights (surface property acquisition would be limited primarily to vertical access shafts and departure and destination locations). Current law stipulates that most land owners own the ground beneath them to the center of the earth but have the right to sell access to that land (such as mineral rights). Since this transportation system is both in the public interest and key to a vital future for our country, the laws of eminent domain could be used to acquire the right to drill a pair of horizontal tunnels averaging 50 to100 feet below the surface - and laws might be passed to limit levels of compensation. I thought about relative construction costs and realized that since the tubes were far smaller than were typical expressways, they would use only a fraction of the materials necessary per mile, and that MTS might actually be far less expensive materials-wise—and labor-wise as well. I envisioned that the MTS tunnels themselves would be lined with continuous18 foot outside diameter (OD) tubes extruded from raw materials as the bore progressed. They would contain 12 foot inside diameter (ID) vacuum tubes which could be mass manufactured in sections offsite in fifty foot lengths. Of course electro-magnets and switches and sensors would be built into these vacuum tubes as necessary, and wires to carry electricity and information, but highways too require electricity and costly associated infrastructure as well and the additional cost associated with magnetic levitation and propulsion might well be offset by reduced right-ofway costs. The inner MTS vacuum tube would be suspended within the larger tube to absorb the effects of earth tremors. This suspension layer might be an inexpensive flexible semi-solid with built in hydraulic mechanisms to fine tune and maintain the arrow-straight trajectory. To allow for earth movement on the longitudinal axis, each tube (both layers) would be telescoped slightly into the next. Vacuum pumps might be located as appropriate in or above vertical access shafts but special bullets might operate continuously as pistons within the vacuum tubes extracting air as they go in order to maintain optimal vacuum conditions - and transportation bullets themselves might be also equipped with small pumps to extract any air they encounter. Air locks would be required for entry and exit from the tubes but bullets might also pass through chambers designed to be “skin tight” and allow no space for air to accompany them as they entered and exit the tubes. Here’s how I visualized the construction process for this MVT option: Bored Tunnel MVT Construction Process with vertical wells accessing the route every two Kilometers with boring machines and tubes being dropped down the wells as the bore continues. Precision would be obtained through the use of Lasers. The second construction concept I thought about involved suspension of only the vacuum tube itself within triangular tower structures at several hundred-foot intervals, the middle being supported by a suspension cable strung between each tower. The tubes would be manufactured from super light-weight materials so that the costs of supporting structures could be minimized. This design or something similar might be required in earthquake-prone locations such as California’s San Andreas Fault. Of course high-speed tubes installed in this manner would have to be routed carefully to minimize the impact of hilly country but might also combine some boring through the higher hills where the suspension sandwich between the tubes could be doubled or tripled to absorb additional shock. Of course ultimate implementation would probably require a combination of both this method and the tunnel already suggested. The third tube installation concept involves the use of oceans, seas and waterways. I picked this idea up when perusing recent conversations in the news regarding vacu-tubes. Flotation-positive tubes would be assembled at surface levels in groups that would then be lowered to a depth of about 1000 feet to avoid turbulence and then tethered to the ocean floor. This method would be particularly appropriate to northeast/southwest travel along the east coast of the USA where the tube could be tethered to the relatively shallow continental shelf. The tethers would probably need to be micro adjustable to maintain tube linearity, and fitted with shock absorbers to help compensate for ocean floor tremors. Side-boring technology already exists for oil drilling and with minor modifications could be adapted for tether anchors. The tubes would probably also require vertical and horizontal framing to eliminate the bending effects of ocean currents. Aside from the fact that this method cannot be used inland, the great difficulty would be installation over very deep regions. A glance at a map of the ocean floor suggests that there are ways of tethering in the Pacific Ocean by following the shallow waters of the continental shelves north and south along the coasts of North and South America and east and west adjacent to the Aleutian Islands. At 4000 Mph, the detour across the Pacific would have little impact. The Atlantic Ocean has good north-south continental shelf routes but a rather meandering route east and west adjacent to Greenland and Iceland. Here’s that method in living color: Figure 11 Aquatic Mag-tube Construction Drawing Disaster Prevention - Security measures to protect against terrorism or earthquake. As is the case with any transportation system, our MTS system would be vulnerable to terrorist attack both from without and within. In our case, the contiguous high-speed nature of the system would be particularly attractive to those who would destroy our country. How can we protect against outside application of explosives to the tubes? How can we guarantee that someone won’t plant a bomb in a cargo cylinder, or in his or another’s passenger cylinder? And finally how can we protect against cyber terrorism – manipulation of the master software itself? Tube integrity Built-in security monitoring systems must be present at all entry and exit points (entry ramps, vertical shafts, exit ramps) to ensure protection from terrorists. Lasers and motions detectors must be installed at all these locations and all motion processed to ensure that it correlates with computer actuated motion of the vehicles themselves. Lasers and motion detectors must also be installed along the entire exposed length of the system (for non-bored systems). Vehicle integrity Here we have the benefit of decades of experience in airport security and of the latest machinery used to detect dangerous materials, and we should harness as many of these methodologies for MTS as is feasible - but they won’t be enough. Detection of plastic explosives for example is still not 100% reliable and there are infinite ways to hide and disguise all kinds of potentially damaging material including poison gas. But because of the nature of this system, there are at least five additional ways to ensure that only clean vehicles enter the system. · The first relies on the uniformity and precision of vehicle construction which would allow the computer to make precise and minute comparisons between images of the vehicles entering MTS and the blueprint contained in the computer. Any anomalies in shape or density would instantly move entering vehicles to another track for more detailed examination. · Second, standards of baggage organization could be applied, with specific locations designed into all vehicles for each type of baggage so that anomalies in shape and density would be more easily observable. This need not be onerous for travelers since it would simply amount to a kind of physical structure for the organization of goods – computer here, documents there, clothing there, groceries here, etc., and sloppy organization would merely mean that entry to the MTS system would take a little longer and/or potentially route one’s vehicle for a physical inspection by trained professionals. · Third, the master computer could collect and store detailed images of the baggage typically contained in each specific vehicle according to its registration number in order to speed the certification process. · Fourth, sophisticated passenger identifying information analogous to Driver license or passport data and images might be developed for all travelers. This could be verified using images and stats maintained within the computer. Any suspicious nonconformities would move the vehicle to deeper levels of inspection. This more personal level of inspection could be optional but, those who choose not to cooperate would suffer greater delays. · Finally the uniform semi-inclined posture required so that all travelers can safely absorb g-forces might open the possibility that thousands of MRI cross-sections could be instantly scanned and computer analyzed for non-conformities in density and shape at human body surface and internal locations (recent advances in MRI technology have increased scan rate by about 1000%). Non-conformities would trigger more stringent analysis to determine if their density or shape pose any threat in which case the vehicle would be further delayed and images of the anomalies be sent to trained human observers. Since only the anomaly would be seen by the professionals, this would eliminate the infamous technological strip-search currently occurring at some of our airports. Of course most travelers would soon learn that the fastest and simplest way to travel would be lean and well organized, and they would carry specific and recognizable materials with them as a matter of course, and make sure that they weren’t carrying anything suspicious on their bodies, so with time and improvements growing out of usage, perhaps 90% or better could be 100% computer analyzed and could consistently enter the system without side-tracking. Another 5% might enter stage II security and 3% stage III leaving 2% for the most stringent security checks. For cargo cylinders we must do all the things that we currently do and in addition some of those listed above for passenger vehicles. We must insist on materials organization so that imaging techniques can be more effective, and we must conduct automatic image comparison for known entities listed in the cargo manifest. In addition we must offer freight cost reduction incentives when customers adhere to carefully designed transparent packing guidelines which minimize opportunities to hide explosive devices or dangerous substances. Those freight cylinders which for any reason are unable to comply will be both more expensive and slower to allow for professional inspection. Software integrity – Combating cyber-terrorism Of course MTS will employ the best hackers in the world to defend MTS software against their peers, but there is something else we can do here to protect the system against cyberterrorism. Each vehicle should carry its own hard-wired chip which constantly confirms that the actual movement of that vehicle conforms precisely to the norms established for safety and the motion that would be activated by the central software itself. Any deviation from these norms anywhere would send a signal to a failsafe system capable of shunting that vehicle to another line for inspection or of overriding the main system in order to bring the system to a controlled halt. Disaster Recovery – If the worst happens. One of the knottier requirements of any transportation system and one which consumed a disproportionate amount of my attention was the game plan for catastrophic failure. The construction of the tube itself and the installation methods discussed above incorporate features intended to minimize catastrophic impact. But how exactly would the system react to an earthquake in California for example, or a terrorist bombing which creates a breach in the tube? The software must be designed to sense the breach and act. It must do two things instantly: · Hermetically seal off the breach with blast doors in order to limit the impact of a possible explosion and to maintain vacuum conditions in the rest of the system. · Slow the system to a stop as fast as possible The first objective would be to close the nearest blast doors on both sides of the breach such that the force of an explosion is directed up vertical perforations to the surface. The blast doors at the next vertical perforations should also be closed as a failsafe. Blast doors should occur every 1000 feet and be designed such that as soon as they begin to close, the force of any explosion drives them shut. The fatal distance The second objective is to stop all motion as quickly as possible in order to save as many travelers as possible Obviously, any passengers physically at the breach or within some “fatal distance” before the breach, is inevitably doomed. This is no different than what occurs within current transportation systems, but in this case because of the instantaneous nature of the controlling system, almost everyone else within the system can be protected from the catastrophe. Fatal distance is the minimum distance from the breach (or from the blast door) necessary to bring vehicles to a stop without damaging the passengers inside via excessive g-force. The system must both minimize that distance and strive to limit the number of vehicles that can reside within that distance by varying speed and density factors for the vehicles within the tubes. Though a record peak of 46 g-forces was sustained by John Stapp in 1954, tests show that the average human being can withstand g-forces up to 22 g for up to 10 seconds with no damage if properly positioned relative to the direction of the g-force. Assuming that it is possible to stop our cylindrical vehicles in a controlled manner at this g-force, this means that anyone seated in an appropriately designed seat in a vehicle traveling at 1000 MPH would require a minimum of 2.08 seconds and 1525 feet to come to a standstill and at 4000 MPH would require 8.34 seconds and 24,470 feet. Therefore, in earthquake-prone areas, if the traffic density is one vehicle per 1525 feet, MTS velocities could be set at 1000 MPH so that only one vehicle would be inside the fatal distance. If the traffic density is one vehicle per 24,470 feet, 4000 MPH would be possible with the same level of catastrophic vehicle damage. It follows that depending on traffic density, the computer can dynamically calculate what velocity is appropriate particularly when traveling through volatile geography. In addition, vehicle speed can be increased and traffic density reduced in these volatile areas by splitting heavily traveled routes into multiple tubes. It is also possible that tests will demonstrate minimal passenger damage at greater g-forces - and this would reduce the fatal distance and change the equation. For example if 32g is acceptable for a shorter duration, a vehicle traveling at 1000 MPH would require a minimum of 1.46 seconds and 734 feet to come to a standstill and at 4000 MPH, 5.85 seconds and 17,164 feet. Also a calculation of the g-force necessary to stop a vehicle inside the fatal distance could be made dynamically at the moment of the breach, and the system could apply that force in the hope that the passenger could survive it. But how do we accomplish and control this rate of deceleration? · All vehicles must be constructed to withstand at least 60 g-forces and be built so that passengers are always seated optimally to absorb g-forces and on gimbals which respond to these forces by properly positioning passengers. · The Computer system controlling the networks must act instantly if it senses a breach by filling the Magnotube with pressurized air for some distance before the blast door and between the blast door and the breach much in the way airbags are inflated in modern cars. This would be accomplished using a smaller pressurized tube running parallel and next to the active tubes and with adjoining computer-actuated variable valves which would open instantly and control the air density entering the breached tube as follows: 1. The density of the air must be greater in the area of the breach (or the blast door) and gradually diminish as the distance from the breach increases. As distance from the breach increases, lesser g-force and longer reaction time is possible and the process can be assisted using the electro-magnets within the tube. 2. The precise distance involved and the density of the air required will have been tested during the model construction phase of the project and will be monitored by the central computer controlling the disaster recovery. It must be varied as needed to generate the necessary 22-g braking force. · Each vehicle will be equipped with its own braking system as well, to compensate for its weight relative to other vehicles. That system will control the deceleration via dynamically adjustable air brake foils which control the amount of air flowing around the vehicle as depicted in figure xxx. The objective will be to assist the master computer in maintaining the required g-forces for all vehicles adjacent to or affected by the breach. Figure 12 Mag-tube Disaster Response Drawing of tube with blast doors activated and air brakes activated MTS features which apply to disaster recovery The overall design and construction of the MTS system will depend greatly on the nature of the terrain and proximity to quake prone areas as described above, but the minimal requirements will be: · Telescoping sections · Double tube construction with shock absorbing sandwich · Fail-safe duplicate or triplicate electrical systems must operate on both sides of any break · Self-adjusting micro alignment · Tube Integrity sensors every 1000 meters Post disaster repair It should be noted that by limiting the impact of terrorist bombings to the precise location of impact and to very few individuals, one incentive - the death of large numbers of innocents - is greatly diminished. On the other hand the terrorist goal of disrupting the overall system must also be addressed if we wish to make MVT a low-desirability target. There are several factors that would make it difficult to disrupt the system seriously even before a network of MVT routes large enough to provide viable alternatives for the same destinations is built. · The existing transportation structures will be functional for many years during MVT‘s evolutionary implementation and could handle the displaced traffic in passengers and freight. · Since passenger vehicles would be electric and operable outside the tube, they could be detoured around damaged areas while repairs are underway. Tubes could have emergency exits and entrances every ten miles when other entrances and exits are not present. · Over time MVT will be able to utilize an abundance of alternate magno-tube routes to move goods and people to final destinations, and these can be instantly activated in the event of an emergency. Another less obvious deterrent to terrorist action is super-fast repair. A system which can be repaired quickly makes a poor strategic target since the damage is very temporary. This means that the technological approach we take to repair is very significant. Here are some factors which should help: · Pre-manufactured tubes and components for all assembly configurations should be available at all times. · Repairs should be fully automated and robotic since the repair area will in most cases will be hazardous to humans. · Specially designed tunnel borers should be dropped from wells at both ends of the breach and move toward the center while testing and measuring tubes and replacing any that are defective. The actual boring necessary to repair will only occur fairly close to the breach site and thus be less time-consuming than the original bore. Implementations Strategies It is likely that the nation that seizes this opportunity will assume an overwhelming advantage in the movement of goods and people for a long time. The technology will be sought by every other nation on earth and place the originator at a significant competitive advantage in the construction of such systems world-wide. Of course the political, social and economic barriers will be very high for this revolutionary technology—far higher than those for the electric car, for example, which threatens only a fraction of the interests that are threatened by Mag-Vac-Transportation (MVT)—every existing form of transportation and its suppliers as well as all energy interests in the world, and you and I protecting our jobs, and the HiIQers determined to protect the stability of the nation. But the advantages are also overwhelming and the existence and funding of these new companies offer high hopes that the country of the rugged individual was still capable of reversing its own decline. So it is disappointing, even shocking, to discover that America has already begun to renege on the promise for America in this matter. Dirk Ahlborn, the CEO and founder of HTT spent the end of the summer of 2015 in Asia and released an update to the technology forum IEEE Spectrum in September. “I can say for sure the first full-length track will be in Asia, the Middle East, India, or Africa,” said Ahlborn. “They have bigger issues and no existing infrastructure, so a real need to build. A system like ours is way more interesting for them than going with high-speed rail.” Then in June of 2016 Hyperloop Technologies (now Hyperloop One) signed a letter of agreement with Russia to develop mag-lev transportation links in Russia aiming ultimately for a new “Silk Road” capable of whisking containers from China to Europe in a day. Then in August the same company signed a similar agreement with Dubai. Of course these courageous and innovative companies cannot be blamed for looking outside America—enterprise always seeks the best paths with the least resistance in a world where American is probably the path of most resistance. But it is precisely the wrong outcome for the American Middle Class and for the future of America itself. And it is exactly what will happen to all other convention-defying ideas with any hope of saving the country from its downward-spiraling destiny—unless the people, not wealth and politicians, transcend themselves and do something about it. In the name of those people, America just spent two thousand billion dollars on a war widely recognized as unnecessary and damaging to global stability. Surely the people can find the will to spend ten billion to jumpstart a healthy future. Or can they? Will they allow their binary thinking and their flock psychology and brainstem reactions of fear and greed and anger, to waste their resources in conflict and destroy the future of their progeny? Or will they find the wisdom and the strength to reach for a healthy future? Will they find ways to loosen convention’s stranglehold on our transportation future—to deliberately design our MVT system to help us overcome some of the obstacles. For example:  Maximize the advantages of MVT so that it will be attractive to the greatest possible audience: o Design for use by most existing vehicles (up to an optimal size) o Build a continuous flow freeway dynamic rather than a stop and go traditional rail dynamic. o Design a macrostructure capable of supporting the highest theoretical velocity, not the lowest. Technology will soon catch up.  Design MVT where possible to deprive obstructionist of their issues  Encourage existing transportation enterprise to participate in the project,  Concentrate first on freight which is simpler, less dangerous, and generally more profitable—but build to support human transport  Build the first solutions for worst-case transportation nightmares (The Long Island Expressway for example), that also have relatively easy construction scenarios (Long Island itself is a spawling relatively flat sand bar). A closer look at these suggestions: Design to support existing vehicles—An MVT which allows existing vehicles to enter under their own power, travel 2000 miles to a desired destination, and then exit under their own power, would be extremely attractive to most Americans and far more tolerable to existing transportation-related industries because it would cushion the impact and allow time to adapt. Furthermore, the availability of such a capacity would generate a far larger customer base for MVT. But it would be more expensive to build since it would demand larger tubes than are necessary for an optimally designed passenger carrier. But larger tubes would also allow larger freight containers which might someday be whisked from LA to NY in an hour. There is probably an optimal size which would include a capacity to service the vast majority of vehicles and be appropriate for freight, but stay within cost justifiable limits. Maximum vehicle size might be that of a Toyota Coaster passenger minibus. A continuous flow dynamic—A continuous flow freeway dynamic rather than a scheduled stop-and-go rail configuration would add greatly to the appeal of MVT and also invite more participants. Vehicles, including private and public vehicles would continuously enter and exit with the MVT computerized operating system guaranteeing integrity, safety margins, and overall harmony. Local small buses for example would drive into waiting “Bullets” (pressurized carrier vehicles) and simply dial their destinations, say Boston to LA, and drive out into Hollywood forty-five minutes later. Family cars would do the same, and all Public Passenger Bullets would leave as soon as full and be instantly replaced with the next passenger Bullet. Maximize the advantages—Realizing that an MVT with only incremental advantage would diminish enthusiasm and provide naysayers with powerful risk/cost-benefit arguments, we should design from the beginning for a system with built-in potential for speeds of 3,000 MPH or better. The 700 to 1000 MPH currently being discussed will always be optimal for more local transport, but to cross a continent in one hour will always beat four hours. And though it is unlikely that current technologies are sufficiently evolved to support such speeds at the moment, they are theoretically possible, and with our rapidly advancing technology, will soon become attainable. With such a likelihood, it’s important that we don’t design ourselves into a corner, by spending vast resources on routes too curvy to allow the higher speeds, for example, or by designing structures incapable of sustaining a near vacuum. And there is another counterintuitive reason that we should design for high speeds—cost. In a near vacuum, the higher the speed, the lower the cost because almost the same level of energy is required but for a much shorter time. And counterintuitively, a higher speed system also appears to affect design in ways that can also reduce cost (see below). Deprive obstructionists of their issues—A truly high speed system simply couldn’t tolerate the inevitable curves and ups and downs of almost all existing above-ground routes, but an MVT that diverges significantly from such routes will be confronted with literally millions of individual interests and objections—some with real merit, some with none—and thereby furnish numerous and powerful adversaries with millions of delaying tactics which could easily stop the project by decades or even centuries. As a matter of practicality, and to help counter such resistance we must therefore explore the possibility of increased use of underground tunneling. There would of course be resistance to this methodology as well but it should be far less than that of surface methodology because a tube running an average of 50-100 feet below ground will not encounter the millions of surface structures that give additional weight to obstructionist objections. Though at first glance a mostly underground transportation system spanning a continent may seem overwhelming, it may in fact be our most realistic option especially given surface right-ofway opposition. It also may be the most cost-effective given the cost of overcoming that opposition, and the cost of the support structures that would be necessary for surface routes. Amazing progress has been made in tunnel boring technology in recent years with bore rates steadily increasing to a current record of nearly one kilometer per month for a fourteen foot diameter bore. One hundred such machines working in unison could theoretically bore 1200 kilometers per year in similar substrate. Of course the reality would be far less because the variable nature of substrate. Nevertheless, even faster bore rates are likely in a project like this as the benefits of scale and competition are added to the mix, and we must also figure that MVT bore diameters for the structure we are contemplating would be considerably less than that used for conventional roadways (at about half the surface area), and that bore rates would be faster for this reason as well. It should also be noted that vast regions of our nation are so level and uninhabited that underground tunnels may well be built by digging trenches rather than drilling tunnels— possibly next to existing arrow-straight roadways. A primary emphasis on underground tunnels does not preclude above ground structures which would occur as justifiable and necessary—and suspended above-ground structures would probably be the rule in earthquake-prone areas. Of course obstructionists can and do insist that the likelihood of disaster within such a system are unacceptable. But this will be an evolutionary process which retains the flexibility of existing transportation structures while it gradually builds the network which will provide its own unique flexibility both in terms of construction techniques and operational basics in order to deal with disaster. Unlike us, MVT will react to anomalies and emergencies at the speed of light and will be highly controlled and fail-safed as a matter of operational necessity. As a consequence injury and death rates are likely to be less rather than more than those occurring in current humancontrolled transportation systems—even with terrorist attacks and earthquakes factored in. In fact, it seems likely that with proper design and procedures (see below), an underground MVT system would actually be less vulnerable to terrorist attacks than existing systems. Reducing cost. In an effort to reduce construction costs relating to levitation (I suspect), Elon Musk originally suggested that the tubes retain just enough air to support air skis as a relatively inexpensive means of levitation. But speeds exceeding 700 MPH would be impractical if air skis were to be used because friction, drag, and heat would begin to overwhelm the system. Speeds above 700 MPH would demand the near absence of air in the tubes and the use of magnetic levitation. One problem with this approach has been that the cost of the necessary levitation windings in tubes for such a configuration would to be prohibitive. But is that true? It turns out that the overall cost of both construction and operation of all the magnetic components of MVT might actually decrease as the speed increases when using the recently developed Inductrack model. This design requires that permanent magnets be built into the bogie (suspension device) of the “Bullet” in what are called Halbach Arrays (a unique arrangement of magnets which focuses the magnetic field). As the Bogie passes over coils imbedded in the MVT track, these Halback Arrays induce a magnetic field in the track capable of levitating the Bullets approximately 1.5 inches. Of course there is a price to pay in drag for the energy necessary to levitate, but whereas that price increases dramatically as velocity increases for airplanes, it does just the opposite for Halback Arrays. At about 15mph, the latest Halbach Arrays have about the same lift-to-drag as the best commercial jets traveling at 600 mph. At about 250mph, they are about ten times more efficient meaning that much less power per mile is needed for lift versus propulsion. At 1000mph they have a better lift-to-drag ration that the ball-bearings on the wheels of a fast moving conventional train. This is important for MVT because in a vacuum, the cost of levitation itself (not propulsion) is the principal non-recoverable cost of the transportation. So with the Halback Arrays, the faster we go, the lower the cost per mile—and this isn’t the only reason that it makes sense and reduces costs to go faster in MVT. If we replace continuous magnetic levitation, for example with intermittent levitation the cost of construction diminishes the faster we go. At 2000 MPH such bullets would cover almost 100 feet in only 1/30th of a second and fall vertically during that time only ¼ inch due to the force of gravity. This means that at 2000 MPH levitation pulses to recover that quarter inch could be applied 30 times per second by placing 10 feet of coils (possibly less) for every 100 feet of forward motion, reducing the cost of continuous coil by over 90%. Alternatively the ten feet might be split into one-foot segments every 9 feet. The idea would be to distribute the levitation coils in accord with the velocity of the Bullet. The faster the Bullet, the further from each other would be the coils and the lower the cost. At the same time, the lack of air in the tube would dramatically reduce the need for propulsion coils to continuously overcome resistance. Finally, the reduced time in the tunnel at the higher speeds would also dramatically reduce the overall cost per vehicle of both levitation and propulsion. Of course such a system would require wheeled Bullets capable of supporting themselves at lesser velocities (and it might conceivably require the emergency use of Bullet-centered air jets and skis at intermediate velocities) but some limited capacity for self-propulsion would be required in any case during power failures and other unanticipated interruptions of service. It is true that for this high speed MVT approach, the vacuum requirement would be more difficult to fulfill, but my design suggests using the carrier bullets themselves as they travel within the system to sweep for air molecules to help maintain that vacuum—and the faster they go, the more efficient this process will be. Finally, the speed of the overall system will affect the size of the system, since the faster we go, the smaller the overall system needed to transport the same volume of material (freight or people) in the same time frame. Encourage existing enterprise to participate—During World War II, enterprise all over America converted to support the war effort and did so with gusto. Hollywood excelled at wartime propaganda, Ford made B-24 Bombers and tanks, Bridgeport Connecticut (now so downtrodden and forgotten) made the tools that made the tanks and the engines and the ammunition of war. Factories that manufactured silk ribbons made parachutes, typewriter factories converted to machine guns, undergarment manufactures sewed mosquito netting, and roller coaster manufacturers converted to the production of bomber repair platforms. So, with enough motivation, massive conversion is at least possible. During that war our physical future was at stake, but in this case the issue is the survival of an ideal, an ephemeral concept of liberty which, without our help, may cease to illuminate the future. Unfortunately trends in today’s self-centered economy suggest that this is not a very strong argument, so we will need to resort to self-interest instead. Luckily, given that MVT should be vastly superior to existing systems while costing far less, that should be eminently possible. Freight First—From a profitability and safety point of view, freight offers the most immediate advantages and incentives, so we must design MVT to receive and deliver freight as efficiently as possible. To reduce the opposition of as many existing freight handlers as possible, MVT freight containers should be designed to utilize existing freight transport systems. But MVT should be built from the outset with all the failsafe and safety features and capabilities supporting human use which are outlined in this paper because, though MVT may spend its first years moving freight, it must make sure that the features that make human use possible are as close as possible to infallible. Solve worst case problems first. Another way to build enthusiasm for MVT is to begin with a route which is desperately needed and also easy to build. The Long Island Expressway, for example, is famous as the world’s longest parking lot, and the island itself is a giant sandbar through which tunnel-boring machines would find little serious resistance. By designing MVT from the beginning to blunt implementation resistance, by minimizing legal opportunities for obstructionism, by maximizing the benefits, and by including existing enterprise in the dynamic, many obstacles can be reduced, but an effective implementation strategy requires more implementation tools and tactics which I have outlined in Humanity’s Brain. Implications for America How would this project affect America? Pride Jobs, Commerce and the culture to support it all What next? In 1985 I’d drawn a diagram of a 20:1 model system (Figure x) which I intended to build in Maine, and I’d walked the land looking for a suitable location, and even began looking into construction materials. But events intervened and the yacht Pajaro Jai unexpectedly generated huge projects aimed at preserving our natural world and the people who live there. I spent resources to build first CPR and then MetaMapper and then encountered years of unexpected resistance to these very powerful products. And then the Pajaro Jai was shipwrecked on a Caribbean reef during a storm and I decided to build a bigger and better replacement, and then we began to operate the new yacht, and then the world financial crisis hit and a sleazy land speculator illegally damaged my financial position and before I knew it - it was now. And still in spite of at least fifty years of buzz about “Vacu-tubes” in the USA, no visible progress whatsoever has been made. True, ET3 is actively pushing the concept, and the dynamic Elon Musk is interested, and there’s a group called Terraspan that wants to combine the concept with a global green electrical grid – but no actual progress for Vacu-tubes is visible here and now - and the question remains: Why has no one in America actually implemented this obviously superior solution, or even built a comprehensive model so that we can begin to work out the inevitable kinks? Many “experts” say that the idea is just too expensive. Poppycock! The first step must be a computer model and I’m sure there are many creative minds out there that would enjoy the challenge just for the fun of it - an exuberance of technological poetry. I myself am still willing to build a physical model at my own expense. For the creative mind, there are always solutions, and when one looks closely it becomes apparent that the costs of building and operating MTS are essentially no worse, and probably far less than those involved with airplane and rail and automobile travel, and are really not sufficient to explain the utter absence of activity for so long for this promising technology. Others say that the consequences of disaster to such a system are unacceptable. Again I disagree. This will be an evolutionary process which retains the flexibility of existing structures while it gradually builds the network which will provide its own flexibility. And MTS will be highly controlled and fail-safed as a matter of operational necessity - and as a consequence injury and death rates are likely to be a tiny fraction of those occurring in current transportation systems even with terrorist attacks and earthquakes factored in. By now, after years knocking my head against the barriers to “disruptive technology”, I think I know why nothing has been done. The barriers to this idea would include not only the interests of all major types of existing transportation, but also the oil interests as well, and HiIQers determined to protect the stability of the nation, and all the rest of us with our binary mindsets. And just the existence of these obstacles will be enough to discourage savvy investors who know that all kinds of invisible and oblique pressures can be, and certainly will be applied, to derail any threatening project of this type – to the everlasting detriment of America. And of course those opposing the idea would feel morally as well as economically justified. The idea that such huge change can threaten and potentially topple our economic system is real and credible - the implementation of this system within a free market environment which looks only for profit and cares little for the damage it does to the overall society would indeed be dangerous. But this only reinforces the idea that we need a carefully controlled implementation structure which dictates careful and non-traumatic evolution from the past to the future – it only proves that such a magnificent structure only becomes possible if we employ a transcendent implementation strategy.. In the case of Vacu-Tube Transportation that change methodology would: · Solicit ideas for a computer model - choose three · Develop models at developer’s expense · Stress-test the models and update accordingly. · Build three corresponding physical models at 1/20 scale and stress test them and update them - still at developer’s cost. · Pick best - and incorporate best features of the others - and install full size in fairly short, non-critical route and stress test with cargo cylinders for one year. Update accordingly. · Stress test with professional drivers. Update accordingly. · Build to replace Long Island Expressway or equivalent (100 feet below ground) and stress test with cargo. · Introduce passenger travel and gradually increase speed and usage. Again annual compensation to all developers according to their degree of contribution will come from 1% of usage charges which will be automatically billed to users at system entry. I don’t believe that this is optional! If we step back and take a good look, it becomes obvious that the structure described above, or something very similar is not optional. The nation that seizes this opportunity will assume an overwhelming advantage in the movement of goods and people for a long time. The technology will be sought by every other nation on earth and place the originator at a significant competitive advantage in the construction of such systems world-wide. The very process of construction and operation will galvanize the nation and provide hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs. The excuses we give ourselves when viewed in this light seem petty recipes for inaction. They are handed us by timid serial thinkers or experts mouthing the rationalizations of vested interests - but also by the justifiable caution of our HiIQers who believe they are protecting the security and continuity of our society. Of course the structure I describe is incomplete. And anything this big is bound to have unintended consequences and unexpected obstacles as well. And it’s true that we can muddle along with our current fuel-gobbling structures while others move beyond us. But why should we? This project doesn’t need to start big! For less than 1/10th of 1% of what we spent on a terrible mistake in the Middle East we can work through the growing pains of MTS and determine if it is indeed as vitally important as it appears. For another 1% of what we wasted in the Middle East, we could have it running 100 feet below the Long Island Expressway and initiate a new era in energy efficiency and environmental health for the world. We have been equal to such projects in the past – they are part of our heritage - and we can do this for our future. People still exist in this country like Mr. Oster and Elon Musk who are clearly motivated at least as much by vision as by profit and who have repeatedly risked their all for their dreams. But though they and a few others have already begun to move on this one, the barriers are much higher - far higher than those for the electric car, for example, which threatens only a fraction of the vested interests that are threatened by Vacu-Tube Transportation. So in order to succeed at all, our entrepreneurs will need the energy of the rest of us. And the clock is ticking. China is waking up to the possibilities and has started a ten year project of its own to implement a modified “Vacu-tube” system with a small prototype due within two years; Mr. Oster at ET3 is looking for a three mile stretch on which to build a prototype. No doubt these projects will encounter difficulties - but at least they’re beginning. The benefits to our country if we build this are incalculable - and the damage we will do if we allow other nations to preempt us on this is likewise incalculable - so if we want renewal instead of decay we need to do this.- and we must begin NOW! In Mr. Oster and Mr. Musk we’ve got the vision and the creativity. Let’s find the courage in ourselves to support them. And while we are at it, we need to seriously address the problem of our failing healthcare system - if only because the level of distraction it generates diminishes our focus on the urgent positive opportunities typified by this MTS project. Magtube insert for HB version? The cost of magnetic levitation currently involves vast quantities of copper for coils for propulsion but also for levitation (depending on the specific form of levitation). In an effort to reduce the cost of the levitation element, I at first imagined an alternative which retained a small concentration of air within the tube which could be used to squeeze the Bullet into the center of the tube so that it could ¨Fly¨ without touching the magnotube walls. On further consideration, however, I realized that this approach would necessarily involve more in construction costs on the propulsion side since more coils would be required to overcome the constant drag introduced with the air - and consequently more in propulsion operation costs as well. More importantly it seemed to me that the approach would undermine the ultimate potential of MTS itself because it introduced issues of friction and heat and maximum velocity which could be avoided using magnetic levitation in a near vacuum. Therefore I began in earnest to look for ways to reduce construction costs for magnetic levitation. I imagined an idealized system where a magnetic canon accelerated a vehicle (bullet) to a velocity of 2,000 MPH inside an infinitely long, and perfectly straight airless tube. If the bullet could avoid touching the tube walls, it would go on forever with no further need for propulsion coils and thus dramatically reduce overall cost for the Magnotubes themselves and for the power necessary to run the system. In the real world, of course, some form of levitation and location control for the bullet was necessary or gravity and random lateral motion would force contact with the Magnotube walls and the bullet would come to a screeching halt. Investigating current forms of magnetic levitation, I discovered that there are two competing methods, one involving attraction and the other involving repulsion and it seemed EMS and EDS and hybrid In real world applications it seems that the levitation process is continuous and thus very expensive but it occurred to me that at high velocities, the need for continuity was greatly reduced because the magnetic force could be delivered in pulses rather than continuously and that counterintuitively, the higher the velocity, the lower would be both the construction and running costs. At 1000 MPH coils The T&T Transportation experiment should begin with the smallest possible model to check all of the theories of vacuum retention entry and exit at traffic control catastrophe response all at a small scale which was never the less he still be useful to send one individual that you know capsules only capable you know a few people but the setup so that it could be used if nevertheless form a basis upon which and in a track crossing the country perhaps in a flatliner and not very deep. Very inexpensive Concepts like entry and exit maintaining vacuums critical speed issues entry and exit into the main line multiple speed roots distribution of entries and exits all those things can be tested out without a huge expense and still be useful if something that can still transport people at once those the bugs are worked out and then expanded say 100 mile stretch out in the midwest somewhere with is the minimum and maximum amount of flexibility. A Manhattan project for TNT All of these cutting-edge issues that need experimentation and trial and error can bring salt on a very small scale and much less expensively than what they doing right now

This is on the site now

Transcendence & Transportation

(D R A F T)

(ABSTRACT)

In the 1980s a Rand Corporation engineer called Robert Salter proposed a Vac-train from New York to LA whose only speed limitation would be imposed by the curvature of the earth. He was concerned that at around 15,000 MPH passengers would approach weightlessness and be subject to nausea. Even reducing speed to accommodate this limitation, however, he suggested that the NY to LA trip would take about 21 minutes.

Suddenly there was popular enthusiasm for a concept which promised to reduce energy requirements for transportation by something like 90% and then, through regenerative braking technology, recover much of the remaining 10%. It would as a consequence also reduce pollution exponentially and give us a chance to heal our natural world.

As if this weren’t enough to make this idea attractive to America, the jobs generated before, during, and after construction of such a transcendent system had the potential, almost single-handedly, to reconstitute her middle class and, like the moon shot, boost America’s self-confidence.

It is likely that the nation that seizes this opportunity will assume an overwhelming advantage in the movement of goods and people for a long time. The technology will be sought by every other nation on earth and place the originator at a significant competitive advantage in the construction of such systems world-wide.

Of course the political, social and economic barriers will be very high for this revolutionary technology—far higher than those for the electric car, for example, which threatens only a fraction of the interests that are threatened by Mag-Vac-Transportation (MVT) which will include every existing form of transportation and its suppliers as well as all energy interests in the world, and you and I protecting our jobs, and the HiIQers determined to protect the stability of the nation.

But the advantages are also overwhelming and the existence and funding of these new companies offer high hopes that the country of the rugged individual was still capable of reversing its own decline.

So it is disappointing, even shocking, to discover that America has already begun to renege on the promise for America in this matter. Dirk Ahlborn, the CEO and founder of HTT spent the end of the summer of 2015 in Asia and released an update to the technology forum IEEE Spectrum in September.

“I can say for sure the first full-length track will be in Asia, the Middle East, India, or Africa,” said Ahlborn. “They have bigger issues and no existing infrastructure, so a real need to build. A system like ours is way more interesting for them than going with high-speed rail.”

Then in June of 2016 Hyperloop Technologies (now Hyperloop One) signed a letter of agreement with Russia to develop mag-lev transportation links in Russia aiming ultimately for a new “Silk Road” capable of whisking containers from China to Europe in a day. Then in August the same company signed a similar agreement with Dubai.

Of course these courageous and innovative companies cannot be blamed for looking outside America—enterprise always seeks the best paths with the least resistance in a world where American is probably the path of most resistance.

But it is precisely the wrong outcome for the American Middle Class and for the future of America itself. And it is exactly what will happen to all other convention-defying ideas with any hope of saving the country from its downward-spiraling destiny—unless the people, not wealth and politicians, transcend themselves and do something about it.

In the name of those people, America just spent two thousand billion dollars on a war widely recognized as unnecessary and damaging to global stability. Surely the people can find the will to spend ten billion to jumpstart a healthy future.

Or can they?

Will they allow their binary thinking and their flock psychology and brainstem reactions of fear and greed and anger, to waste their resources in conflict and destroy the future of their progeny?

Or will they find the wisdom and the strength to reach for a healthy future? Will they find ways to loosen convention’s stranglehold on our transportation future—will they have the forsight to deliberately design our MVT system to help us overcome some of the obstacles?

Here are some suggestions:

Maximize the advantages of MVT so that it will be attractive to the greatest possible audience. For example-
- Allow most existing vehicles to use the system (up to an optimal size)
- Build a continuous flow freeway dynamic rather than a stop and go traditional rail dynamic.
- Design a macrostructure capable of supporting the highest theoretical velocity, not the lowest. Technology will soon catch up.
Design MVT where possible to deprive obstructionist of their issues
Encourage existing enterprise to participate in the project,
Concentrate first on freight which is simpler, less dangerous, and generally more profitable—but build to support human transport
Build first the solution for a worst-case transportation nightmare (The Long Island Expressway for example) that also has an easiest-case construction scenario (Long Island is a giant relatively flat sand bar).

A closer look at these suggestions:

Allow Existing vehicles—An MVT which allows existing vehicles to enter under their own power, travel 2000 miles to a desired destination, and then exit under their own power, would be extremely attractive to most Americans and far more tolerable to existing transportation-related industries because it would cushion the impact and allow time to adapt. Furthermore, the availability of such a capacity would generate a far larger customer base for MVT.

But it would be more expensive to build since it would demand larger tubes than are necessary for an optimally designed passenger carrier. But larger tubes would also allow larger freight containers which might someday be whisked from LA to NY in an hour.

There is probably an optimal size which would include a capacity to service the vast majority of vehicles and be appropriate for freight, but stay within cost justifiable limits. Maximum vehicle size might be that of a Toyota Coaster passenger minibus.

A continuous flow dynamic—A continuous flow freeway dynamic rather than a scheduled stop-and-go rail configuration would add greatly to the appeal of MVT and also invite more participants. Vehicles, including private and public vehicles would continuously enter and exit with the MVT computerized operating system guaranteeing integrity, safety margins, and overall harmony.

Local small buses for example would drive into waiting “Bullets” (pressurized carrier vehicles) and simply dial their destinations, say Boston to LA, and drive out into Hollywood forty-five minutes later. Family cars would do the same, and all Public Passenger Bullets would leave as soon as full and be instantly replaced with the next passenger Bullet.

Maximize the advantages—Realizing that an MVT with only incremental advantage would diminish enthusiasm and provide naysayers with powerful risk/cost-benefit arguments, we should design from the beginning for a system with built-in potential for speeds of 3,000 MPH or better. The 700 to 1000 MPH currently being discussed will always be optimal for more local transport, but to cross a continent in one hour will always beat four hours.

And though it is unlikely that current technologies are sufficiently evolved to support such speeds at the moment, they are theoretically possible, and with our rapidly advancing technology, will soon become attainable. With such a likelihood, it’s important that we don’t design ourselves into a corner, by spending vast resources on routes too curvy to allow the higher speeds, for example, or by designing structures incapable of sustaining a near vacuum.

And there is another counterintuitive reason that we should design for high speeds—cost. In a near vacuum, the higher the speed, the lower the cost because almost the same level of energy is required but for a much shorter time. And counterintuitively, a higher speed system also appears to affect design in ways that can also reduce cost (see below).

Deprive obstructionists of their issues—A truly high speed system simply couldn’t tolerate the inevitable curves and ups and downs of almost all existing above-ground routes, but an MVT that diverges significantly from such routes will be confronted with literally millions of individual interests and objections—some with real merit, some with none—and thereby furnish numerous and powerful adversaries with millions of delaying tactics which could easily stop the project by decades or even centuries.

As a matter of practicality, and to help counter such resistance we must therefore explore the possibility of increased use of underground tunneling. There would of course be resistance to this methodology as well but it should be far less than that of surface methodology because a tube running an average of 50-100 feet below ground will not encounter the millions of surface structures that give additional weight to obstructionist objections.

Though at first glance a mostly underground transportation system spanning a continent may seem overwhelming, it may in fact be our most realistic option especially given surface right-of-way opposition. It also may be the most cost-effective given the cost of overcoming that opposition, and the cost of the support structures that would be necessary for surface routes.

Amazing progress has been made in tunnel boring technology in recent years with bore rates steadily increasing to a current record of nearly one kilometer per month for a fourteen foot diameter bore. One hundred such machines working in unison could theoretically bore 1200 kilometers per year in similar substrate. Of course the reality would be far less because the variable nature of substrate.

Nevertheless, even faster bore rates are likely in a project like this as the benefits of scale and competition are added to the mix, and we must also figure that MVT bore diameters for the structure we are contemplating would be considerably less than that used for conventional roadways (at about half the surface area), and that bore rates would be faster for this reason as well.

It should also be noted that vast regions of our nation are so level and uninhabited that underground tunnels may well be built by digging trenches rather than drilling tunnels—possibly next to existing arrow-straight roadways.

A primary emphasis on underground tunnels does not preclude above ground structures which would occur as justifiable and necessary—and suspended above-ground structures would probably be the rule in earthquake-prone areas.

Of course obstructionists can and do insist that the likelihood of disaster within such a system are unacceptable.

But this will be an evolutionary process which retains the flexibility of existing transportation structures while it gradually builds the network which will provide its own unique flexibility both in terms of construction techniques and operational basics in order to deal with disaster.

Unlike us, MVT will react to anomalies and emergencies at the speed of light and will be highly controlled and fail-safed as a matter of operational necessity. As a consequence injury and death rates are likely to be less rather than more than those occurring in current human-controlled transportation systems—even with terrorist attacks and earthquakes factored in.

In fact, it seems likely that with proper design and procedures (see below), an underground MVT system would actually be less vulnerable to terrorist attacks than existing systems.

Reducing cost. In an effort to reduce construction costs, Elon Musk originally suggested that the tubes retain just enough air to support air skis as a relatively inexpensive means of levitation.

But speeds exceeding 700 MPH would be impractical if air skis were to be used because friction, drag, and heat would begin to overwhelm the system. Speeds above 700 MPH would demand the near absence of air in the tubes and the use of magnetic levitation.

One problem with this approach seems to be that the cost of the necessary levitation windings in tubes for such a configuration would to be prohibitive.

But is that true?

It turns out that the overall cost of both construction and operation of all the magnetic components of MVT might actually decrease as the speed increases if we replace continuous magnetic levitation with intermittent levitation using a system called Inductrack.

In the Inductrack model, permanent magnets would be built into the bogie (suspension device) of the “Bullet” in what are called Halbach Arrays (a unique arrangement of magnets which focuses the magnetic field). As the Bogie passes over coils imbedded in the MVT track, these Halback Arrays induce a magnetic field in the track capable of levitating the Bullets approximately 1.5 inches.

At 2000 MPH such bullets would cover almost 100 feet in only 1/30th of a second and fall vertically during that time only ¼ inch due to the force of gravity. This means that at 2000 MPH levitation pulses to recover that quarter inch could be applied 30 times per second by placing 10 feet of coils (possibly less) for every 100 feet of forward motion, reducing the cost of continuous coil by over 90%. Alternatively the ten feet might be split into one-foot segments every 9 feet. The idea would be to distribute the levitation coils in accord with the velocity of the Bullet. The faster the Bullet, the further from each other would be the coils and the lower the cost.

At the same time, the lack of air in the tube would dramatically reduce the need for propulsion coils to continuously overcome resistance. Finally, the reduced time in the tunnel at the higher speeds would also dramatically reduce the overall cost per vehicle of both levitation and propulsion.

Of course such a system would require wheeled Bullets capable of supporting themselves at lesser velocities (and it might conceivably require the emergency use of Bullet-centered air jets and skis at intermediate velocities) but some limited capacity for self-propulsion would be required in any case during power failures and other unanticipated interruptions of service.

For this high speed MVT approach, the vacuum requirement would be more difficult to fulfill, but my outline suggests using the carrier bullets themselves as they travel within the system to help maintain that vacuum.

Encourage existing enterprise to participate—During World War II, enterprise all over America converted to support the war effort and did so with gusto. Hollywood excelled at wartime propaganda, Ford made B-24 Bomber and tanks, Bridgeport Connecticut (now so downtrodden and forgotten) made the tools that made the tanks and the engines and the ammunition of war.

Factories that manufactured silk ribbons made parachutes, typewriter factories converted to machine guns, undergarment manufactures sewed mosquito netting, and roller coaster manufacturers converted to the production of bomber repair platforms.

So massive conversion is at least possible, though during that war our physical future was at stake so cooperation was understandable.

In this case the issue is merely the survival of an ideal, an ephemeral concept of liberty which, without our help, may cease to illuminate the future—not a very strong argument in today’s self-centered economy. So we will need to resort to self-interest instead.

Luckily, given that MVT should be vastly superior to existing systems while costing far less, that should be eminently possible.

Freight First—From a profitability and safety point of view, freight offers the most immediate advantages and incentives, so we must design MVT to receive and deliver freight as efficiently as possible. To reduce the opposition of as many existing freight handlers as possible, MVT freight containers should be designed to utilize existing freight transport systems.

But MVT should be built from the outset with all the failsafe and safety features and capabilities supporting human use which are outlined in Humanities Brain because, though MVT may spend it first years moving freight, it must make sure that the features that make human use possible are as close as possible to infallible.

Solve worst case problems first. Another way to build enthusiasm for MVT is to begin with a route which is desperately needed and also easy to build. The Long Island Expressway, for example, is famous as the world’s longest parking lot, and the island itself is a giant sandbar through which tunnel-boring machines would find little serious resistance.

By designing MVT from the beginning to blunt implementation resistance, by minimizing legal opportunities for obstructionism, by maximizing the benefits, and by including existing enterprise in the dynamic, many obstacles can be reduced, but an effective implementation strategy requires more implementation tools and tactics which I have outlined in Humanity’s Brain.

Of course anything this big is bound to have unintended consequences and unexpected obstacles as well, so our approach must be flexible as well as inexorable.

We have been equal to such projects in the past—they are part of our heritage—and we can do this for our future. People still exist in this country like Daryl Oster and Elon Musk who are clearly motivated at least as much by vision as by profit and who have repeatedly risked their all for their dreams.

Bored Tunnel MVT Construction

Process with vertical wells accessing the route every two Kilometers with boring machines and tubes being dropped down the wells as the bore continues.

Precision would be obtained though the use of Lasers.

This project doesn’t need to start big. For less than 1/10th of 1% of what we spent on a terrible mistake in the Middle East we can work through the growing pains of MTS and determine if it is indeed as viable and vitally important as it appears. For another 1% of what we wasted in the Middle East, we could have it running 50 to100 feet below the Long Island Expressway and initiate a new era in energy efficiency and job vitality for America and environmental health for the world.

That should be enough to give you an idea of the nature of MTS but you will find a more complete description on Humanity’s Brain which delves into such issues as construction across oceans and earthquake-prone areas, disaster prevention and recovery, traffic density, fatal distance, operating system software integrity, post-disaster repair, physical, and digital fail safes—and most importantly the implementation strategy.

We can begin with a computer model which simulates the operation of the entire system with all the components including all safety features interacting dynamically so that we can hone and perfect the dynamic and reduce problems for our first physical model even before we build it.

EDIT THE FOLLOWING FOR INCLUSION

Transcendence in Transportation

This is about that idea which popped into my head so long ago during that traffic jam on the Long Island Expressway and which had been one of my motivations for acquiring Ocean Wood in 1981 where I hoped to build a model. It was a transportation system with the potential to shrink the world and conserve energy resources at the same time.

It would be so fast that a trip from New York to San Francisco would require less than an hour - and so energy-efficient that that trip might cost only $40. A trip to Japan from LA would take two hours and might cost only $80.

And best of all, the necessary technological components, at least those visualized in my early version, already existed at the time.

And now in the 21st century I see, not only that emerging technologies make the project more exciting and more viable, but that the worth of this interesting project has extended far beyond its physical excellence for transportation and for energy conservation. I see it now as precisely the kind of project that could revitalize American industry and her middle class and re-kindle her fading self-confidence. And I see now that with the help of Humanity’s Brain it might just be possible.

As I realized at the time, the idea probably emerged from my frustration with my immobility on the Long Island Expressway and also from the impact of a recent article I’d seen regarding magnetic cannons. The idea also reflected the fluid nature of the programming and system design that filled my days and my fascination with the 1969 Moon shot as well.

But once the Magnetic Cannon-Vacuum tube end-product was in my head, there was no way I could get it out. Over the next few years that semiconscious process which always occurred when I built computer systems took over and began to evaluate components and fill in the details.

In 1981, I acquired those 150 acres on the coast of Maine, and decided it would be just the place to build my model cannon-tube and I began in earnest to design that model in my mind. And as technology moved forward, new possibilities were incorporated into the plan: Carbon fiber cylinders, internal vacuum sustained in part by the very motion of the vehicles within the structure, solar panel energy sources, better computers, on-board computers, super-conductors etc.

I also found out after a few years that the idea was anything but new.

Much to my amazement I discovered at the local library that it was first broached in America in 1910 when Robert Goddard suggested a “Vac-Train” route from Boston to New York that would travel at over 1000 mph. In Russia, Boris Weinberg built a model at Tomsk University in 1909.

Now I knew that the basic concept was out there and had been for a long time – and that there had been intermittent activity for most of the twentieth century. I discovered that someone named Mr. Oster (CEO of ET3) had obtained some patents on the concept - and most recently that the courageous innovator Elon Musk of SpaceX and Tesla was interested.

But these discoveries didn’t stop my own thinking - I saw that emerging computer technology could greatly enhance functionality and make the system safer as well, and since this was my forte, and since I couldn’t turn off the creative process in my mind anyway, I continued to evolve my ideas.

Besides, I was frustrated that conventional thinking about the use of magnetically levitated and propelled transportation kept yielding only marginally better and extremely expensive alternatives to traditional rail. The attempts didn’t seem willing to take the grand leap necessary to truly reap the benefits and stayed well within typical rail parameters, not only looking just like traditional rail but also operating like traditional rail, only a bit quieter and faster.

First of all it seemed me that the benefits to such technology could be dramatically improved, and the costs dramatically reduced only if the system were designed to operate in a vacuum because:

a) Only a vacuum (or close to it) would allow speeds upwards of 2,000 Mph and thus dramatically reduced travel times.

b) Only In a vacuum would the cost for propulsion coils (the most expensive element of the system) be dramatically reduced since they would not be needed to overcome air resistance but only for initial acceleration, periodic adjustment, and final deceleration - and therefore present only in key locations.

c) Only in a vacuum would the energy expended in propulsion be therefore dramatically reduced.

d) In a vacuum the energy expended in Magnetic Levitation would also be drastically reduced because each payload would be in the tube only a fraction of the time needed at lower speeds.

I was also frustrated by the focus on the stop and go rail-like configurations that were being discussed for the vacuum tube version. Early on I had dismissed the popular idea that the Cannon-tube should be a form of mass transit like the train or the plane. The stop and go and scheduling necessary for these public modes of transport wasted much time and, if the travel velocities and costs were comparable, would always be trumped by the flexibility and continuous readiness of the individualized vehicle. And the advent of lightning-fast computer technology made individualized vehicles eminently possible within such a system. And by including individualized vehicles, the positive impact on the environment would be far greater.

And the most expensive parts of the infrastructure would be almost identical in either case or possibly even less for individualized vehicles because the propulsion coils necessary to accelerate a massive train would probably be reduced in size for significantly smaller payloads.

And how much more cost efficient to split that cost among all of us rather than just train-goers anyway. Of course that wasn’t to say that my Mag-tube System (MTS) wouldn’t accommodate public, many-passenger vehicles where it made sense though probably large trains would not be essential.

Besides, keeping in mind the magnitude of the certain opposition to this disruptive technology, I saw an opportunity to lubricate MTS implementation process by supporting wherever possible the transportation systems currently in use. This meant that the design would accommodate most current ground transportation vehicles within accordingly designed travel containers (bullets) which, when ready to travel, would be sealed and subjected to integrity tests and then shunted on their way.

But because the current vehicles were not specifically designed for MTS and would not be as efficient in its use as they might be, they would be charged a little more to use it. This would exert subtle pressure for a gradual evolution to more cost effective vehicles.

The finally evolved passenger vehicle, for example, might be an electric car capable of four hours of local travel outside the system.

Physical comfort within these vehicles would be at least on a par with that of current automobiles - with plenty of space and with additional measures provided to avoid any sense of claustrophobia within the tube. Vehicle windows for example might convert to LCD screens to provide a sense of space and/or to provide entertainment while in the tube.

I originally figured that with no air, the bullets could travel at least 1000 mph with very little energy after initial acceleration. Entrance and exit tubes would serve for acceleration and deceleration and sensors throughout the tubes would keep track of the precise location of all vehicles at all times. Linear electro magnets would be used for acceleration just as in magnetic canons, but they would also be used for deceleration where they could regenerate electricity lost, and they would also be appropriately scattered throughout the system in order to power precise and relative vehicle location of all vehicles simultaneously within the system and to deflect vehicles to other MTS tubes according to destination.

The tubes wouldn’t need to be big because what was lost in space available could easily be regained by velocity. Triple lanes on the Long Island Expressway for example could easily be replaced by a single tube within which 12 foot diameter “Bullets” could stack vehicles in groups of four to eight (if automobiles) and one to two (if buses or trucks) with similar density and travel at 600 mph and arrive in one tenth the time.

By now, however, I suspected that speeds upwards of 3000 mph might be possible which would automatically reduce vehicle density in the tube to .02% of equivalent traffic volumes at 60mph - each arriving in 1/50th of the time required today.

This meant that far fewer tubes would be necessary to handle far greater traffic volume than typical expressways and this too would mean that such a system might be a good deal cheaper to build in the long run than any alternative system. In any case the computer would be programmed to continually balance, safety, density, duration, and velocity for optimal efficiency.

I spent a good deal of time thinking about just how incoming traffic could be folded into the high-speed main line, and likewise about how it could arrive at its destination without causing a huge pileup, particularly for high population destinations. I arrived at a kind of layered manifold arrangement which coordinated acceleration and deceleration with start and finish destination requirements respectively.

Acceleration would proceed in stages from 20 mph in local tubes, through various levels of layered manifold intermediate tubes, doubling in velocity at each stage, and finally to the main tube and maximum velocities. Deceleration would proceed along these same layers but in reverse, finally exiting at 20 mph. At each stage of deceleration, the tubes could double in number to compensate for halved velocities in order to maintain density levels, and in order to provide for numerous possible destination locations.

Traffic coming into Manhattan for example would repeatedly fan out as it decelerated so that by the time it arrived in the city it would be traveling 20 Mph and distributed to hundreds of locations where facilities would be in place to launch the contents of the bullets onto the city streets. The reverse would be true for traffic leaving the city.

Thus the same layered manifolds would serve three purposes: acceleration, deceleration, and geographic distribution. Single destinations so heavily traveled that they approached saturation on single exit tube service would need additional tubes. Single destinations with very little traffic could eliminate intermediate tubes and go directly to the exit tube where all deceleration would occur.

The entire system would be continuously monitored and controlled by one very fast computer system with simultaneously operating triple backup computers at different physical locations.

I did a rough calculation of the energy requirements necessary for a typical trip in this almost frictionless system using current retail costs per kilowatt hour and current fuel costs and was startled to see that, depending on overall distance, costs per vehicle would be a tiny fraction of the cost of traveling an equivalent distance by car – somewhere around 1/50 - and the longer the trip, the greater the savings. And of course the ancillary benefits would be enormous as well. There would be no pollution (at least locally) and if the system became popular, potentially billions of hours of travel time would be saved for potentially millions of individuals.

I was beginning to appreciate the vast importance of such a system – and the vast array of obstacles which would inevitably be presented by society itself.

Construction Options

Magnetic levitation would keep bullets suspended and isolated from contact with the mag-tubes themselves while travelling at high speeds, and graphite coated tracks and computer activated shock absorbers (which would be present in any case) would support bullets at slow speeds. (all bullets would be capable of slow self-propulsion if necessary for any reason (power outage, internal maintenance, etc.).

I suspected that cost could be reduced if one acceleration and deceleration coil set were shared at start and finish points by placing departure and arrival tubes closely together and driving the process with carefully calibrated computer technology to prevent conflict, but this idea would require testing to determine viability.

The first construction option I considered was a route bored at an average depth of 50 to100 feet below ground level. The bore would be lined with the strongest concrete and fiber or steel amalgam available and would house the smaller vacu-tube itself whose components would be manufactured offsite and assembled within the outside diameter tunnel as each two- kilometer section was completed.

This alternative might be considered prohibitively expensive except that boring technology has largely automated the process which has become dramatically more efficient in the last twenty years. Furthermore, the anticipated eighteen foot outside diameter bore size has only about half or less of the cross-section area of the twenty-four foot or greater bore used for most of the world’s “bullet trains” and would reduce the cost of the boring machinery, the energy needed, and at the same time increase speed of construction.

The current boring speed record of slightly over an average of 1 Kilometer per month for 10 to 14 foot diameter bores is held by Robbins Tunnel Boring Machine Inc. The boring velocity of these machines generally increases as the bore size decreases, but at this diameter, ten of these machines could bore 10 kilometers per month or 120 kilometers per year; 100 could bore 1200 kilometers per year. Our bore velocity would likely be slower but this at least gives us a general idea of what is involved. Furthermore, with a competitive project of this size, improvements in quality and velocity, and reductions in cost are almost certain.

Besides being optimal for arrow-straight routes, this option would also be ideal for bypass or access to the modern city. And property acquisition costs should be far less than those necessary to current transportation methods since land owners would retain almost all surface rights (surface property acquisition would be limited primarily to vertical access shafts and departure and destination locations).

Current law stipulates that most land owners own the ground beneath them to the center of the earth but have the right to sell access to that land (such as mineral rights). Since this transportation system is both in the public interest and key to a vital future for our country, the laws of eminent domain could be used to acquire the right to drill a pair of horizontal tunnels averaging 50 to100 feet below the surface - and laws might be passed to limit levels of compensation.

I thought about relative construction costs and realized that since the tubes were far smaller than were typical expressways, they would use only a fraction of the materials necessary per mile, and that MTS might be far less expensive materials-wise - and labor-wise as well.

I envisioned that the MTS tunnels themselves would be lined with continuous18 foot outside diameter (OD) tubes extruded from raw materials as the bore progressed. They would contain 12 foot inside diameter (ID) vacuum tubes which could be mass manufactured in sections off-site in fifty foot lengths. Of course electro-magnets and switches and sensors would be built into these vacuum tubes as necessary, and wires to carry electricity and information, but highways too require electricity and costly associated infrastructure as well and the additional cost associated with magnetic levitation and propulsion might well be offset by reduced right-of-way costs.

The inner MTS vacuum tube would be suspended within the larger tube to absorb the effects of earth tremors. This suspension layer might be an inexpensive flexible semi-solid with built in hydraulic mechanisms to fine tune and maintain the arrow-straight trajectory.

To allow for earth movement on the longitudinal axis, each tube (both layers) would be telescoped slightly into the next.

Vacuum pumps might be located as appropriate in or above vertical access shafts but special bullets might operate continuously as pistons within the vacuum tubes extracting air as they go in order to maintain optimal vacuum conditions - and transportation bullets themselves might be also equipped with small pumps to extract any air they encounter.

Air locks would be required for entry and exit from the tubes but bullets might also pass through chambers designed to be “skin tight” and allow no space for air to accompany them as they enter and exit the tubes.

Here’s how I visualized the construction process for this MTS option:

Figure 9

Bored Tunnel Mag-tube Construction

Process with vertical wells accessing the route every two Kilometers with boring machines and tubes being dropped down the wells as the bore continues.

The second construction concept I thought about involved suspension of only the vacuum tube itself within triangular tower structures at several hundred-foot intervals, the middle being supported by a suspension cable strung between each tower. The tubes would be manufactured from super light-weight materials so that the costs of supporting structures could be minimized. This design or something similar might be required in earthquake-prone locations such as California’s San Andreas Fault.

Of course high-speed tubes installed in this manner would have to be routed carefully to minimize the impact of hilly country but might also combine some boring through the higher hills where the suspension sandwich between the tubes could be doubled or tripled to absorb additional shock. Of course ultimate implementation would probably require a combination of both this method and the tunnel already suggested.

***

That should be enough to give you an idea of the nature of MTS and you will find a more complete description on Humanity’s Brain which delves into such issues as construction across oceans, disaster prevention and recovery, fatal distance, Operating system software integrity, post-disaster repair, physical, and digital fail safes – and most importantly an implementation strategy.

But we need to ask why it is that America is so reluctant to implement this promising solution, or even build a comprehensive model so that we can begin to work out the inevitable kinks?

Many “experts” say that the idea is just too expensive.

Poppycock!

The first step must be a computer model and I’m sure there are many creative minds out there that would enjoy the challenge just for the fun of it - an exuberance of technological poetry. I myself am still willing to build a computer model at my own expense.

For the creative mind, there are always solutions, and when one looks closely it becomes apparent that the costs of building and operating MTS are essentially no worse, and probably far less than those involved with airplane and rail and automobile travel, and are really not sufficient to explain the utter absence of activity for so long for this amazing technology.

Others say that the consequences of disaster to such a system are unacceptable.

Again I disagree. This will be an evolutionary process which retains the flexibility of existing structures while it gradually builds the network which will provide its own unique flexibility. And MTS will be highly controlled and fail-safed as a matter of operational necessity - and as a consequence injury and death rates are likely to be a tiny fraction of those occurring in current transportation systems even with terrorist attacks and earthquakes factored in.

The objections don’t really explain our resistance to MTS but are merely flimsy excuses used to defend not only the interests of all major types of existing transportation, but also the oil interests as well, and all the rest of us protecting the status quo, and HiIQers determined to protect the stability of the nation.

And it is the existence of these kinds of obstacles that discourage savvy investors who know that all kinds of invisible and oblique pressures can be, and certainly will be applied, to derail any threatening project of this type – to the everlasting detriment of America.

And of course those opposing the idea would feel morally as well as economically justified. The idea that such huge change can threaten and potentially topple our economic system is real and credible - the implementation of this system within a free market environment which looks only for profit and cares little for the damage it does to the overall society would indeed be dangerous.

But this only reinforces the idea that we need a carefully controlled implementation structure which dictates careful and non-traumatic evolution from the past to the future – it only proves that such a magnificent structure only becomes possible if we employ the implementation strategy outlined for this one in Humanity’s Brain or something like it.

If we step back and take a good look, it becomes obvious that the structure described above, or something very similar is not even optional. The nation that seizes this opportunity will assume an overwhelming advantage in the movement of goods and people for a long time. The technology will be sought by every other nation on earth and place the originator at a significant competitive advantage in the construction of such systems world-wide. The very process of construction and operation will galvanize the nation and provide hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs.

Of course anything this big is bound to have unintended consequences and unexpected obstacles as well so our approach must be flexible as well as inexorable. And it’s true that we can muddle along with our current fuel-gobbling environment-toppling structures while others move beyond us (China is already in motion on this),

But why should we?

This project doesn’t need to start big! For less than 1/10th of 1% of what we spent on a terrible mistake in the Middle East we can work through the growing pains of MTS and determine if it is indeed as vitally important as it appears. For another 1% of what we wasted in the Middle East, we could have it running 100 feet below the Long Island Expressway and initiate a new era in energy efficiency and job vitality for America and environmental health for the world.

We have been equal to such projects in the past – they are part of our heritage - and we can do this for our future. People still exist in this country like Mr. Oster and Elon Musk who are clearly motivated at least as much by vision as by profit and who have repeatedly risked their all for their dreams.

But though they and a few others have already begun to move on this one, the barriers are much higher - far higher than those for the electric car, for example, which threatens only a fraction of the interests that are threatened by Mag-tube Transportation.

But the benefits to our country if we build this are incalculable - and the damage we will do if we allow other nations to preempt us on this is likewise incalculable - so if we want renewal instead of decay we need to do this - and we must begin NOW and we must recognize that in order to succeed at all, our entrepreneurs will need the energy of the rest of us.

And the clock is ticking.

And while we are at it, we need to seriously address the problem of our failing and outrageously expensive healthcare system - if only because the level of distraction it generates diminishes our focus on the urgent positive opportunities typified by this MTS project.

The third tube installation concept involves the use of oceans, seas and waterways. I picked this idea up when perusing recent conversations in the news regarding vacu-tubes. Flotation-positive tubes would be assembled at surface levels in groups that would then be lowered to a depth of about 1000 feet to avoid turbulence and then tethered to the ocean floor. This method would be particularly appropriate to northeast/southwest travel along the east coast of the USA where the tube could be tethered to the relatively shallow continental shelf. The tethers would probably need to be micro adjustable to maintain tube linearity, and fitted with shock absorbers to help compensate for ocean floor tremors. Side-boring technology already exists for oil drilling and with minor modifications could be adapted for tether anchors. The tubes would probably also require vertical and horizontal framing to eliminate the bending effects of ocean currents.

Aside from the fact that this method cannot be used inland, the great difficulty would be installation over very deep regions. A glance at a map of the ocean floor suggests that there are ways of tethering in the Pacific Ocean by following the shallow waters of the continental shelves north and south along the coasts of North and South America and east and west adjacent to the Aleutian Islands. At 4000 Mph, the detour across the Pacific would have little impact. The Atlantic Ocean has good north-south continental shelf routes but a rather meandering route east and west adjacent to Greenland and Iceland.

Here’s that method in living color:

Figure 11

Aquatic Mag-tube Construction

Drawing

Disaster Prevention - Security measures to protect against terrorism or earthquake.

As is the case with any transportation system, our MTS system would be vulnerable to terrorist attack both from without and within. In our case, the contiguous high-speed nature of the system would be particularly attractive to those who would destroy our country.

How can we protect against outside application of explosives to the tubes? How can we guarantee that someone won’t plant a bomb in a cargo cylinder, or in his or another’s passenger cylinder?

And finally how can we protect against cyber terrorism – manipulation of the master software itself?

Tube integrity

Built-in security monitoring systems must be present at all entry and exit points (entry ramps, vertical shafts, exit ramps) to ensure protection from terrorists. Lasers and motions detectors must be installed at all these locations and all motion processed to ensure that it correlates with computer actuated motion of the vehicles themselves. Lasers and motion detectors must also be installed along the entire exposed length of the system (for non-bored systems).

Vehicle integrity

Here we have the benefit of decades of experience in airport security and of the latest machinery used to detect dangerous materials, and we should harness as many of these methodologies for MTS as is feasible - but they won’t be enough. Detection of plastic explosives for example is still not 100% reliable and there are infinite ways to hide and disguise all kinds of potentially damaging material including poison gas.

But because of the nature of this system, there are at least five additional ways to ensure that only clean vehicles enter the system.

· The first relies on the uniformity and precision of vehicle construction which would allow the computer to make precise and minute comparisons between images of the vehicles entering MTS and the blueprint contained in the computer. Any anomalies in shape or density would instantly move entering vehicles to another track for more detailed examination.

· Second, standards of baggage organization could be applied, with specific locations designed into all vehicles for each type of baggage so that anomalies in shape and density would be more easily observable. This need not be onerous for travelers since it would simply amount to a kind of physical structure for the organization of goods – computer here, documents there, clothing there, groceries here, etc., and sloppy organization would merely mean that entry to the MTS system would take a little longer and/or potentially route one’s vehicle for a physical inspection by trained professionals.

· Third, the master computer could collect and store detailed images of the baggage typically contained in each specific vehicle according to its registration number in order to speed the certification process.

· Fourth, sophisticated passenger identifying information analogous to Driver license or passport data and images might be developed for all travelers. This could be verified using images and stats maintained within the computer. Any suspicious non-conformities would move the vehicle to deeper levels of inspection. This more personal level of inspection could be optional but, those who choose not to cooperate would suffer greater delays.

· Finally the uniform semi-inclined posture required so that all travelers can safely absorb g-forces might open the possibility that thousands of MRI cross-sections could be instantly scanned and computer analyzed for non-conformities in density and shape at human body surface and internal locations (recent advances in MRI technology have increased scan rate by about 1000%). Non-conformities would trigger more stringent analysis to determine if their density or shape pose any threat in which case the vehicle would be further delayed and images of the anomalies be sent to trained human observers. Since only the anomaly would be seen by the professionals, this would eliminate the infamous technological strip-search currently occurring at some of our airports.

Of course most travelers would soon learn that the fastest and simplest way to travel would be lean and well organized, and they would carry specific and recognizable materials with them as a matter of course, and make sure that they weren’t carrying anything suspicious on their bodies, so with time and improvements growing out of usage, perhaps 90% or better could be 100% computer analyzed and could consistently enter the system without side-tracking. Another 5% might enter stage II security and 3% stage III leaving 2% for the most stringent security checks.

For cargo cylinders we must do all the things that we currently do and in addition some of those listed above for passenger vehicles. We must insist on materials organization so that imaging techniques can be more effective, and we must conduct automatic image comparison for known entities listed in the cargo manifest. In addition we must offer freight cost reduction incentives when customers adhere to carefully designed transparent packing guidelines which minimize opportunities to hide explosive devices or dangerous substances. Those freight cylinders which for any reason are unable to comply will be both more expensive and slower to allow for professional inspection.

Software integrity – Combating cyber-terrorism

Of course MTS will employ the best hackers in the world to defend MTS software against their peers, but there is something else we can do here to protect the system against cyber-terrorism.

Each vehicle should carry its own hard-wired chip which constantly confirms that the actual movement of that vehicle conforms precisely to the norms established for safety and the motion that would be activated by the central software itself. Any deviation from these norms anywhere would send a signal to a failsafe system capable of shunting that vehicle to another line for inspection or of overriding the main system in order to bring the system to a controlled halt.

Disaster Recovery – If the worst happens.

One of the knottier requirements of any transportation system and one which consumed a disproportionate amount of my attention was the game plan for catastrophic failure.

The construction of the tube itself and the installation methods discussed above incorporate features intended to minimize catastrophic impact. But how exactly would the system react to an earthquake in California for example, or a terrorist bombing which creates a breach in the tube?

The software must be designed to sense the breach and act. It must do two things instantly:

· Hermetically seal off the breach with blast doors in order to limit the impact of a possible explosion and to maintain vacuum conditions in the rest of the system.

· Slow the system to a stop as fast as possible

The first objective would be to close the nearest blast doors on both sides of the breach such that the force of an explosion is directed up vertical perforations to the surface. The blast doors at the next vertical perforations should also be closed as a failsafe. Blast doors should occur every 1000 feet and be designed such that as soon as they begin to close, the force of any explosion drives them shut.

The fatal distance

The second objective is to stop all motion as quickly as possible in order to save as many travelers as possible

Obviously, any passengers physically at the breach or within some “fatal distance” before the breach, is inevitably doomed. This is no different than what occurs within current transportation systems, but in this case because of the instantaneous nature of the controlling system, almost everyone else within the system can be protected from the catastrophe.

Fatal distance is the minimum distance from the breach (or from the blast door) necessary to bring vehicles to a stop without damaging the passengers inside via excessive g-force. The system must both minimize that distance and strive to limit the number of vehicles that can reside within that distance by varying speed and density factors for the vehicles within the tubes.

Though a record peak of 46 g-forces was sustained by John Stapp in 1954, tests show that the average human being can withstand g-forces up to 22 g for up to 10 seconds with no damage if properly positioned relative to the direction of the g-force. Assuming that it is possible to stop our cylindrical vehicles in a controlled manner at this g-force, this means that anyone seated in an appropriately designed seat in a vehicle traveling at 1000 MPH would require a minimum of 2.08 seconds and 1525 feet to come to a standstill and at 4000 MPH would require 8.34 seconds and 24,470 feet.

Therefore, in earthquake-prone areas, if the traffic density is one vehicle per 1525 feet, MTS velocities could be set at 1000 MPH so that only one vehicle would be inside the fatal distance. If the traffic density is one vehicle per 24,470 feet, 4000 MPH would be possible with the same level of catastrophic vehicle damage. It follows that depending on traffic density, the computer can dynamically calculate what velocity is appropriate particularly when traveling through volatile geography.

In addition, vehicle speed can be increased and traffic density reduced in these volatile areas by splitting heavily traveled routes into multiple tubes. It is also possible that tests will demonstrate minimal passenger damage at greater g-forces - and this would reduce the fatal distance and change the equation. For example if 32g is acceptable for a shorter duration, a vehicle traveling at 1000 MPH would require a minimum of 1.46 seconds and 734 feet to come to a standstill and at 4000 MPH, 5.85 seconds and 17,164 feet.

Also a calculation of the g-force necessary to stop a vehicle inside the fatal distance could be made dynamically at the moment of the breach, and the system could apply that force in the hope that the passenger could survive it.

But how do we accomplish and control this rate of deceleration?

· All vehicles must be constructed to withstand at least 60 g-forces and be built so that passengers are always seated optimally to absorb g-forces and on gimbals which respond to these forces by properly positioning passengers.

· The Computer system controlling the networks must act instantly if it senses a breach by filling the Magnotube with pressurized air for some distance before the blast door and between the blast door and the breach much in the way airbags are inflated in modern cars. This would be accomplished using a smaller pressurized tube running parallel and next to the active tubes and with adjoining computer-actuated variable valves which would open instantly and control the air density entering the breached tube as follows:

1. The density of the air must be greater in the area of the breach (or the blast door) and gradually diminish as the distance from the breach increases. As distance from the breach increases, lesser g-force and longer reaction time is possible and the process can be assisted using the electro-magnets within the tube.

2. The precise distance involved and the density of the air required will have been tested during the model construction phase of the project and will be monitored by the central computer controlling the disaster recovery. It must be varied as needed to generate the necessary 22-g braking force.

· Each vehicle will be equipped with its own braking system as well, to compensate for its weight relative to other vehicles. That system will control the deceleration via dynamically adjustable air brake foils which control the amount of air flowing around the vehicle as depicted in figure xxx. The objective will be to assist the master computer in maintaining the required g-forces for all vehicles adjacent to or affected by the breach.

Figure 12

Mag-tube Disaster Response

Drawing of tube with blast doors activated and air brakes activated

MTS features which apply to disaster recovery

The overall design and construction of the MTS system will depend greatly on the nature of the terrain and proximity to quake prone areas as described above, but the minimal requirements will be:

· Telescoping sections

· Double tube construction with shock absorbing sandwich

· Fail-safe duplicate or triplicate electrical systems must operate on both sides of any break

· Self-adjusting micro alignment

· Tube Integrity sensors every 1000 meters

Post disaster repair

It should be noted that by limiting the impact of terrorist bombings to the precise location of impact and to very few individuals, one incentive - the death of large numbers of innocents - is greatly diminished. On the other hand the terrorist goal of disrupting the overall system must also be addressed if we wish to make MST a low-desirability target. There are several factors that would make it difficult to seriously disrupt the system even before a network of MTS routes large enough to provide viable alternatives for the same destinations is built.

· The existing transportation structures will be functional for many years during MTS’ evolutionary implementation and could handle the displaced traffic in passengers and freight.

· Since passenger vehicles would be electric and operable outside the tube, they could be detoured around damaged areas while repairs are underway. Tubes could have emergency exits and entrances every ten miles when other entrances and exits are not present.

· Over time MTS will be able to utilize an abundance of alternate magno-tube routes to move goods and people to final destinations, and these can be instantly activated in the event of an emergency.

Another less obvious deterrent to terrorist action is super-fast repair. A system which can be repaired quickly makes a poor strategic target since the damage is very temporary. This means that the technological approach we take to repair is very significant. Here are some factors which should help:

· Pre-manufactured tubes and components for all assembly configurations should be available at all times.

· Repairs should be fully automated and robotic since the repair area will in most cases will be hazardous to humans.

· Specially designed tunnel borers should be dropped from wells at both ends of the breach and move toward the center while testing and measuring tubes and replacing any that are defective. The actual boring necessary to repair will only occur fairly close to the breach site and thus be less time-consuming than the original bore.

Implications for America

How would this project affect America? Pride Jobs, Commerce and the culture to support it all

What next?

In 1985 I’d drawn a diagram of a 20:1 model system (Figure x) which I intended to build in Maine, and I’d walked the land looking for a suitable location, and even began looking into construction materials.

But events intervened and the yacht Pajaro Jai unexpectedly generated huge projects aimed at preserving our natural world and the people who live there. I spent resources to build first CPR and then MetaMapper and then encountered years of unexpected resistance to these very powerful products. And then the Pajaro Jai was shipwrecked on a Caribbean reef during a storm and I decided to build a bigger and better replacement, and then we began to operate the new yacht, and then the world financial crisis hit and a sleazy land speculator illegally damaged my financial position and before I knew it - it was now.

And still in spite of at least fifty years of buzz about “Vacu-tubes” in the USA, no visible progress whatsoever has been made. True, ET3 is actively pushing the concept, and the dynamic Elon Musk is interested, and there’s a group called Terraspan that wants to combine the concept with a global green electrical grid – but no actual progress for Vacu-tubes is visible here and now - and the question remains:

Why has no one in America actually implemented this obviously superior solution, or even built a comprehensive model so that we can begin to work out the inevitable kinks?

Many “experts” say that the idea is just too expensive.

Poppycock!

Others say that the consequences of disaster to such a system are unacceptable.

Again I disagree. This will be an evolutionary process which retains the flexibility of existing structures while it gradually builds the network which will provide its own flexibility. And MTS will be highly controlled and fail-safed as a matter of operational necessity - and as a consequence injury and death rates are likely to be a tiny fraction of those occurring in current transportation systems even with terrorist attacks and earthquakes factored in.

By now, after years knocking my head against the barriers to “disruptive technology”, I think I know why nothing has been done. The barriers to this idea would include not only the interests of all major types of existing transportation, but also the oil interests as well, and HiIQers determined to protect the stability of the nation, and all the rest of us with our binary mindsets.

And just the existence of these obstacles will be enough to discourage savvy investors who know that all kinds of invisible and oblique pressures can be, and certainly will be applied, to derail any threatening project of this type – to the everlasting detriment of America.

But this only reinforces the idea that we need a carefully controlled implementation structure which dictates careful and non-traumatic evolution from the past to the future – it only proves that such a magnificent structure only becomes possible if we employ the EMC change methodology described in Chapter 5or something like it.

In the case of Vacu-Tube Transportation that change methodology would:

· Solicit ideas for a computer model - choose three

· Develop models at developer’s expense

· Stress-test the models and update accordingly.

· Build three corresponding physical models at 1/20 scale and stress test them and update them - still at developer’s cost.

· Pick best - and incorporate best features of the others - and install full size in fairly short, non-critical route and stress test with cargo cylinders for one year. Update accordingly.

· Stress test with professional drivers. Update accordingly.

· Build to replace Long Island Expressway or equivalent (100 feet below ground) and stress test with cargo.

· Introduce passenger travel and gradually increase speed and usage.

Again annual compensation to all developers according to their degree of contribution will come from 1% of usage charges which will be automatically billed to users at system entry.

I don’t believe that this is optional!

If we step back and take a good look, it becomes obvious that the structure described above, or something very similar is not optional. The nation that seizes this opportunity will assume an overwhelming advantage in the movement of goods and people for a long time. The technology will be sought by every other nation on earth and place the originator at a significant competitive advantage in the construction of such systems world-wide. The very process of construction and operation will galvanize the nation and provide hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs.

The excuses we give ourselves when viewed in this light seem petty recipes for inaction. They are handed us by timid serial thinkers or experts mouthing the rationalizations of vested interests - but also by the justifiable caution of our HiIQers who believe they are protecting the security and continuity of our society.

Of course the structure I describe is incomplete. And anything this big is bound to have unintended consequences and unexpected obstacles as well. And it’s true that we can muddle along with our current fuel-gobbling structures while others move beyond us.

But why should we?

But though they and a few others have already begun to move on this one, the barriers are much higher - far higher than those for the electric car, for example, which threatens only a fraction of the vested interests that are threatened by Vacu-Tube Transportation.

So in order to succeed at all, our entrepreneurs will need the energy of the rest of us.

And the clock is ticking.

China is waking up to the possibilities and has started a ten year project of its own to implement a modified “Vacu-tube” system with a small prototype due within two years; Mr. Oster at ET3 is looking for a three mile stretch on which to build a prototype.

No doubt these projects will encounter difficulties - but at least they’re beginning.

The benefits to our country if we build this are incalculable - and the damage we will do if we allow other nations to preempt us on this is likewise incalculable - so if we want renewal instead of decay we need to do this.- and we must begin NOW!

In Mr. Oster and Mr. Musk we’ve got the vision and the creativity. Let’s find the courage in ourselves to support them.

And while we are at it, we need to seriously address the problem of our failing healthcare system - if only because the level of distraction it generates diminishes our focus on the urgent positive opportunities typified by this MTS project.

Magtube insert for HB version?

The cost of magnetic levitation currently involves vast quantities of copper for coils for propulsion but also for levitation (depending on the specific form of levitation). In an effort to reduce the cost of the levitation element, I at first imagined an alternative which retained a small concentration of air within the tube which could be used to squeeze the Bullet into the center of the tube so that it could ¨Fly¨ without touching the magnotube walls.

On further consideration, however, I realized that this approach would necessarily involve more in construction costs on the propulsion side since more coils would be required to overcome the constant drag introduced with the air - and consequently more in propulsion operation costs as well.

More importantly it seemed to me that the approach would undermine the ultimate potential of MTS itself because it introduced issues of friction and heat and maximum velocity which could be avoided using magnetic levitation in a near vacuum. Therefore I began in earnest to look for ways to reduce construction costs for magnetic levitation.

I imagined an idealized system where a magnetic canon accelerated a vehicle (bullet) to a velocity of 2,000 MPH inside an infinitely long, and perfectly straight airless tube. If the bullet could avoid touching the tube walls, it would go on forever with no further need for propulsion coils and thus dramatically reduce overall cost for the Magnotubes themselves and for the power necessary to run the system.

In the real world, of course, some form of levitation and location control for the bullet was necessary or gravity and random lateral motion would force contact with the Magnotube walls and the bullet would come to a screeching halt.

Investigating current forms of magnetic levitation, I discovered that there are two competing methods, one involving attraction and the other involving repulsion and it seemed EMS and EDS and hybrid

In real world applications it seems that the levitation process is continuous and thus very expensive but it occurred to me that at high velocities, the need for continuity was greatly reduced because the magnetic force could be delivered in pulses rather than continuously and that counterintuitively, the higher the velocity, the lower would be both the construction and running costs.

At 1000 MPH coils

POSSIBLE ADD ONS

Get in agreement tha 700 mph is a good beginningespecially for short routs but ha design should encompass much higher velocities