[TML] Transportation solutions.

[Jerry W Barrington]

On 10/12/07 11:34 AM, Bruce Johnson wrote:

> American car makers seem convinced that Americans won't buy any
> vehicle that doesn't have 2000BHP, goes from zero to sixty in 1.4
> seconds, burns 4 gallons/mile of gas and can carry 75 people, give or
> take.

Yes, they believe something close to that.  And they have the market
research and actual sales figures to back them up.  Oh sure, a small
percentage would pay for the cheaper, lower-powered versions.  But not
enough to be worth the companies' effort/investment.  It's a very different
market in what sells, and what it costs to make them.



On 10/12/07 11:34 AM, Leonard Erickson wrote:

> That's a reliability rate for *hardware* we can't get. As for
> software, the only way to *approach* it will require using the rather
> expensive and "exotic" cpus and programming tools that have been
> vetted to an extent only folks in stuff like reactor systems have to
> deal with.

Which also brings up the question of people hacking the cars.  You know
criminals will, to prevent the police stops that were mentioned.

Also, how will people pay for their use of the electricity?  Not a trivial
issue either.

> The *sun* is a limited natural resource too.

I think for our purposes, we can act as if it's not.  And even then, we
aren't using it up, it will last it's full lifetime whether we derive solar
power from it or not.



On 10/12/07 11:34 AM, "Charles Prevatte" wrote:

> If you firgure in all
> the "energy" cost to get 1 gallon of gas from the ground to the car
> including all transportation, I think you would be surprised at the "energy"
> cost of that gallon of gas.

Not really.  Since the oil industry is NOT solar-powered, the oil is
providing more energy than it costs to get to.

> So what?  Don't even try because the solution does not fill all our need in
> one shot?  No one solultion is likely to.  Micro hydro has the potential to
> provide huge ammount of power to many locals. It is mor promising that wind
> energy, and has less energy overhead the solar, but you do not want to even
> talk about it because it does not solve the entire problem?
> 
> Well, this attitude curtainly explains why so little gets done with
> alternative power systems.
> 
> Ever heard of a song call "step by step"?

Yes, this is an important issue.  Look at how power is used (in the US
anyway).  Most power in town is supplied by electricity.  Some by natural
gas, which *does* heat building and cook more efficiently.  Then we have our
mobile power for our cars, all done with some sort of petrochemical.  That
covers the vast majority of all power use.  Yes, people are going to want a
few large-scale solutions, not a hodge-podge of little contributions.
Economies of scale are important.  We used to have the paddle wheels you
describe.  Now we don't: why?  Efficiency and capacity.  Enough capacity to
actually run the cities would fill the banks of the rivers and *would*
effect the flow.  And still be less efficient than a good size dam.

> A little close is as good as a lot further away.  Lot of little low impact
> power systems will reduce our total ecological foot print considerably.

No, that's what economies of scale means.  Look up the term.  One 1 megawatt
power plant is more efficient than 100 10 kilowatt plants.  That's the way
it works, including in total environmental effect.  The trick is to put the
plant where what it hurts doesn't matter too much.

> Care to discuss he number of packets moved on the internet every second of
> every day?

Do you realize the error rate on the net?  You don't even notice most of the
time, because a packet disappears and gets re-sent.  That's far more common
than the errors that you DO see.  Just last night I had a page take a minute
to load.  That a literal minute.  No apparent reason, and it eventually
loaded fine.  And you're routing *people*.  Nothing in communications has or
needs the kind of reliability that routing cars does.

And modern paving is one of the cheapest methods there is.  That's why we
use it!

> It would be many times more energy effiecent as a system than todays cars
> simply by elliminating energy losses that occure in mechanical power
> transmittion.

Just how inefficient do you think the mechanical transmission in a car is?!?
50% loss?  Then at best you could double efficiency.  If it's really more
inefficient than that, perhaps the short term solution would be to improve
*that* loss alone.

> WRONG!!!!  You design the system with the knowledge that it IS going to fail
> and put in "fail safe" systems.  All systems fail.  You have to design for
> that.

How do you fail-safe against you basic operating system locking up?  The
only possibility I see is to have a guard circuit that sees that happen and
slams on the brakes.  But then, what happens when your guard circuit fails,
either activating when it shouldn't or not acting when it should?

> Well, that interesing as most cars today are computer controled to one
> extent of another.  Same for planes.  And trains.  Life support equipment.

Life support equipment is incredibly expensive and highly engineered, as
well as monitored in use.

Cars are NOT computer controlled in the sense we're discussing.  And all 3
transports have a driver there ready to take over.




When you speak of rails, are you talking about something like trains use?
Where the wheels absolutely have to be on the rails at all times?  If so,
then there's no way you could manage the rail switching in a major city.
For one thing, even lane changes would only be possible where the rails
permit.