Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (55320)	9/22/2009 3:02:01 AM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Respond to of 218014

BS, you haven't got the right idea with the vacuum tubes. It's not that the vacuum would suck vehicles along the tube, it's that by having very low air pressure in the tube, air resistance would be dramatically reduced. Little vehicles could be propelled magnetically, and fly in the tube using aerodynamics and maglev with electronic and photonic control to keep the vehicle stable. With very low air pressure, it would be like space travel = get the vehicle up to speed and it would just fly along with hardly any resistance. The reason airliners go 10km high is to get low air pressure and low drag so they can race along at 1000kph. With air being sucked out of the tubes, we could combine those vacuum pumps with fluidized bed combustion using coal or cellulose from crops and city waste such as plastics, papers, vegetable and other combustible waste, as well as sewage. Here's the cycle. People live near the tubes and power stations which are also built where people currently are. Big air pumps suck air out of the tubes and compress it, with the heat being taken out of the gas stream via heat pumps into houses. The air is cooled and compressed to liquid form, with the oxygen liquid taken for combustion of coal, crops, rubbish, sewage and what have you in fluidized bed combustion as developed by BP Oil quarter of a century ago and also as described by that company you linked. The liquid nitrogen from the air is used for superconductor cooling for the vehicle electrical and maglev systems. Water from the process would be useful for households. The CO2 from the power stations would be liquefied and piped 500 metres under the oceans [that depth is needed to keep it in liquid phase due to the pressure so it will sit in a lake on the ocean floor]. The cooling of the power station and heat pumps would provide energy to towns in the vicinity. The electricity resulting would not be much more expensive than now and total cost of getting everything done would be much less than now. The cost savings from avoiding traffic jams would cover all the costs. It's easy to create a CO2 emissions-free electricity and heating cycle. But CO2 emissions are perhaps desirable. They are in my opinion. People could have heat pumps and air compressors and supply liquid oxygen to tankers which could collect it for delivery to power stations. Liquid nitrogen would be excellent for refrigeration in the home. Excess liquid nitrogen could be supplied to the superconductor system and for cooling the incoming air and exhaust streams. Mqurice