Part Two

 What might be some better, environmentally sound alternatives to the ways most people live and build dwellings on the Earth?

Right now the two common limitations for considering alternatives are: that people want or need to have car access, necessitating building roads, and two, owning their house on land as a separate piece of the surrounding landscape.  the result is this subdividing of land and ever-increasing network of roads.  The land prices vary depending on the location and proximity to cities, but it's more or less the same picture everywhere.

What could be different and how is that better?

One model I've seen emerging lately, that I like, is the Tiny-House movement.  More specifically, people sharing land to park tiny houses on wheels, and in some cases build a small community.

This is not only a more environmentally friendly way to live, but it's much more affordable and it gives people the opportunity to create a lifestyle together, not as separate neighbours who must tolerate each other at best, but as people with a common purpose.  

Some beneficial possibilities of this communal way of life involves the sharing of resources and labour.  

It is practical to harness renewable solar or wind energy, store it and distribute it in a micro DC-grid to each Tiny House or Hut, even wirelessly.  This scheme saves on investing in separate electrical systems, or installation of separate mains-grid services (a costly process).  

Same with another important resource, Water.  Pumping and purifying water is also energy-intensive, involving expensive infrastructure and labour to install, which could be more efficiently shared between several households.   Supplementing well-water for drinking and cooking with collected rain-water to be used for washing and watering also makes a lot of sense.   Water storage could be done in a large underground reservoir that collects clean rainwater at times of abundance. 

 Another proposal is to have a communal Kitchen, toilets and bathrooms.  This streamlines a lot of infrastructure if people are willing to eat together, which is a great socially bonding experience.   It saves personal time too, as each individual doesn't need to prepare 3 meals a day and do the dishes.   This appeals to me especially, although I enjoy cooking.  Having individual access to food and the kitchen can be arranged if desired.

I've lived at an Ashram where this was not permitted, and I didn't miss it, I could still make my own tea and have little snacks throughout the day.One benefit was that my health and weight improved from the healthy diet prepared by the trained chef.  The meals were diverse and nutritious, and all plant-based, with no processed food or added sugar.   

Although all these Ideas are beneficial, many people would reject this kind of lifestyle, simply because they are used to doing things their own way, and not wanting to depend on others.  

Yet we all depend on others, though they may be far away and unknown, people who grow and prepare our food, generate electricity, provide services and products.  

In order to make life less wasteful, it needs to be more interconnected, local and self-sufficient.   

 Good evening,  

I haven't written in a while and much has happened since then, moves, relationships come and gone, successes and failures, mostly good health, but also some difficult times.

This is a hard time, not only because I am living alone and it's winter, during an epidemic.  I am facing some difficult realities about the way people relate to one another and to the world.  I would like to see more love and care in the world, and in my little corner as well.

One of my pet peeves right now is the new neighbours who are building a house.  I didn't used to have neighbours there.  My feeling is a loss of what used to be "nature", quiet, pristine, wild land.

Now there is a house, built from concrete and wood, a modern affair, which in my view is ugly and destructive of the environment.

I realize this is sounding like a rant and it is.  I am not so much against people, who want to live in a beautiful place, close to nature.   I am opposed to people destroying the beauty of the land, by building and developing it in a bad way.

First I have to clarify what I think is a "bad way"; and second, contemplate if there can exist a "good way", in which people can live harmoniously with the beauty of the natural world.

Everything I say is subjective, but some of you may agree or think along similar lines.

To me the "bad way" is a modern city with it's outstretching suburbs, built for cars in mind, and everyone owning their own house with a little back yard, the illusion of a private piece of "nature".

There is no more nature after we start building. the first job is to destroy it, normally in the most polluting, energy-expanding way.  This insane way of developing just spreads and is copied over and over, like a virus, there is little imagination or attempts to integrate nature with these monstrosities.  I would not want to live in a traditionally built house, much less in a suburb neighbourhood, that is my idea of hell, but I know there are even worst places people live in.

Now for the Positive thinking part - the "good way" of conceiving and building human habitation.

Is there an alternative, a way in which people live in aesthetically pleasing shelters and spaces, while being surrounded by pristine, undisturbed wilderness.   

I think it's possible...

 

Communication

This post is going to be on the topic of Communication and how it is changing, not necessarily for the better.

What is Communication?  It can be defined as an exchange of thoughts, opinions and information, but it is more complex than that.

To clarify what I mean I want to answer another, more philosophical question first.  Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if there is no one to hear it?  I think the answer is no.  A sound is something that must be perceived, consciously experienced by a sentient being.  It is not merely a pressure-density wave traveling through a medium, just like communication is not just information recorded in a medium.

So, communication similarly requires an observer, like the sound a tree makes in the forest. 

The way people communicate has changed in recent years, as well as the media in which we do so. 

Students in school might still read Shakespearian plays, but no one talks like that any more, we don’t make long-winded speeches about love or rivalry or the desire to shed ones mortal coil.  Today not only do people use less words to express their thoughts and feelings but their patience for listening has also dwindled.  The art of conversation is dying.  This is the digital age of facebooking, blogging, texting and internet match-making and courting.  “Welcome to the desert of the Real!”  (Morpheus - The Matrix)

To be Continued…

I ended on a cynical note, but I want to address the real problem of communication; that is how to get the attention of another observer.   What is it that I want to communicate?  Ideas, questions, and what do I want in return;  comprehension, feedback, new original ideas and points of view... 

I also need to be a good listener and offer those crucial things to others when they are talking.  To show that I connect and understand what they want to communicate.

I have to accept the difficult truth that not everyone will want to connect and be receptive to communication with me.   People can often be on very different wavelengths of consciousness and speak different languages, literally and figuratively.  The key, I think, is to recognise when there is common ground and try to expand on that in order to have a meaningful interaction.

Transportation - continued

I don't know what I expected when I started this Blog.  It was supposed to be an outlet for ideas I've been thinking about.  It's somewhat disappointing that no one reads or comments, but then again I haven't done much to promote it.

I am satisfied to be writing for my own sake.

I am still thinking often about the transportation system idea.  Eventually I would like to make a web-site entirely dedicated to it, with schematics and renderings of what it would look like if it is ever built.

The latest design is based on a mono-rail, suspended high above ground level.  The "cars" would hang down, much like ski-lift systems, only they would slide on the fixed rail, instead of a rope.

The single track would be suspended by a stretched line above it, in order to compensate for bend due to gravity, so it will be as horizontal as possible.   Small hills and valleys can be compensated by varying the height of the poles which support the track.

As I said the weight of each car would be supported on a sliding mechanism as close to frictionless as possible, but the driving force could either be provided by a wheel or by magnetic propulsion.

The best part I think is eliminating heavy engines and batteries, since the track can supply the energy necessary to maintain motion.  Furthermore there is a huge energy saving from not needing to make stops from start to destination.  Each car can travel independently, changing tracks as needed while in full motion.

The mechanism for changing tracks or coming off to make a stop at a destination is not fully worked out yet.  The cars can decouple to the sides or even drop down with a small mechanical turn in part of the track at specific locations.  This will all be controlled by the system, no passenger involvement necessary.  The goal is to make it as safe as possible, meaning 100 percent in all whether conditions.

This is clearly the domain of Engineers to design it.

Such a system could in principle outperform air-travel over land, not just in speed but cost as well.
The energy required for an airplane to take off and stay in the air is huge in comparison to gliding on a low-friction, fixed track, meters above the ground.  In addition the cars themselves could be made as aerodynamic as possible, connecting closely together when traveling on the same in the same route just like a high-speed train.

Note on the sliding mechanism.

I read in a physics book that the coefficient of friction between two surfaces can be greatly reduced by the right vibration, in addition to lubrication.  A thin layer of compound could cover the track surface and piazo-electric crystals embedded in the track itself, only activated when there is a car passing, thus lowering resistance even further.  This system could rival the best wheel and bearing alternative for this application, especially at high speeds.  Wheels tend to wear down because the point of contact is very small.  The slider could be much longer and distribute the weight evenly.

A final note on traveling comfort.

Without frequent acceleration, the ride would be very smooth.  There would be time to relax or use productively, once freed from the task of driving.  This is a good reason to take passenger comfort as a priority.  At first I envisioned the vehicles as small compared to today's cars.  Now I realize that even on short trips people need to have space, and not feel closed inside a metal box.

It is always good to sight-see when traveling.  Being high above ground will offer a good view, so the vehicle needs to have an open frame with large windows, yet also to look safe, as some people might be afraid of heights.    There should be the option to shade the occupants if they need privacy or darkness.

Finally, an on-board monitoring system should check to see if anything has been forgotten, since vehicles are shared on the system.  This is perhaps the hardest change to get used to.  It is personal transit in that a person can travel alone in a car to their destination, however the cars remain in operation for other passengers to use.

The idea for each human to own their own car is a bad one and not in line with my thinking.
This system is simply about getting from point A to point B as comfortably and quickly as possible.

Where I am.

Occasionally I've been asked if I like living where I do.  Usually I've complained about being bored and not having anyone around, being far from places of interest, etc.  I realize that all this is true, but that I like being here for different reasons.  It's just a case of not having everything I want and need at the same time and place.

What I love about living on a farm is the freedom I have, exactly because there aren't other people around.  I can walk around and be by myself, I can play loud music late into the night and dance if I feel like it.  It's tranquil being close to nature, surrounded by plants, the sky and space.  It gives me time to contemplate the Big Questions like how did we get here and where we are going.

On the other hand I feel distant and removed from people and society.  I do drive to the city to spend leisure time there but I feel like a visitor, I am not like the people who live there.  I can see the nice things about city living too.  It's mostly the people who I find interesting.  People create Culture: Art, Science, Technology, Architecture and Design, also music, parties and other social events.  Without people there is still Nature, there is Sound, Light, Whether and the night sky filled with stars.

Why does one have to give up Nature to live among people?

I mentioned what I don't like about country living, mainly that it lacks Culture.
Now, what I don't like about city-living is that there is not enough of Nature.  There are not enough parks and "green spaces", let alone any actual wilderness.  Instead cities are filled with the noise, pollution of machines.  People have become not only dependent but also trapped by our own technology designed to serve us.  I am not only talking about cars, although that's a big part of it.

Another artifact of modern living I have uneasy feelings about is our attitude with time, the constant living by the clock, the incessant rush to get somewhere, to getting things done.  It's as if the present is not as important as some imagined future, only we never get there.  Around in circles we go, day after day - sleep, wake, do stuff, go to sleep again.  Are other people also asking themselves what it's all for?  The realization that I am all I am Now and this is my life...how do I feel about that...?

I like moments when I am not thinking about ways to be better, live better, have more of something... and just feel satisfied to be breathing, be conscious of my thoughts, my surroundings, to feel one with myself.   I know what that means and feels like, and it comes from living close to nature.

A meditation I suggest for others to try is to sit in front a tree, not too close or too far.  Then pay attention to your breathing and begin to notice how the tree also extends its roots into the ground and is connected to you and everything else on Earth.   Life is all interconnected and interdependent.  We are all part of it, and what we do is not less or more important and valuable then the life of other things on the planet.

These are just some realizations I have made while thinking.

Living like the Ants

It was during my morning run through the forest that this not so new idea came to me.  I thought how beautiful and pristine nature is, but in order for us humans to live we destroy it to build housing complexes, roads and shopping plazas.  I thought there must be another way.

We should live like the Ants.

Instead of building above-ground and wiping out entire ecosystems we can figure out a way to live underground.  We can construct entire subterranean cities, complete with manufacturing complexes, storage and living space for thousands.  All this while the surface is returned to a wild, natural state.

It occurred to me that by destroying what's left of Nature we are destroying ourselves, our humanity. Our very existence - physical and spiritual is dependent on the complex ecosystem of the Earth.  We are not alone, or the only species on this planet that matters.  Somehow people have lost that awareness and bond with nature, by isolating ourselves in cities, in buildings and freeways where wild nature has been mostly eradicated - perhaps inadvertently.   This fissure with nature has made people sick, I think, in a spiritual way.  Yet it manifests in other ways, physical stress, violence, crime, social unhappiness and resorting to fill this spiritual void with material goods and distractions.

As I ran on the narrow forest path I noticed something rustle in the shrubs and I came to a stop.  It was a deer, rather large.  When it sensed that I was not chasing it also stopped and looked back.  I looked away, so as not to seem intimidating and slowly moved down the path away from the deer.

I felt good about this encounter, I felt part of nature.  I realize that my distant ancestors may have hunted this deer for food to survive.  Humanity has changed since then, we can produce all of our food and not even depend on animals.

The idea to adopt an ant-colony as a model for a human city came to me from watching a program about ants.  Certain types of ants make elaborate underground cities, made up of many chambers connected by passageways.  They bring in all the food they gather, leaf-mulch is used as substrate to grow fungi, which itself is used as food by the colony.  Waste products are likewise disposed at another location.  Each ant knows what to do, every one performs a function that benefits the whole colony.  They still have to compete with other ant-colonies or life-forms for survival.  Competition can be a healthy thing in nature, and improvement can come out of it.

I believe that human cities are the next "countries" that compete with each other for providing quality of living and sustainable use of resources.

Maybe an underground ant-colony is a silly idea for a human colony.  We are different beings after all, with individuality and different needs to accommodate.  On one side we need daylight, and it has to be piped in somehow from the surface.  On the other temperatures are not as extreme underground, it's warmer in winter and cooler in summer, less energy use for heating and cooling.  Air still needs to be circulated from the outside.   Other details to work out are what the walls would be like, firstly to support the structure and secondly to protect from floods.  There is plenty of experience from building mines and tunnels, so I am sure our ingenuity can be improved on.

Alas, what would underground dwelling be like, and would it be worth to save the surface from human development?

Today what disturbed the usual silence and tranquility of the forest was the sounds of chainsaws cutting trees.  They were installing new power-lines I think, not taking down all the trees, but it made me think... What is the price we pay for "progress", and is this really better?!

Tonight I'll dream the dream of the ants.

Part 2 - Solution

The previous post was about the problems we encounter in trying to get to where we want to go.

I foresee a truly superior way of meeting our necessity for transportation, from commuting to exchange of goods.  For such a system to be realized there first has to be a shift in perception, followed by a concerted effort by designers, builders and investors.

 

The main motivation behind this idea is a change from individual ownership of transportation to a system used by everyone, while at the same time preserving our freedom and privacy. The system proposed replaces current roads with something far superior on which automated vehicles will travel unimpeded.  This idea has been proposed before by others, and called PRT (Personal Rapid Transit), but I don’t think its full potential has been widely understood.  I have my own take on it and would like to publish these ideas here.

We are faced with the problems of fuel shortage, environmental pollution, traffic congestion and needless deaths and injuries in road accidents, we cannot carry on this way forever.  

A rail-like system, where vehicles travel on fixed tracks, can solve many of these problems using smart technologically, and minimize the disadvantages.

 

For example; energy will still be needed to make it work, but with increased efficiency even renewable can be sufficient. Accidents could go down to zero by removing human error and raising the track above all other traffic, lowering the risk for collisions.  Vehicles can be designed with safety in mind even when traveling at high speeds on the fixed track.  There are many advantages which cannot be matched by cars traveling on roads, where conditions are unpredictable even for the most sophisticated computer navigation programs or human drivers for that matter.  

The best way to prevent accidents is to make them physically improbable by building safe passageways for future automated vehicles to travel on, hereby referred to as "Track". 

The Ivo-Track

Witnessing the increasing chaos of automobile traffic near and outside major cities I propose a novel design for a transportation system. This system combines the advantages of rail and publicly shared transit with traveling in a separate vehicle, in privacy and comfort, directly to your destination with no intermediate stops. The essential idea involves construction of a rail network between major populated areas, yet it does not simply replace the road system.  Instead it creates a new paradigm for travel and commerce. 

Unlike conventional trains, the much smaller vehicles proposed here can travel autonomously and merge with different branches of track.  While not all locations will be directly reachable, it will get passengers close enough to walk, bike, or use other ground transportation.  The advantage is that vehicles are using the same track and propulsion system to span large distances.  At the same time this design eliminates the need to store energy on the vehicles themselves.

The other major innovation is that all navigation is automatic, replacing driving entirely.  Since all cars travel on a track, they cannot go off or encounter obstacles, it makes computer navigation very practical.

Proposed system features:

• Super-track is suspended between support columns several metres above ground level, for increased safety and clearance.
• The track can also double as an electrical and communications conduit to homes and buildings, replacing underground cables and unshielded wires in the air.
• Nearly all vehicles have identical design and are public domain, shared between passengers in the system.
• All navigation is automatic, driverless:  a destination is pre-programmed or can be changed en-route by passengers if desired.
• Cabs (vehicles) can be requested when and where needed.  There will always be a reserve of unoccupied vehicles in populated locations, they can be stacked vertically or hidden underground out of sight.
• Cabs can dock directly to buildings in some cases, or meet and drop off passengers at outside locations. From these stations passengers can go on foot or take a short bike ride.         Example: A track section terminates at a small, remote village, from where passengers can walk to their homes.  Another track branch ends at a major city “busy spot”, where commuters can walk or cycle to work or do their shopping.  Other branches lead people to parks and recreational areas.
• Transportation of materials is done on the same track, and automatically arrive where they are needed; in some cases even using the same basic vehicle, modified without seats.  Larger loads may be divided between several cabs joined together.  Larger vehicles can also be manufactured, but for many practical reasons it is better to divide a load and assemble the parts at the destination rather than transport it as a whole package.  I call this concept “quantized transportation”.  It reduces wasted space and delays because small merchandise can be shipped immediately at little cost.
•  The Super-track will be designed to split either to the left or right and merge with cab-trains going in other directions.
• Changing tracks is done by separating a cab from the others, with as minimum acceleration as possible.
• Adjacent cabs traveling on the track have the ability to merge into one joined vehicle and seats rearranged by passengers to suite their comfort needs. The idea behind this option is to continue social life even while traveling to a remote destination.  Alternatively one could use their private commute to rest or do something they enjoy.

Other advantages:

Eliminating the need for driving and freeing time to pursue other activities.

·      Everyone has access to the same level of comfort and transportation service.

·     Greater energy efficiency, speed and directness of travel; without having to come to a stop during transit.

·         All energy for propulsion is supplied via the track – minimising idle energy loss (as heat), and extra mass to accelerate as engine and fuel. 

·         Air drag and friction are greatly reduced by employing novel suspension technologies and coupling cabs together as a train.

·         The cabs are made as light and simplistic as possible while maximizing passenger space and comfort.  Only navigation, entertainment and climate systems are on board.

·         Since the Super-track is meters above ground, cabs should not be at risk of collision with one another or with obstacles.  Automated navigation further ensures safety.

·         Clean and sustainable energy from various local and remote sources can be shared system-wide through the Super-track.

·         Commute time can be utilised for social and business interactions, either in person through interconnected cabs or using virtual networking. 

·         This system can be designed to bring people closer while traveling, and at the same time lowers the costs of commuting.     

·         Living and social centres could be designed with this transit system in mind, enabling people to move from one central location to another without concerns for parking, fuel, and maintaining their own vehicle.

A current example for this model of transportation is the bike-sharing in place in some cities.  For a small fee people can take a bike from a station, ride where they need to go, and then simply return the bike to the nearest station for others to use.

A few key points:

First: the manufacturing cost for each vehicle (cab) is greatly reduced compared to an automobile, due to having no engine, no energy storage, and a smaller size.

Second: there do not need to be as many cabs as there are people or cars today, since all cabs are shared.   A plan could be devised so that not everyone travels at the same time - this makes sense from an energy-saving point of view too, limiting the number of vehicles on the track at one time.

On Energy use and Acceleration

Since this proposed transportation system is a “continuous flow” system, there are no stops while in transit, acceleration is only done at departure and arrival.   The track must provide some energy to counter the effects of friction and minor changes in speed during travel (such as during merging).  This energy requirement is spread over the track length, eliminating the need for large energy sources to maintain motion.  With this in mind, extra energy supply can be provided only at more busy locations and to accelerate heavy industrial cargo.  The energy can even be supplied privately by the users themselves.  Some of that energy is recovered and reused on arrival.   

  

Track Organization

I’ve thought of a scheme to minimize the length of track needed, by using only a single, one-way route between places.  This is similar to a roundabout traffic system.  In order to go back one must travel through a third location and back to your place of origin.  The added distance and time can be offset by the costs saved.

Some social and commercial centres (hubs) will have multiple two-way tracks, to make traveling more direct, but the total distances should remain smaller.

Track Design

A novel suspension and propulsion technology might make this system even more cost effective and efficient. 

Proposed innovations include high current superconducting wires for transferring electrical energy along the track (not only for propulsion but also to provide power to distant locations, where the track is the only existing structure).

Instead of using traditional wheels and bearings I would propose a frictionless gliding system.  Magnetic levitation requires expensive magnets along the entire length of track, which might not be practical. 

Can electrostatic repulsion provide the frictionless support on the track?

As cars move they generate a powerful repulsive electrostatic charge, directly below them relative to the track, which counteracts frictional forces and allows them to glide. 

Acceleration can still be done electromagnetically, however the entire track does not need to be lined with magnets.  They can be placed where the most acceleration is needed and then spread out periodically to maintain speed along the track.