Aside from the fact that the system will not really be airtight, and that the pressure required to get a decent amount of capsules across town would really drain the compressors/suckers/local power plant, -who will go and fetch the congested capsules?
And how would you create the monitoring system for so many tubes, so you can locate problems/threats?

Why not just automate the current postal system? Both projects would probably be feasible in the same amount of time.

That's what this does. How did you think you were going to automate a mail service without adding infrastructure? The idea behind this is to do it as cheaply as possible with the least amount of developed technology and ensure that it can easily be maintained.

Aside from the fact that the system will not really be airtight, and that the pressure required to get a decent amount of capsules across town would really drain the compressors/suckers/local power plant, -who will go and fetch the congested capsules?
And how would you create the monitoring system for so many tubes, so you can locate problems/threats?

Doesn't need to be perfectly airtight. In regards to maintenance the tried and tested packet loss model works. If you send a capsule from point a to b and the router doesn't get it at b then there's a problem. A pig would need to be inserted to force the capsules out of the system in the event a capsule broke. Ideally they'd be designed to not break. (Think alluminum cylinders with nothing that can fall or break off).

I will point out I'm not an engineer, but this is the picture I've had in my mind:


These router links can be joined in a linear fashion to pass capsules through the system and into different links. A continuous flow of air rushes through the tubes and capsules are dropped into the tube or pulled out of them. The power behind the air flow is caused by 2 electric air ducted fans. (Think of a jet engine or a RC model EDF motor).

When I say these can be joined you have to imagine rotating one the systems a little bit to line up with the exchanger. In my example there are 8 i/o segments and the system requires 2 tubes for each i/o link so you can redirect up to 3 places with the option to send it back the other way. The exchangers job is merely to slow the capsule down and pull it out of the air flow as quickly as possible. When the link isn't being used the system goes to sleep to conserve energy.

No matter how you slice it, this wouldn't work over long distances.

We'll need to agree to disagree then. I see no physical limitations in the system that would prohibit it from working over the required distances.

By the time you move a package even 100 yards, you're talking about massive pressures that would probably rupture the entire system, and at the very least cause dangerous outgassing at the exit point when the package finally arrives. My argument against this version is that you cannot produce enough constant positive pressure to move any appreciable mass over a substantial distance. Eventually, pressure will equalize as the package travels due to expansion inside the sealed tube, or the pressures involved will become too great to be practical.

Apparently the London Pneumatic Despatch Company got a working tube about 2 miles long (transporting 3 tonne capsules at up to 40 or 60 mph (it's a bit vague)) back in the 1860s.

And they appear to have been using pressure to go one way, and suction to go the other, so both look fairly viable.

[quote name='ApochPiQ' timestamp='1315454902' post='4858915']
By the time you move a package even 100 yards, you're talking about massive pressures that would probably rupture the entire system, and at the very least cause dangerous outgassing at the exit point when the package finally arrives. My argument against this version is that you cannot produce enough constant positive pressure to move any appreciable mass over a substantial distance. Eventually, pressure will equalize as the package travels due to expansion inside the sealed tube, or the pressures involved will become too great to be practical.

Apparently the London Pneumatic Despatch Company got a working tube about 2 miles long (transporting 3 tonne capsules at up to 40 or 60 mph (it's a bit vague)) back in the 1860s.

And they appear to have been using pressure to go one way, and suction to go the other, so both look fairly viable.
[/quote]

Bad wiki article is bad. The longest tube mentioned is 3/8ths of a mile and while it mentions up to 60 miles per hour, it says that the trip took 17 minutes. Clearly it's not adding up.

Some others

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_pneumatic_post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatic_tube#In_postal_service

They all have one thing in common. They don't work. Too expensive to implement and maintain at a city level, never mind on a national scale.

That's what this does. How did you think you were going to automate a mail service without adding infrastructure? The idea behind this is to do it as cheaply as possible with the least amount of developed technology and ensure that it can easily be maintained.

Automate drivers and standardize mailboxes.

Your system works alright for point A->point B type situations, but it will see huge limitations when you have 2 million points, each of whom could send it to any other point at any time. Let's look at a 4 point system, each a mile apart from their closest neighbors. More than likely they will be arranged in a rectangle. What happens if person A sends to B, B sends to D, and C sends to A? How do you regulate the pressure in just a rectangle without delaying anything? How does this problem extend to 5PM on a Monday with 100,000,000 households and 7,000,000 businesses? Where are you even going to put all the tubes? We're having a hard enough time even laying relatively tiny fiber connections to people across a whole city let alone a country.

That's ignoring the fact that you'd still need a standard delivery system for oddly or large sized packages so why not just use that system for everything since it's already there?

I'm reminded of the top gear episode where they raced the mail across england and lost even against that claimed inefficient system. Unless you can get your tubes to stay at a constant speed of >100mph it will probably be slower than our current mail, which does the majority of it's traveling in excess of 300mph and often over 500 mph.

[quote name='ApochPiQ' timestamp='1315454902' post='4858915']
By the time you move a package even 100 yards, you're talking about massive pressures that would probably rupture the entire system, and at the very least cause dangerous outgassing at the exit point when the package finally arrives. My argument against this version is that you cannot produce enough constant positive pressure to move any appreciable mass over a substantial distance. Eventually, pressure will equalize as the package travels due to expansion inside the sealed tube, or the pressures involved will become too great to be practical.

Apparently the London Pneumatic Despatch Company got a working tube about 2 miles long (transporting 3 tonne capsules at up to 40 or 60 mph (it's a bit vague)) back in the 1860s.

And they appear to have been using pressure to go one way, and suction to go the other, so both look fairly viable.
[/quote]

Did you miss the point where it was dismissed over 100 years ago, and they continued to use a system similar to what we currently have?

They are also a pneumatic powered carts, to get over the friction issues. In other words, using a less than 'simple' container with multiple points of failure. (Wheels, bearing surfaces, the seal, and track.)

It could be done, but a far better investment would be improving handling technologies for cargo carried on traditional transport: Truck, Plane, Ship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_pneumatic_post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatic_tube#In_postal_service

They all have one thing in common. They don't work. Too expensive to implement and maintain at a city level, never mind on a national scale.

Those are old. Just because over 100 years ago they lacked the technology to make it work doesn't mean it can't. Also they used metal tubes which is a good way to make it expensive.

Automate drivers and standardize mailboxes.

That just sounds extremely infeasible.

Your system works alright for point A->point B type situations, but it will see huge limitations when you have 2 million points, each of whom could send it to any other point at any time. Let's look at a 4 point system, each a mile apart from their closest neighbors. More than likely they will be arranged in a rectangle. What happens if person A sends to B, B sends to D, and C sends to A? How do you regulate the pressure in just a rectangle without delaying anything?

Are you familiar with how the Internet routes messages? It's a similar system. You can picture the system as a graph network of routers. If you look at my above image there are two tubes going each way allowing bidirectional travel in the network.

That network you described has no problems with the system I described. Mind draw a picture of the problem including the routers you imagine are involved. Sending from A to B goes through at least 1 router. Much like a real router they deal with capsules in the order they receive them.

How does this problem extend to 5PM on a Monday with 100,000,000 households and 7,000,000 businesses? Where are you even going to put all the tubes? We're having a hard enough time even laying relatively tiny fiber connections to people across a whole city let alone a country.

They can go above ground or below. I agree though that the infrastructure design would take a while. Regarding router overloading the system runs 24/7 non-stop to average out the stress on the total system along with smart routing around dense areas. Also the system can delay capsules in buffers and send them later. As long as more mail isn't sent than the system can deal with per day it should work.

The idea will be to start slowly. Connect all mail offices that make sense and plan the routes and networks to each house.

That's ignoring the fact that you'd still need a standard delivery system for oddly or large sized packages so why not just use that system for everything since it's already there?

I didn't ignore that. I explained that large shipments would need either larger tubes. If the size of the object is too large then a truck would be required.

[quote name='tstrimple' timestamp='1315510317' post='4859180']
http://en.wikipedia...._pneumatic_post
http://en.wikipedia...._postal_service

They all have one thing in common. They don't work. Too expensive to implement and maintain at a city level, never mind on a national scale.

Those are old. Just because over 100 years ago they lacked the technology to make it work doesn't mean it can't. Also they used metal tubes which is a good way to make it expensive.

Automate drivers and standardize mailboxes.

That just sounds extremely infeasible.

Your system works alright for point A->point B type situations, but it will see huge limitations when you have 2 million points, each of whom could send it to any other point at any time. Let's look at a 4 point system, each a mile apart from their closest neighbors. More than likely they will be arranged in a rectangle. What happens if person A sends to B, B sends to D, and C sends to A? How do you regulate the pressure in just a rectangle without delaying anything?

Are you familiar with how the Internet routes messages? It's a similar system. You can picture the system as a graph network of routers. If you look at my above image there are two tubes going each way allowing bidirectional travel in the network.

That network you described has no problems with the system I described. Mind draw a picture of the problem including the routers you imagine are involved. Sending from A to B goes through at least 1 router. Much like a real router they deal with capsules in the order they receive them.

How does this problem extend to 5PM on a Monday with 100,000,000 households and 7,000,000 businesses? Where are you even going to put all the tubes? We're having a hard enough time even laying relatively tiny fiber connections to people across a whole city let alone a country.

They can go above ground or below. I agree though that the infrastructure design would take a while. Regarding router overloading the system runs 24/7 non-stop to average out the stress on the total system along with smart routing around dense areas. Also the system can delay capsules in buffers and send them later. As long as more mail isn't sent than the system can deal with per day it should work.

The idea will be to start slowly. Connect all mail offices that make sense and plan the routes and networks to each house.

That's ignoring the fact that you'd still need a standard delivery system for oddly or large sized packages so why not just use that system for everything since it's already there?

I didn't ignore that. I explained that large shipments would need either larger tubes. If the size of the object is too large then a truck would be required.
[/quote]

Is your alt Raduprv by chance? It won't work, period. The fact that you can't see how unfeasible this is yet dismiss much more realistic options such as automated mail delivery vehicles is astounding.

That just sounds extremely infeasible.

We already have nearly automated drivers. Cities already standardize their garbage cans for similar reasons. We could even reuse all our existing capital invested in the trucks.

Just to streamline my future responses, what are the pros of your system over the current system?

Just to streamline my future responses, what are the pros of your system over the current system?

The main benefits would be to lower the labor cost and create a system that requires very little human involvement except for maintenance and upgrades. Ideally it's a system that runs 100% independent of human interaction for sending packages in an almost identical model as the Internet.

As the requirement for mail delivery lowers and we move into packages the need for a more uniform system rises. Using a unified capsule technology will eliminate the need for packaged goods. A company like Amazon could place the good in a capsule and send it to a user (or to a pickup location if the user isn't connected to the network). On the flip-side the user can also use the system by simply placing packages into their home tube or going to a drop off station much like UPS and FedEx work currently. However, no human interaction would be done there since once the item is placed in a capsule the computer takes over and immediately sends the item.

This brings up the obvious idea that it will speed up the delivery of objects by eliminating every delay possible. How many times have you ordered a product and it took FedEx 10 days to ship it? I just ordered a simple t-shirt the other day with 5 day shipping and it got delayed and came in 11 days. Those kinds of human error routing can be removed with proper deterministic routing.

However, I vaguely understand the infrastructure requirements of installing such a system. I keep imagining sewer systems in cities with extra room, but that's obviously not always the case. Some places might take longer to install the proper compressed air pipes and routers. For instance if you have a single pipe going down a neighborhood and need to route packages to a certain home you'd need small routing systems that can take a capsule and redirect it to a single location.

These kinds of technology constraints would need to be solved especially in a city that's expanding. I can't think of any other direct advantages to the system other than removing gasoline from the equation and getting cars and trucks off the road. (Something about trucks hauling goods hundreds of miles always hit me as inefficient since it's such a repetitive task for moving items. A dedicated system seems saner. People might bring up trains, but those aren't universal and are bulky).

Also the relative safety involved. No flammable chemicals involved unlike with combustion engines.

Is your alt Raduprv by chance?

No, but I remember that thread. You really think this concept which has been implemented a hundred years ago is as unfeasible as his post? Also in the future if you can't refute ideas don't resort to pointless troll threads. They don't work in a real debate.

It won't work, period. The fact that you can't see how unfeasible this is yet dismiss much more realistic options such as automated mail delivery vehicles is astounding.

Yeah, I don't think automated mail delivery vehicles are feasible. That idea is as bad as the quadrocopter idea someone else had and just as dangerous. I can't tell if you're trolling me since you have nothing valid to say.