Foodtubes Proposes Underground, Physical Internet 431
geek4 writes "Automatically routed canisters could replace trucks with an Internet of things, says Foodtubes. A group of academics is proposing a system of underground tunnels which could deliver food and other goods in all weathers with massive energy savings. The Foodtubes group wants to put goods in metal capsules two meters long, which are shifted through underground polyethylene tubes at speeds of up to 60 miles per hour, directed by linear induction motors and routed by intelligent software to their destinations. The group, which includes an Oxford physics professor and logistics experts, wants £15 million to build a five-mile test circuit, and believes the scheme could fund itself if used by large supermarkets and local councils, and could expand because it uses an open architecture."
Re:Bush was right after all (Score:5, Informative)
That was Ted Stevens, not George W. Bush.
Re:Bush was right after all (Score:5, Informative)
... so it's like a series of tubes, right?
Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said that, not Bush.
Re:Man in the middle (Score:4, Informative)
Any good Man in the Middle is able to send the data to its original destination with at least trying to make it appear like it hasn't been tampered with, probably by some self signed Cert.
So, I mean, things like Chocolate bars, or Apple juice, you could probably get away with.
Chicago had a freight tube system for decades (Score:5, Informative)
Not kidding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tunnel_Company [wikipedia.org]
Re:That's a really great idea but... (Score:4, Informative)
Tunneling really isn't that hard in most places. All you need is a deep hole on each side to assemble tunnel boring machines. You might run into problems with pipelines, wires and other tunnels, but you can always go deeper.
Re:Logistic issues I see: (Score:5, Informative)
1: Getting right of way to drill the holes needed for that stuff.
Similar to problems laying fiber right now. Next time a road is dug up to repair something, stick in a foodtube as well. Eventually a network will start to take shape - it may take a couple of decades, but at minimal disruption and cost.
2: Maintaining it. It sounds like if the induction motors break down, fixing those would be a PITA.
Have service cannisters using onboard power that can push the broken cannister to the next service chute.
3: Unsticking the cargo if it gets jammed somewhere.
See above.
4: How many of these can travel through the tube network at a time? If the induction motors can't handle that many, it might not be as efficient as the company touts.
Depends on the length of each link, and how far apart the service depots are.
5: Security of cargo. I'm sure there will be people who would love to divert things to their end.
That's something that already happens in real life with trucks, and especially the internet. It's an inherent problem whichever way you choose to distribute things.
6: Transients climbing in the tubes, and cleaning the messes up if they get struck. If a bum dies in the tunnel, does the company get sued for wrongful death?
I'd have thought the tubes would be sealed, the only entrance/exits being at the service depots. If a bum breaks into a power station and gets electrocuted, does the power company get sued?
7: Plans for power outages.
IP networks are subject to those too. Some small UPS at each depot to ensure that cannisters get to a depot in the event of a power outage, rather than get stuck in tunnels.
Re:Sounds likes Denver airports luggage system (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bush was right after all (Score:4, Informative)
You obviously don't drive the 401 :)
Re:You don't seem to understand... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the real story of Denver's baggage handling system was that poor design and insufficient technology can kill a good idea. Here's a good retrospective analysis [google.com] of the situation. The actual design of the system was done as an afterthought, in restricted geometry, unrealistic timeframe, and unrealistic budget, without any kind of meaningful backup system. Just learning how to manage the queues right is something that should have had a pilot study before design was even begun. Also, due to the then-high cost of RFID tags, individual bags were tagged with bar codes, and only the carts were RFID tagged. While RFID-reading of the bags would have been easy, bar-code reading of them was a disaster. And lastly, they simply scaled up way too fast from existing systems. All of the Denver components previously existed and were used elsewhere, but Denver greatly increased the speed and throughput, directly interlinked everything, and without a backup, every snag held everything else up. And without a study on how to deal with these contingencies, the whole system was a disaster.
There are many lessons to be learned from Denver, but "central control = bad" is not one of them. The main lessons are "don't rush or underfund leaps in technology" and "walk before you run."