Thoughts on the hyperloop?

Thoughts on the hyperloop?

Also, any good video series on it?

ala this
youtube.com/watch?v=kx52A-v65Q8&list=PLSPi1JFx4_-Gz0Fm0qq2KUz4c22UbZCco

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=j4KR4-TN-Yo
youtube.com/watch?v=qU7FuAswPW0
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Huge vacuum can. Any deformation (like car hitting one of pylons) willl result in complete collapse of it. Also keeping all that tube empty will use some not so trivial levels of energy. Airplanes may be just faster, safer and cheaper option.

>Thoughts on the hyperloop?
>is it feasible?
Yes, obviously.
>will it be safe?
There's no reason for it to not be made reasonably safe.
>is it economically viable?
Hard to tell. R&D and initial costs will be through the roof, but I guess that it won't be expensive to operate and maintain. Of course the success will be determined by the amount of people that will use it.
>Will it solve every problem of the world and cure cancer?
No, it won't.

Seems like a pretty big waste of money for what is essentially a glorified train track

I think they changed it, it's no longer a vacuum or a near-vacuum.

Kind of defeats the purpose of putting it in a tube if they did that.

>thunderfoot
disregarded

...

A meme

okay, it's an extremely dangerous maglev, and maglevs are already not economically viable. take a guess OP. It will never be made. Elon Musk didn't come up with the idea. It was tossed in the trash decades and decades ago by people smarter than him.

Is there a chance the track could bend?

>Thoughts on the hyperloop?
Retarded. A stupid idea that people try to force instead of coming up with better alternatives.

Disagree with me? That's okay. Then build a hyperloop net that is economically self sufficient and even lucrative and I will change my mind.

It never was a vaccum or near-vaccum

Not if it can reach the speeds promised

>Thoughts on the hyperloop?
Bullshit.
>Also, any good video series on it?
Yeah, watch this on so you don't fall for snake oil ever again.

Thunderf00t explains how Elon "The Welfare Queen" Musk operates:

1) Take an old idea that was shelved for being impractical
2) Take it and pretend he invented it and it's' his
3) Make the bullshit idea even bigger
4) Make a bunch of bullshit CG videos showing the idea in action
5) Raise money from stupid investors and taxpayers
6) Swim in $$$$$$
7) GOTO 1


youtube.com/watch?v=j4KR4-TN-Yo

Not on your life my Hindu friend

Explain to me how you are going to create a complete vacuum tube going 100s of miles across without any leaks

I could give you an answer but the only ones who'd understand it would be you and me

and that includes OP

Ok, PM me the answer, here is my email

>Thunderf00t explains

Watch OP's videos, lad.
TF fucked up all his calculations for the hyperloop.

That's a response to thunderf00t

Yeh it was, hence the tubes

The idea was to reduce air resistance by evacuating the tubes but if they don't bother then there is literally no reason to use a tube anymore, could just be an open air monorail

>Yeh it was, hence the tubes

No? Read the white paper

Then whats the purpose of the tube? Just to look cool?

It will have 99 pascal
Compare that to SPF vacuum chamber that can reach 0.0013 pascal

A big difference.
But, it will still reduce air resistance greatly.

The Thermal-Vacuum Test Chamber at the SPF has an 8 foot thick concrete wall and at least 2.7kPa inside.
And inside this chamber, there is a second stage of an aluminium chamber, that can withstand 17kPa (from the outside).

And you are talking about having just 0.099 kPa in a few hundred miles long tube and you are thinking that 0,1% of atmospheric pressure can not be called near vacuum?

You are mistaking a singular instance of a hyperloop for the concept of hyperloop.

Hyperloops have no set pressures but one instance might be a specific pascal. Since there are multiple hyperloop companies and efforts it's a big error of yours.

The basic idea of the hyperloop is very rational and makes a lot of sense. Keep in mind it only works for very specific distances.

Also people are stupid about public transport economics. If a hyperloop was made which connected to the heart of San fran to a gigantic suburb area for gorillian residential houses to be build the economics would be amazingly beneficial.

You cant just look at the profit of a public transport for it's ultimate effect.

You might not agree with him politically, but he's speaking purely scientifically here.

I think personaly it is one of those projects that sure, is posible, but so expensive and dificult to do for what? A fast train?

Fuck that, spend the money on a regular high speed rail network.

youtube.com/watch?v=qU7FuAswPW0

i hole it will blow up the entire city its based in

It may be almost as safe as a normal train in some regards, but depending on the size of the chamber and internal pressure you could fuck up entire chunks of it with a bomb, meaning that terrorists could give themselves more distance between them and their target.
Plus; construction costs, operational costs and the time dedicated on the maintenance of a vacuum chamber should be much higher than with glorifies steel sticks

However, if I were to give it a chance I would make a less glamorous and less Science!™ version of it underground for cargo that is able to whitstand low pressures. But that may only end up killing the US railway network since it is so dependent on cargo.
I personally would prefer strengthening and improving our rail network system, maybe with something more viable that the Hypermeme. Improving aerodynamics, energy sources, lighter materials, a less shit way of levitating. It all should add up to something comparable in performance to the Hyperloop but with a massive reduction in cost, meaning that investors would be more into it from the start while fixing and preparing the railway market in the US for future railway concepts and technologies

What about Solar Roadways?

>And you are talking about having just 0.099 kPa in a few hundred miles long tube and you are thinking that 0,1% of atmospheric pressure can not be called near vacuum?

I'm saying the difference is big, when it comes to things like maintaining the vacuum and maintaining pressure if the tube gets a leakage.
Maybe you can call it near vacuum tho, but it dosent really say much

Forget what I said, use hyperloops on thinrd world countries as a way of population control

>the hyperloop HAS to be built on the surface
>it's impossible for it to be even an inch into the ground
that chemist brainlet can fuck off

>solar roadways
of all the things Thunderf00t is a shitter for, That was one of the things he was correct on
That shit doesn't work
it would be significantly more effective to just put regular solar panels on every single thing with a roof

I really don't get why would anyone try to put an apparatus that must stay transparent in the ground exposed to dirt and constant grinding. You could make beautiful yet functional concepts, like Solar trees or incorporate solar panels into architecture, but instead he went straight to slabs with radio shack LEDs embedded into the ground

What about the Hyper Drive?

We can't even make normal maglevs economically viable.
And you want to put them into a vacuum?
You'd proably want to put them underground as well because thermal expansion issues.


Simply no way.

>people that want to get somewhere use car
>cargo uses freight train or ships
>people use a plane if they want to get somewhere far away fast
>implying you could (or should) build something that moves as fast as a plane on the ground

nigga just invent a better plane

So it's just a fucking subway?

>What about Solar Roadways?

Always makes me think of Heinlein.

Shipstones when?

The main advantage of the hyperloop is in its raw speed-you can move things around faster than you can with standard aircraft, and you could ideally do it more cheaply and with a lower carbon footprint over time. If you have enough tunnels and pods you can also get a potentially impressive throughput of people through it, since it's not a 1 pod at a time sytem.

The disadvantage of it is of course you need to actually develop it and work out various engineering bugs and issues with the concept and then build up a brand new set of expensive infrastructure systems for it, but it's worth remembering that this is exactly the situation that airplanes faced when they started to become a thing-airports are very very very expensive and vast in size, and the R and D costs of airplanes were formidable both in the past and now. Railways had an immense leg-up on airplanes in initial cost effectiveness and volume,but they ultimately could not keep up with the speed advantage and sharp drop in costs of flights over time and are now much less important in human transportation except in niche applications like subways.

I think some of the objections to it are non-sequiters-the concerns about bombings or even, absurdly, gunshots not only ignore that the system has a whole array of pumps all over it designed to deal with leaks, but that these concerns are not unique to hyperloops-subways are very vulnerable to bomb attacks and several of these have happened over the years. Airplanes have been targeted by terrorists numerous times. Why is the hyperloop heldd to some kind of absurd terrorism-proof standard that we don't have at all for currently existing railway systems? It would be incredibly easy to set a bomb off next to a high-volume passenger train and kill several hundred people,as they have essentially no security as they roll around many miles of tracks-where is the drive to ban them for this awful safety lapse?

The tech will live or die depending on whether it can offer physically verifiable prototypes, attract venture capital, and ameliorate development costs in terms of impact on ticket prices quickly enough to become economically competitive. If they can introduce a safe line between areas with a high level of travel throughput, reduce wait times for a pod to levels much lower than are associated with the very unpleasant hours of waiting and faffing in airports, and have transportation times much lower than airlines due to speed and more efficient passenger processing, at a price that is substantially lower than you'd pay for a two-way ticket between these areas, then it could work. There are a lot of hills to climb and it could easily die on any one of them, I wouldn't bet money on the idea, but i'll keep an eye on it.

A hyperloop designed for solely freight is arguably more practical-you could send the thing screaming along at much high speeds and accelerations than you'd want to do with people, and over time it would be very cheap indeed,given a fully electrical system. But damn if that early infrastructure cost isn't a doozy.

>implying most of the criticism doesn't come from thunderf00t being butthurt