23 Universities advance to next round of Hyperloop competition - Polidicks

Okay let's say we are paying $1 billion+ per mile or whatever other figure we feel like using and each pylon takes up 600 square miles of land that can only be used for that pylon. The Hyperloop, if the technology works still has a niche to fill that HSR can't fill. Yes HSR can still be useful for some places but Hyperloop has places that only it can make commuting viable.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49645349]I'm all for trying out new things, but treating every crazy idea with hopeless optimism and acting like it is the second coming is silly and gives the public a wrong perception of what science or engineering really entails.[/QUOTE] so these universities trying out some things are giving the public, and themselves, a false perception of what science entails? I'm not being hopelessly optimistic, i'm entirely curious and would hate to see a potentially good idea be killed because we couldn't see far enough ahead.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49645367]so these universities trying out some things are giving the public, and themselves, a false perception of what science entails? I'm not being hopelessly optimistic, i'm entirely curious and would hate to see a potentially good idea be killed because we couldn't see far enough ahead.[/QUOTE] My comment wasn't directed to the organisers or participants of this competition, it was directed to media coverage of the Hyperloop in general and what members of the public think of it.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49645397]My comment wasn't directed to the organisers or participants of this competition, it was directed to media coverage of the Hyperloop in general and what members of the public think of it.[/QUOTE] I think it's pretty valid to direct hate at the media for their consistent failure to cover anything accurately so sure, I guess i'm on your page on that

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49644626]uh, yes you do. otherwise you're not going to be able to move the massive amounts of steel and concrete required lol the kind of thermal expansion we're talking about isn't something that dampeners can handle - its like 180 metres of contraction and expansion over the whole route. you need expansion joints. you still haven't mentioned the communications systems, need for a real time map, the fact you still need to build things like bridges, the concrete pillars construction, the foundations for each pylon, etc? you do realize that the first railway engineers had experience building canals and roads right? claiming that a lot of the problems which afflict normal civil engineering don't apply to the hyperloop is ignorant of civil engineering because this is a basic requirement for any kind of civil engineering project? i'm not even talking about that stuff, no need to be rude about it.[/QUOTE] While you're sitting here naming problems, there are teams of engineers out there solving them

[QUOTE=Morgen;49645366]Okay let's say we are paying $1 billion+ per mile or whatever other figure we feel like using and each pylon takes up 600 square miles of land that can only be used for that pylon. The Hyperloop, if the technology works still has a niche to fill that HSR can't fill. Yes HSR can still be useful for some places but Hyperloop has places that only it can make commuting viable.[/QUOTE] Well it might fill that niche, but ultimately it's going to remain a niche in that instance, and niche things tend to only be used by the wealthy. There is a future for science and technology in railways, but that future won't be the hyperloop. [QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;49645440]While you're sitting here naming problems, there are teams of engineers out there solving them[/QUOTE] Indeed, HSR is already making massive leaps and bounds. Engineers are solving the problems of transportation, and are steadily improving HSR.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49645470]Well it might fill that niche, but ultimately it's going to remain a niche in that instance, and niche things tend to only be used by the wealthy. There is a future for science and technology in railways, but that future won't be the hyperloop. Indeed, HSR is already making massive leaps and bounds. Engineers are solving the problems of transportation, and are steadily improving HSR.[/QUOTE] Yeah, let's just completely dismiss ideas without investigating them.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49645470]Well it might fill that niche, but ultimately it's going to remain a niche in that instance, and niche things tend to only be used by the wealthy. There is a future for science and technology in railways, but that future won't be the hyperloop. [/QUOTE] We won't know if there's a future in it until we try it out, and then we'll see if it's niche or actually appealing to the masses. Hyperloop vs. MSR is essentially a bigger version of VHS vs. Betamax, and we'll just have to see what people use more.

[QUOTE=Morgen;49645484]Yeah, let's just completely dismiss ideas without investigating them.[/QUOTE] you're the one being contemptuous and dismissive of the opinions of fields which disagree with you this includes, but is not limited to the following: economists land management specialists logistics companies insurance underwriters etc there's a lot more that goes into a project than simply hiring teams of engineers to look at it. this project isn't even being looked at by "teams of engineers", its a contest for students to have some fun with i mean you do realize that you have to actually survey the route before even planning it out right? you can't just build this thing next to the highway, put it on concrete pylons, and assume that's the thing sorted [QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;49645493]We won't know if there's a future in it until we try it out, and then we'll see if it's niche or actually appealing to the masses. Hyperloop vs. MSR is essentially a bigger version of VHS vs. Betamax, and we'll just have to see what people use more.[/QUOTE] except HSR has been used for decades and has been proven to work - its not space age unproven tech

All ideas deserve investigation and economics will choose the best one. That's part of the problem. The California HSR [I]specifically[/I] is over bloated and not the peak of it's potential. It's not even a good HSR for the cost. Which is part of the reason why Hyperloop came to fruition. Musk said at the competition that Hyperloop was basically a spur of the moment idea, and that he didn't expect people to run with it like they did. He released the white paper because people kept asking him about it at interviews. The point is to get people to think about better transportation, because what California wants to build sucks.

[QUOTE=OvB;49645533]All ideas deserve investigation and economics will choose the best one. That's part of the problem. The California HSR [I]specifically[/I] is over bloated and not the peak of it's potential. It's not even a good HSR for the cost. Which is part of the reason why Hyperloop came to fruition. Musk said at the competition that Hyperloop was basically a spur of the moment idea, and that he didn't expect people to run with it like they did. He released the white paper because people kept asking him about it at interviews. The point is to get people to think about better transportation, because what California wants to build sucks.[/QUOTE] I agree that more attention to this issue is good, but I think where Sobotnik is coming from is that attention on the Hyperloop diverts resources away from more realistic (and probably more easily implemented) solutions to medium-distance mass transport. Money and manpower that could have been spent improving on existing HSR designs is instead being used to work on fantastical ideas that look good on paper but are probably going to suck when implemented. We know that HSR works, and we know that it can be good, because existing systems already exist in Japan and are continuously being improved on.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49645559]I agree that more attention to this issue is good, but I think where Sobotnik is coming from is that attention on the Hyperloop diverts resources away from more realistic (and probably more easily implemented) solutions to medium-distance mass transport. Money and manpower that could have been spent improving on existing HSR designs is instead being used to work on fantastical ideas that look good on paper but are probably going to suck when implemented. We know that HSR works, and we know that it can be good, because existing systems already exist in Japan and are continuously being improved on.[/QUOTE] We know the efficacy of HSR, we know it's good. That doesn't mean there isn't a reason to look else where though? I'm not saying lets build it now, i'm saying "It deserves to be looked at seriously", which is seemingly what's happening. We'll know more once they know more.

There will be three test tracks up and running within a year. We will be able to get a more realistic grasp of the economics when it's up. It might work out to be great. It might work out to be terrible. It's not terribly different than a Maglev train, which seems to be where the future of HSR is heading. Put a cover over a Maglev track and apply a slight vacuum. That's basically what it is.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49645569]We know the efficacy of HSR, we know it's good. That doesn't mean there isn't a reason to look else where though? I'm not saying lets build it now, i'm saying "It deserves to be looked at seriously", which is seemingly what's happening. We'll know more once they know more.[/QUOTE] Yes, we should look elsewhere. But I feel like the Hyperloop is being taken too seriously for something that, to me, is too much of an engineering challenge to ever be economical. It also seems to be taking public attention away from actually improving the current rail systems in incremental steps. Now everyone is jumping on the hype train (pun not intended) and wants more and more resources to be invested into developing the Hyperloop, rather than actually upgrading the existing infrastructure. Sure, it's all private money at this stage, and those entities can choose what they want to do with the money. But it's still money, and that money could have been spent elsewhere instead to greater effect.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49645654]Yes, we should look elsewhere. But I feel like the Hyperloop is being taken too seriously for something that, to me, is too much of an engineering challenge to ever be economical. It also seems to be taking public attention away from actually improving the current rail systems in incremental steps. Now everyone is jumping on the hype train (pun not intended) and wants more and more resources to be invested into developing the Hyperloop, rather than actually upgrading the existing infrastructure. Sure, it's all private money at this stage, and those entities can choose what they want to do with the money. But it's still money, and that money could have been spent elsewhere instead to greater effect.[/QUOTE] The Hyperloop isn't really that complicated from an engineering standpoint. There's 3 competing designs right now, Maglev, Air cushion and wheels. The vacuum stuff is all off the shelf. SpaceX's competition will try and determine which ones are the best.

[QUOTE=OvB;49645635]There will be three test tracks up and running within a year. We will be able to get a more realistic grasp of the economics when it's up. It might work out to be great. It might work out to be terrible. It's not terribly different than a Maglev train, which seems to be where the future of HSR is heading. Put a cover over a Maglev track and apply a slight vacuum. That's basically what it is.[/QUOTE] Earlier in the thread, someone mentioned an operating pressure of 1 millibar. That is not a slight vacuum at all. At that pressure, water would sublime directly from the solid phase above -25°C. It's the kind of pressure you would find at altitudes of roughly 60 km. [editline]1st February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Morgen;49645683]The Hyperloop isn't really that complicated from an engineering standpoint. There's 3 competing designs right now, Maglev, Air cushion and wheels. The vacuum stuff is all off the shelf. SpaceX's competition will try and determine which ones are the best.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how those are any different from existing high-speed rail designs, in which case the Hyperloop becomes a mere marketing label.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49645709]Earlier in the thread, someone mentioned an operating pressure of 1 millibar. That is not a slight vacuum at all. At that pressure, water would sublime directly from the solid phase above -25°C. It's the kind of pressure you would find at altitudes of roughly 60 km. [editline]1st February 2016[/editline] I'm not sure how those are any different from existing high-speed rail designs, in which case the Hyperloop becomes a mere marketing label.[/QUOTE] What? It's in a tube with a slight vacuum. How did you mention the vacuum and then forget about it in the second half of your post? It's interesting because it's simple and using off the shelf stuff. As Musk puts it "My interns could do it".

[QUOTE=Morgen;49645764]What? It's in a tube with a slight vacuum. How did you mention the vacuum and then forget about it in the second half of your post? It's interesting because it's simple and using off the shelf stuff. As Musk puts it "My interns could do it".[/QUOTE] My first point was directed at the design that incorporated the vacuum. My second point is moot because I misread your post: I thought you said "on the shelf" rather than "off the shelf". Nevertheless, my point still stands: it's not going to be easy maintaining such a large pressure difference across such a huge volume, and I'm doubtful that it can be economical. Of course getting a vacuum is easy, it's a solved problem. The issue is whether it can be done cheaply enough to make it economical. I will put a disclaimer here, I'm not an engineer and I haven't done the maths, so I may be wrong.

[QUOTE=Morgen;49645764]It's interesting because it's simple and using off the shelf stuff.[/QUOTE] famous last words We're talking about 0.001 Atmospheres here.

Why not use hyperloop as part of a normal maglev system? Have it out of the tunnel where its too prohibitive but duck into it for high-speed sprints. Sorta like the eurostar and the channel tunnel. With the capsules already built for high speed you could really crank open the throttle on the normal track too. The capsule design still encompasses a number of engineering disciplines and problems, and I imagine some applicable advancements for maglev tech can be gleaned from the work here.

[QUOTE=Morgen;49643054]The tube is maintained at 0.015 psi, the figure was decided by working out what regular commercial pumps are capable of doing and the ability to compensate for minor leaks, so you don't need complex pumps or massive amounts of energy to do it. The pod glides along the walls of the tube without making any physical contact so maintenance is reduced. The only time physical contact is needed with anything is if the pods have to deploy their emergency braking systems. Sure you need to build a station for it somewhere but the land the tubes take would be fairly small since they are on stilts. The Hyperloop whitepaper covers some potential events that could happen and how to safely handle them:[/QUOTE] I still don't see how most of this is safe. This is 0.015psi, 0.001bar, thats almost nothing, not a "slight" vacuum. There is a point at which people call "the death zone" in relation to altitude, that is roughly 8000m, with extreme altitude being ~6000m. At 15240m, the air pressure is about 0.111bar. No matter what safety system you come up with, a pod decompression with those pressures is incredibly unsafe. Onboard environmental systems gonna have a hard time supplying enough pressurised air long enough in the case of a decompression. This is a neat design problem for a university to flex their muscles and show what they can do, but reality? 0.015psi says enough to me

You are okay with going 700+ MPH, you are okay with planes going up so high that you would die if it blew a hole, and heck you are even okay with cars. But a pod in a low pressure tube that has safety hatches and the ability to recompress, fuck that shit. Realistically it's probably just as safe as air travel, if not safer since you would probably be able to get out a bit faster in an emergency.

Here's the MIT design, by the way. [url]http://hyperloop.mit.edu/[/url] Estimated speed: 110m/s.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49643668]But those are individual capsules which are shot out. Each capsule can only hold about 30 people, and you need clearance times inbetween them. The more you add, the more it impacts on safety. How much more can the clearance time be reduced? If you sent one out every 30 seconds (which is very generous), that's two per minute, 120 an hour. That means you can only manage about 3600 passengers an hour if we assume 30 per capsule. That's only just managing to compete with the roads.[/QUOTE] Okay, so it competes with roads. It's another option, and will thus reduce the strain on all other mass transporation needs. In addition, it is SIGNIFICANTLY faster. It doesn't need to replace roads to be useful. You can still drive to pretty much everywhere on the planet with the use of ferrys but it still makes a lot more sense to fly from LA to SF than it does to drive when the drive takes 7+ hours