General > General Technical Chat
The Hyperloop: BUSTED
Corporate666:
--- Quote from: EEVblog on October 07, 2016, 02:33:32 am ---
The commercial Hyperloop is never going to happen, guaranteed by the laws of practical real world engineering. I'll happily take a bet on it.
--- End quote ---
The people (I'm mostly referring to Thunderfoot) who have been shitting on the idea haven't actually demonstrated that there are insurmountable problems. Most of what I have seen him bringing up are overblown criticisms or intellectually dishonestly presented objections.
With your solar roadways video, you DID present "back of the envelope" calculations that showed it can't work. We know what solar panels can produce in the best case scenario. We know how much light is required for daytime visibility. We can reasonably accurately estimate what it would cost to produce a solar roadways panel. And based on that, we can confidently say that the claims put forth by the project creators are outright fabrications.
On the other hand, Thunderfoot didn't present any real calculations. Those that I saw him present were factually false in some cases or misrepresented in others.
It does a disservice to credible debunking videos like your solar roadways one or the ultrasonic power bullshit thing, or your batterizer video to lump this hyperloop video in with them. It's not close to being on the same level in terms of facts presented.
Now, it may very well be that the hyperloop never comes to be. If that happens, it will be because the ROI isn't there. That is different from solar roadways, batterizer or the ultrasonic power thing. Solar roadways just won't work - cars won't have traction on glass, it won't allow drivers to see lines which light up and change dynamically based on road conditions - it just won't physically work. Same with batterizer... it's just a bullshit product that doesn't actually work. Same with the ultrasonic power thing - simple physics proves it can't work.
Hyperloop is not the same. The folks saying the costs would be so astronomical as to make it unfeasible haven't actually presented any supporting evidence. The evidence that has been presented seems to have been largely misunderstood (if one is being kind) by the presenter or presented dishonestly (if one is more cynical).
Corporate666:
--- Quote from: max_torque on October 07, 2016, 12:57:53 pm ---Thing is, if you build an aeroplane, it can land at any airport. Should demographic changes result in lots of people wanting to suddenly fly from A to C, rather than A to B, it's very easy to accommodate that change. However, a fixed railway, and a VERY expensive ($/mile) one at that could be left high and dry if the demand changes or just moves away.
The UK is proof of this, as the rapid boom in railway expansion in the mid 1800's (the so called Railway Mania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Mania ) led to massive building of intrastruture, that was later abandoned when the demand disappeared.
Increasingly, thanks to fast networking (optical fibre internet) people no longer actually need to physically travel between places at high speed, and i can' t see that changing?
--- End quote ---
I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly and thought it was so obvious it didn't need to be said, until I tried the high speed train around here.
If I fly from Boston to NYC, I get to the airport an hour early. I deal with security and all that BS and I have the problem of not being able to bring liquids (a hassle for toiletries). I land an hour after takeoff, but I am still an hour outside of Manhattan if traffic is light. If it's not, add 1.5 hours. Even if I take the subway, it's still an hour. Then I have to do the reverse on the return journey - it's a huge hassle. And it's also a pain in the ass if I want to change my flight time.
With the train, I show up and literally walk right on the train. I can get there 2 minutes before it departs. It departs on time right to the minute, and it arrives exactly 3 hours and 26 minutes later in 34th street in Manhattan regardless of traffic. I grab my bag and walk off the train and I'm in downtown NYC. I can bring whatever I want on the train - no liquids ban. I have high speed internet, I can spread out in a big chair with a table. I can get a sandwich, have a beer, use my cell phone, whatever. I used to think Amtrak were crazy to charge more than I can get a round trip airline ticket for, but now I would always choose the train over plane any day. That's why it has taken 70% market share from the airlines.
Sure, it's less flexible in terms of cost of building and changing the route - but Boston and New York City aren't going anywhere, and from the customer point of view, the cost to build it are immaterial - all that matters is cost, convenience, time and experience. Amtrak is expanding their network and gobbling up additional market share in the North East corridor (Boston/New York City/Washington/Philadelphia). It won't work in many places, but in the places it does work, I think the up-front cost could be worth it.
Another thing about hyperloop - if it ever comes to pass - is it would also be useful (maybe even start off being used) for freight. There are a HUGE number of freight shipments into NYC. A 30-minute courier service between Boston-NYC would be valuable. I've often thought that some sort of constantly moving tunnel-based high-speed conveyor belt or small-diameter mini-subway system would be great for big population centers. It would reduce traffic and congestion, allow cheaper and faster ingress and egress of freight and be reliable and fast. And without carrying people, the regulatory and maintenance requirements would have to be a lot looser.
stj:
about that symbolic crap you go through at the airport - the control-freaks want to phase it in at railway stations - followed by bus terminals.
the sooner they get put someplace safe - like under some dirt, the better.
dansan:
Almost any engineering problem can be solved if you throw enough money at it. So, of course, the technical issues of hyperloop are really economic issues. I think one of the biggest wildcards in the economics of high-speed, medium distance, intercity transport in general is self-driving cars. Lots of people assume that, as airports and freeways get clogged with traffic, that the trend will be toward solutions like hyperloop, maglev, or traditional high-speed trains. But what if it's not? Maybe people will gravitate toward low- to medium-speed overnight trips in self-driving cars. If you're sleeping during the trip, you are less concerned about how long it takes to get there. There's also the added economic incentive of saving the cost of a night or two in a hotel room.
EEVblog:
--- Quote from: Corporate666 on October 07, 2016, 09:46:34 pm ---Hyperloop is not the same.
--- End quote ---
It's a bloody 500km long highly evacuated 3m wide tunnel with a capsule traveling at 1000kmh that needs to work at scale, and at capacity with the utmost reliability with one tunnel each way for the entire project.
If that doesn't instantly set off your engineering impracticality radar then I think you need to go in for a recalibration.
Hyperloop is worse than Solar Roadways, Batterieser, Ubeam etc because it's an all or nothing massive scale public transport infrastructure carrying humans. One catastrophic failure scuttles the whole project.
At least the others can work in limited scenarios, and actually could be a moderately successful niche products if pivoted right.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version