General > General Technical Chat
The Hyperloop: BUSTED
<< < (55/113) > >>
mtdoc:

--- Quote from: T3sl4co1l on January 17, 2018, 08:30:50 pm ---FYI, these are different graphs.  This is an error frequently made, even by the media.

This is total fed spending. It looks much more similar:
https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/total_spending_pie%2C__2015_enacted.png

Tim

--- End quote ---

Yes, that is true. The graph I posted is, as I said, discretionary - that is, spending which congress has some say in on a year to year basis versus long germ obligations such as social security, medicare, interset on debt, etc - which must be paid and cannot be prioritized, at least not on a near term basis.

It’s the  discretionary spending is what’s relevant to this discussion.
David Hess:

--- Quote from: james_s on January 17, 2018, 11:04:28 pm ---Without the mandates many people would have been content to keep using incandescent bulbs, oblivious to or not even comprehending the fact that the total cost of ownership including electricity is far more expensive for the "cheap" incandescent bulbs and the LED tech may not have caught on at all in an entirely free market.
--- End quote ---

The total cost of ownership of LED bulbs is much higher than incandescent bulbs where I am because either burn out in about 6 months due to our dirty power.  At least the incandescent bulbs were cheap so replacing them was cheap.

David Hess:

--- Quote from: mtdoc on January 18, 2018, 01:31:00 am ---Yes, that is true. The graph I posted is, as I said, discretionary - that is, spending which congress has some say in on a year to year basis versus long germ obligations such as social security, medicare, interset on debt, etc - which must be paid and cannot be prioritized, at least not on a near term basis.

It’s the  discretionary spending is what’s relevant to this discussion.
--- End quote ---

Congress, or more specifically the House of Representatives, has a say in all of it.  Congress cannot bind itself to a rule that it cannot break.

They play the same kind of word game with "cuts" when they really mean they are not increasing something as much as originally planned.
wraper:

--- Quote from: David Hess on January 18, 2018, 03:48:11 am ---
--- Quote from: james_s on January 17, 2018, 11:04:28 pm ---Without the mandates many people would have been content to keep using incandescent bulbs, oblivious to or not even comprehending the fact that the total cost of ownership including electricity is far more expensive for the "cheap" incandescent bulbs and the LED tech may not have caught on at all in an entirely free market.
--- End quote ---

The total cost of ownership of LED bulbs is much higher than incandescent bulbs where I am because either burn out in about 6 months due to our dirty power. At least the incandescent bulbs were cheap so replacing them was cheap.

--- End quote ---
I rather suspect you just buy very crappy bulbs. For decent bulbs quality of power won't matter too much.
nctnico:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on January 17, 2018, 11:14:00 pm ---
--- Quote from: nctnico on January 17, 2018, 10:59:53 pm ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on January 17, 2018, 07:13:00 am ---
--- Quote from: nctnico on January 16, 2018, 11:15:11 pm ---A first simple check is to see if a project is done by multiple companies (in parallel) or just one and where the funding is coming from.

--- End quote ---
Another first simple step is to stop and think why no one has done this old idea before:

Has there been some radical breakthrough in maglev technology? No.
Has there been some radical breakthrough in ridiculously large scale vacuum tunnel technology suitable for human carriage over hundreds of km? No.
Has there been some other radical breakthrough in the transport market space? No.
Has there been some other breakthrough in cost reduction in anything to do with this? No.

--- End quote ---
You can turn this reasoning around quite easely: if there is no demand for a radical breakthrough then it won't happen. Chicken & egg until someone throws serious money at the problem and makes the breakthrough happen. Creating something new often requires solving technical issues nobody has solved before.

--- End quote ---

And sometimes, just sometimes, an idea will always just remain fundamentally impractical.

IIRC there is someone on this forum who is part of one of the top HL design teams who have published very details technical papers on it, and even they admit that the vacuum based HL idea is poorly thought through and basically may not happen.

And make no mistake, you can't separate the vacuum idea from Hyperloop, because without it it's no longer the Hyperloop idea.
A vacuum based passenger carrying intercity HL will never happen, I'll bet you a bitcoin on it.

--- End quote ---
Do you have a link to those papers or some more specific search keywords to feed into Google?
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod