General > General Technical Chat
The Hyperloop: BUSTED
<< < (65/113) > >>
EEVblog:

--- Quote from: nctnico on January 20, 2018, 09:44:27 am ---However in general IMHO you'd do better to take a more objective approach rather than being the umpteenth armchair nay-sayer. Going through the technical challenges and trying to find the economic angle without prejudice/judgement will result in a much more informative video and not deteriorate your credibility.

--- End quote ---

Nothing wrong with my credibility.
I'll stand by my spidey sense impractical detector, thanks.
EEVblog:

--- Quote from: IanMacdonald on January 20, 2018, 10:16:52 am ---If the train springs a leak, people start asphyxiating rather fast. Oxygen masks are also no use in a complete vacuum; about a fifth of sea level pressure is the lowest they will sustain life in, and that won't be enough vacuum for the hyperloop.
This is probably the biggest issue, since it means that any small prang with a train that cracks the hull means everyone on board dead in a few minutes.

--- End quote ---

It's such a retarded idea, watch the money just disappear and the design teams progressively back down on the "vacuum" part of it.
wraper:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on January 20, 2018, 03:28:37 am ---
--- Quote ---Comparing hyperloop with uBeam and Solar Roadways is incorrect because you compare things which cannot work in theory to begin with what can work in theory but may be hard to implement.

--- End quote ---

Rubbish. uBeam and Solar roadways can both work in theory and also in practice, demonstrably so, that's a fact. They are just impractical.

--- End quote ---
In theory they are very inefficient way of using already existing technologies. Therefore I say they don't work in theory. Say, if you need to use unsafe levels of ultrasound = it does not work.
EDIT: And to be clear, this does not even include a cost to build. There is just no way uBeam and Solar roadways can operate sufficiently even if made for free.
EEVblog:

--- Quote from: wraper on January 20, 2018, 10:52:13 am ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on January 20, 2018, 03:28:37 am ---Rubbish. uBeam and Solar roadways can both work in theory and also in practice, demonstrably so, that's a fact. They are just impractical.

--- End quote ---
In theory they are very inefficient way of using already existing technologies. Therefore I say they don't work in theory.

--- End quote ---

Nope, they can both be reasonably efficient enough in theory and kinda in practice even, just not under practical usage circumstances.
But it's semantics of course.
The idea of keeping a 1000km long several meter wide vacuum system working with a 1000km/h projectile in it is just madness.
amspire:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on January 20, 2018, 11:15:06 am ---
--- Quote from: wraper on January 20, 2018, 10:52:13 am ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on January 20, 2018, 03:28:37 am ---Rubbish. uBeam and Solar roadways can both work in theory and also in practice, demonstrably so, that's a fact. They are just impractical.

--- End quote ---
In theory they are very inefficient way of using already existing technologies. Therefore I say they don't work in theory.

--- End quote ---

Nope, they can both be reasonably efficient enough in theory and kinda in practice even, just not under practical usage circumstances.
But it's semantics of course.
The idea of keeping a 1000km long several meter wide vacuum system working with a 1000km/h projectile in it is just madness.

--- End quote ---
The 1000km/h is a number not based on any safety testing. You can buy a car that can go at 440 km/h but that does not mean that it is safe to regularly travel anywhere at 440 km/h. The safe speed tends to come from experience, but in Australia, for example, they have settled for speeds varying between 70 and 110 km/h outside urban areas.

Let's say they can travel at 1000km/h. The tubes have to be safe. There has to be a safe distance between tubes so a crash in the Up tube can't take out the Down tube. A safe separation may be 100 meters. That is not the worst part. It has to be safe for people in the proximity of the tunnels. A safe distance exclusion zone could be 400 meters? I do not know but we are talking  a possibility of a big high energy collision with shrapnel - it could be 1 km or more. So when they build the London to Edinburgh hyperloop that they talk about, are they going to build a corridor 2 km wide all the way through the heart of England? Even putting the tubes in trenches will not stop shrapnel flying for massive distances.

Talking about putting solar cells on top of the tunnels is a total joke if you are going to have 1km each side unoccupied.

Or will they mostly use tunnels?

Now they cannot just have a single tunnel with the two tubes.  They have to have at least 3 separate tunnels. They will need one tunnel for the Up tube, one tunnel for the Down tube, and one tunnel in between for maintenance/rescue service access.

If the Up and Down tunnels take different routes, it is much worse. You need a total of 4 tunnels. Both the tunnels will need their own maintenance/ safety services tunnels.

Now, if they are mostly using tunnels, where are the solar panels now?

I think if you multiplied any current estimate of costs by 10, you would still be underestimating the costs.

To make it even worse, they are talking about sending shipping containers on the hyperloop at 800km/h or more. How much kinetic energy can a loaded shipping container have at this speed? The vehicle will probably have to have at least the mass of the heaviest container.
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