General > General Technical Chat
The Hyperloop: BUSTED
<< < (69/113) > >>
nctnico:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on January 20, 2018, 11:33:41 pm ---Some numbers on MagLev operating energy consumed:
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/ilonidis2/


--- Quote ---Maglev is also a very cheap and efficient mode of transportation. Maglev operating costs will be only 3 cents per passenger mile and 7 cents per ton mile, compared to 15 cents per passenger mile for airplanes and 30 cents per ton mile for intercity trucks. [8] Guideways can last for at least 50 years with a minimal maintenance because there is no mechanical contact and wear. [8] At 480 kilometers per hour, maglev consumes 0.4 megajoules per passenger mile compared to 4 megajoules per passenger mile of oil fuel for a 8.5-kilometers-per-liter (20 miles-per-gallon) auto that carries 1.8 people at 96 kilometers per hour. [8]. It is also interesting to compare the efficiency of maglev trains and conventional high-speed trains. Table 1 shows the energy consumption of the German high-speed maglev Transrapid and the German high-speed train ICE 3, both as functions of speed. Transrapid has better efficiency above 330 kilometers per hour but it is less efficient below 330 kilometers per hour.
--- End quote ---

This is without the evacuated tube, a.k.a Hyperloop.

Seems that most of the cost goes into the new infrastructure required. Hypoerloop will be what, maybe half an order more expensive than normal Maglev?

--- End quote ---
But the Maglev is only marginally more efficient compared to a regular train according to that website. And the reason is simple: friction. And friction losses go up squared when the speed increases and that is exactly what the primary problem the hyperloop addresses. All in all the extra costs of the Maglev don't get you a lot advantages in energy preservation. And if you think only the Maglev can go fast then I hate to tell that the French have tested their TGV at speeds over 550km/h only existing tracks.
EEVblog:

--- Quote from: nctnico on January 21, 2018, 12:09:31 am ---But the Maglev is only marginally more efficient compared to a regular train according to that website. And the reason is simple: friction. And friction losses go up squared when the speed increases and that is exactly what the primary problem the hyperloop addresses. All in all the extra costs of the Maglev don't get you a lot advantages in energy preservation. And if you think only the Maglev can go fast then I hate to tell that the French have tested their TGV at speeds over 550km/h only existing tracks.

--- End quote ---

I'm not saying MagLev is viable, in fact it seems not based on the lack of uptake.
The point is that that Hyperloop is just Maglev + Huge amount of extra cost and engineering complexity + less reliability + extra safety concerns, for what? Perhaps a small reduction in running cost, and some extra speed that would be lucky if it was double the existing solutions.
Yeah, Hyperloop sounds like a winner  ::)
wraper:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on January 21, 2018, 12:31:31 am ---
--- Quote from: nctnico on January 21, 2018, 12:09:31 am ---But the Maglev is only marginally more efficient compared to a regular train according to that website. And the reason is simple: friction. And friction losses go up squared when the speed increases and that is exactly what the primary problem the hyperloop addresses. All in all the extra costs of the Maglev don't get you a lot advantages in energy preservation. And if you think only the Maglev can go fast then I hate to tell that the French have tested their TGV at speeds over 550km/h only existing tracks.

--- End quote ---

I'm not saying MagLev is viable, in fact it seems not based on the lack of uptake.
The point is that that Hyperloop is just Maglev + Huge amount of extra cost and engineering complexity + less reliability + extra safety concerns, for what? Perhaps a small reduction in running cost, and some extra speed that would be lucky if it was double the existing solutions.
Yeah, Hyperloop sounds like a winner  ::)

--- End quote ---
You only need a relatively small fraction of usual maglev power to move the thing within vacuum / low pressure air. Therefore maglev part of the system becomes much cheaper. If you can keep the tube part reasonably priced, then it's more viable than pushing the air by brute force of full blown maglev.
james_s:

--- Quote from: nctnico on January 20, 2018, 02:25:29 pm ---A Boeing 747 at 800km/h weighing 350 metric tonnes has a kinetic energy of over 17GJ.

--- End quote ---

Potentially carrying something like 57,000 US gallons of fuel too.

David Hess:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on January 21, 2018, 12:31:31 am ---I'm not saying MagLev is viable, in fact it seems not based on the lack of uptake.
The point is that that Hyperloop is just Maglev + Huge amount of extra cost and engineering complexity + less reliability + extra safety concerns, for what? Perhaps a small reduction in running cost, and some extra speed that would be lucky if it was double the existing solutions.
Yeah, Hyperloop sounds like a winner  ::)
--- End quote ---

I wonder though if the extra construction cost to produce the specialized track or partial vacuum tube in this case is insignificant compared to the costs of securing a high speed rail track and purchasing the right of way.

How do other countries secure their high speed rail lines from vandalism?
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