-
I'm actually on a hyperloop team and the main thing being talked about at the moment is cargo, not people. Sending shipping containers from one end of the country to another at 3000km/h is very attractive.
300 km/h matching or beating most fast trains I can easily believe.
800 km/h makes me go "hmmmmm"
3000 km/h completely fails to pass the giggle test.
Well... maybe, but there has to be a tough-to-reach goal to make it interesting
Point: If we can avoid ships going into the Mediterranean or through the Panama canal to the East coast of the USA it's a big deal.
-
Another Thunderf00t video:
-
Heres example where we help to channel students talent:
4WD torque vectoring formula car with carbon monocoque. 220kg, 1680Nm torque, <2.6s 0-100km/h. Outaccelerating Tesla P90D (video in the middle of article):
http://www.postimees.ee/3850729/video-kumb-on-kiirem-kas-tesla-voi-elektrivormel
Sponsors will be given to test-drive latest model soon, interesting how it compares to formula Renault and 2007 Williams F1 Ive tried before. Think it will be very violent on the neck, will go karting today to regain shape a bit
I wonder which is eventually more satisfying for student, to watch some weird contraption in rusty tube that cant even turn or drive formula car he and mates designed...
Ok, maybe for some seeing Musk-god up close will deliver but that aspect has little to do with engineering for practical end-goal 
-
More Hyperloop BS, this time in Australia, and hint at superanuation companies being interested
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/plan-to-build-hyperloop-for-highspeed-travel-via-inland-route-to-brisbane/news-story/c8f1d7b38a5c94df48a15bc27d7d96c9
And only 38 months from go-ahead to carrying passengers
and this utter bullshit, both the "full-scale tests" and the timeline claims.QuoteHyperloop One successfully completed the first full-scale tests at a track in the Nevada Desert and aims to have three services operating around the world by 2021.
-
AUS has some f-'d up politicians,
they should concentrate on expanding coal mining etc now we are entering a global cooling period.
the value of fuel is only going to rise.
-
my coworkers just won't shut up about hyperloop. this elon musk worship blinds them to all critical thinking.
-
More Hyperloop BS, this time in Australia, and hint at superanuation companies being interested
Australia is not the only country. Over here in the NL the government would like companies to build a 5km test track which can transport real people. The idea is to extend the system to connect two airports together IF it works. A high speed train track would be so much easier. The distance is like 50km so the door-to-door travel time will be dominated by waiting for the train to arrive anyway.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/plan-to-build-hyperloop-for-highspeed-travel-via-inland-route-to-brisbane/news-story/c8f1d7b38a5c94df48a15bc27d7d96c9 -
they should concentrate on expanding coal mining etc now we are entering a global cooling period.
We are? (Looking out the window at the missing snow) -
they should concentrate on expanding coal mining etc now we are entering a global cooling period.
We are? (Looking out the window at the missing snow)
The warming hasn't been dramatic, and neither will any cooling be.
Everyone is by now accepting that we have at least a "pause" in warming. The conventional thinking is it warming will resume shortly. But it's perfectly possible that it's actually a maximum and cooling will set in for a period -- or permanently.
Anyone who bothers to go and look at the actual data can see a pretty obvious pattern. e.g.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:60
This is the latest series combining sea surface temperatures from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and land surface temperatures from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.
i.e. *the* standard data source
I applied smoothing by averaging 5 years to make the trends more obvious.
Namely:
- warming from 1850 to 1880
- cooling from 1880 to 1910
- warming from 1910 to 1945
- slight cooling from 1945 to 1975
- warming from 1975 to 1998
- the "pause" or maybe slight cooling from 1998 to the present, except for a big spike due to last year's El Nino
The observant will notice that each phase has been roughly 30 years long. If the pattern continues we can expect the Earth to cool until about 2030.
The warming periods are, so far, stronger than the cooling periods, in keeping with overall warming since the Little Ice Age around the 16th to 19th centuries.
The 1975 to 1998 warming period is not significantly different in nature to the 1910 to 1945 warming period.
Feel free to select other series.
-
We'll probably see less hot days due to the sun's activity declining over the next few years (there is data to back that up) but overall the climate has become warmer during my lifetime. When I was a kid there used to be snow and ice during the winter. Those kind of winters are long gone. Some people even did the unthinkable and started to grow grapes and produce wine in the southern parts of the NL.
-
We'll probably see less hot days due to the sun's activity declining over the next few years (there is data to back that up) but overall the climate has become warmer during my lifetime. When I was a kid there used to be snow and ice during the winter. Those kind of winters are long gone. Some people even did the unthinkable and started to grow grapes and produce wine in the southern parts of the NL.
Unfortunately you can't tell much from one small area.
In the case of NL, the weather and climate are very affected by the jetstream over the north atlantic:
https://bigsalty.com/en/charts/jet_stream_forecast/netherlands/
It wanders up and down, sometimes passing over NL and sometimes not, with changes on both short and long time scales.
If one place gets hotter as a result of a movement of the jetstream then another place a few hundred km away gets colder.
-
Unfortunately you can't tell much from one small area.
You are aware that the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere reached 407.06 ppm in October? Things are not like they used to be. The levels reconstructed from ice cores going back more than 400 000 years never exceeded 300 ppm.
-
Unfortunately you can't tell much from one small area.
You are aware that the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere reached 407.06 ppm in October? Things are not like they used to be. The levels reconstructed from ice cores going back more than 400 000 years never exceeded 300 ppm.
And so?
Someone has a theory that carbon dioxide levels control temperature. They made up all kinds of equations and ran them on a computer and made predictions -- which have never yet been anything like accurate.
Someone else has a theory that temperature controls carbon dioxide levels. Some of the historical records appear to show temperature changing a few hundred years before a corresponding CO2 change. Maybe. Those measurements are done using indirect methods which we have no idea whether they work accurately, or whether the time scale is accurate.
What I showed is actual temperature measurements, using the relatively modern method of a thermometer and written down on paper at the time, over the last 150 or so years.
I have issues with whether you can really average temperatures across the whole world and get a meaningful single number accurate to 0.01C -- especially from instruments 150 years ago -- and I even doubt whether the whole concept makes physical sense, but this is the closest thing to actual real data in this field.
Data, not a theory, or the output of a sensitive and unstable numerical integration process run on a computer.
-
What I showed is actual temperature measurements, using the relatively modern method of a thermometer and written down on paper at the time, over the last 150 or so years.
The temperature in the graph you link to shows an exponential rise in temperature over the past150 years. Either way even IF CO2 isn't the cause it is not a bad idea to change to reduce energy consumption and switch to renewable energy sources because the fossil fuels we are relying on will run out pretty quick especially if you look at the commercially viable sources and the sources which don't have a political price tag. West Europe for example does not want to rely on gas from Russia because that gives people like Putin way too much power. -
What I showed is actual temperature measurements, using the relatively modern method of a thermometer and written down on paper at the time, over the last 150 or so years.
The temperature in the graph you link to shows an exponential rise in temperature over the past150 years.
Exponential?
You can draw a straight line dead through the mid point of each of those ~30 year warming and cooling periods. Try it.QuoteEither way even IF CO2 isn't the cause it is not a bad idea to change to reduce energy consumption and switch to renewable energy sources because the fossil fuels we are relying on will run out pretty quick
Except they won't run out. There have never been bigger known reserves than right now, and production capability continues to increase (despite repeated "peak oil" predictions). What has ACTUALLY peaked is demand, now falling below production capacity because of everything from cars to factories needing less energy and engines getting more efficient at the same time. The price is going to drop out the bottom of the oil and gas markets, with or without renewables.Quoteespecially if you look at the commercially viable sources and the sources which don't have a political price tag. West Europe for example does not want to rely on gas from Russia because that gives people like Putin way too much power.
So now we've gone from "we're all gonna fry!" to "I don't like some guy's politics". That's a slightly less critical thing, don't you think?
But don't worry, Putin's going to run out of money pretty quick, because of the falling prices because of the hugely increased production in every country that doesn't bow to "environmentalists" (mostly from fracking) and concurrent decreased consumption from technology. Russia's long term economic prospects are totally fucked if they continue to rely on gas.
-
Hyperloop test track tour at CES 2018
more hype -
i said it before, but musk is just a subsidy hunting fraud(or maybe a front??).
https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P4874.html -
If it's worked in the past, it's worth trying in the future. So far, Musk's things are built entirely on investment. To keep putting along, what does he need more of, then?
Tim -
I dunno, the last company I remember with Hype in the name ...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/hyperchip-to-announce-20-million-in-financing/article22499787/
went nowhere. We were looking at renting their space years ago, but it was too large. -
i said it before, but musk is just a subsidy hunting fraud(or maybe a front??).
Except he barely received anything than can be called subsidies. Most of those "subsidies" are nothing more than some tax deduction over time period of like 20 years, no actual money given. Basically drop of water in the sea. All money received from Nasa was for doing particular work, and actually relatively small money compared to what "traditional" space companies receive. Spacex launches cost Nasa 3x less than ULA charges. Or, for example, Boeing received 2x more money for much inferior CST-100 Starliner manned space capsule development compared with Dragon V2.
As of fraud, in 2017 Spacex made more Launches than the rest of US and Russia combined. Most of those were commercial launches, which were non existent in US for last 10 years because of not being competitive. Almost all were made by Russia and Arianespace. -
i said it before, but musk is just a subsidy hunting fraud(or maybe a front??).
https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P4874.html
You’re in the wrong thread. Here’s the Musk hate thread
Musk is not financially involved with the various hyperloop companies. -
Since some revived this old thread I watched the video in the first post. I find it cringeworthy. Commercial airliners are made of aluminium composite material and they deal with similar pressures safely so why is that suddenly a problem for the hyperloop? Also the expansion problem isn't there because they already solved that with oil pipelines. The same goes with pressurisation in case of a breach. For example: remote controlled inlet valves can be installed do a controlled pressurisation of the rest of the tube.
If the maker of the video lived 200-ish years ago he'd probably made a similar video about the dangers of steam trains.
Sure a hyperloop is complicated but the rewards can be very high. A lot of energy needed to transport something is wasted on friction with air (dominant at high speeds) and road surface. Lower the friction and the transport costs go down. So the real question is whether the resources and energy needed to build and operate a hyperloop are worth the energy savings. And remember: you don't need to transport people perse. -
Since some revived this old thread I watched the video in the first post. I find it cringeworthy. Commercial airliners are made of aluminium composite material and they deal with similar pressures safely so why is that suddenly a problem for the hyperloop?
I'm not a mechanical engineer, yet I can think of many show-stopper problems and why this comparison with planes is not meaningful. -
The airplane is just an example of a pressure vessel made as light as possible and yet it withstands similar pressure differences like the hyperloop is supposed to do. Actually an oil or gas pipeline is pretty much comparable to the build scale of a hyperloop tube (and oil and gas pipeline use much higher pressures). It is not like they are building something completely new. For once don't ignore the fact a lot of very smart people are working on building hyperloops allover the world and have working prototypes. Now it all comes down to whether it makes sense economically or not (which intrinsically means getting it safe to operate).Since some revived this old thread I watched the video in the first post. I find it cringeworthy. Commercial airliners are made of aluminium composite material and they deal with similar pressures safely so why is that suddenly a problem for the hyperloop?
I'm not a mechanical engineer, yet I can think of many show-stopper problems and why this comparison with planes is not meaningful. -
How are you getting up to his speeds if you deal with expansion like oil pipelines as you suggest?? Gonna be one wild as hell ride!
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-oil-pipelines-that-transfer-oil-long-distances-run-in-a-zigzag-manner