But really, my point is not about the hyperloop. My point is that if you claim BUSTED, you need to actually show BUSTED. And saying "Can't you see how ridiculous this is?" isn't showing anything. Doesn't have to be an airtight proof, but there have to be at least a couple of steps in that direction. And if you don't do that, I'll call it an unconvincing argument, regardless of whether I think that the claim has merit or not.
Now one fails to open:
BUSTED means it isn't a practical solution.
Hyperloop is different - this is a new concept and most of the technology has yet to be developed.
Hmm, it's also fairly important that railroad switches don't fail. Congratulations for once again delivering an argument that "busts" existing railroads just as much as the hyperloop. Seriously, I'm not defending the practicality of the Hyperloop, much like Maxlor. But pithy remarks like this that don't actually bust anything are exactly the sort of polarizing rhetoric that makes the internet such an echo-chamber.
BUSTED means it isn't a practical solution.The claims made by solar roadways can be demonstrated to be impossible on the back of an envelope. Not just impractical, but forbidden by the basic laws of physics. The story for batteriser is similar.
The hyperloop could be constructed, theoretically. It might be insanely dangerous. It might cost more money that the entire world has. It might be entirely pointless, and indeed massively impractical. But it is not outright impossible.
Hyperloop is different - this is a new concept and most of the technology has yet to be developed.
It's a concept that is nearly 100 year old.
Hyperloop is different - this is a new concept and most of the technology has yet to be developed.
It's a concept that is nearly 100 year old.
You Europeans are missing the context, which is the enormous boondoggle/scam called California High Speed Rail. Hyperloop may seem implausible, but at least it has a chance, where most people think CHSR is guaranteed to fail
Hyperloop is different - this is a new concept and most of the technology has yet to be developed.
It's a concept that is nearly 100 year old.
I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the specific case of using it ("the compressor within a tube" concept) for mass transit on a large scale - and not the general concept of transport of an object in a low pressure tube - which has been around and used for years...
The comparison to solar roadways is bogus in either case.
Hyperloop is different - this is a new concept and most of the technology has yet to be developed.
It's a concept that is nearly 100 year old.
I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the specific case of using it ("the compressor within a tube" concept) for mass transit on a large scale - and not the general concept of transport of an object in a low pressure tube - which has been around and used for years...
The comparison to solar roadways is bogus in either case.
In fact, its specific case of mass transit has been in use for almost 200 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_railway
Where as with the vactrain i.e. Hyperloop, the supposed benefit is frictionless travel.
Maglev to get rid of wheel friction and a vacuum environment to get rid of air resistance.
So like I said, completely unfair and disingenuous to suggest that this is in the same line as the
conceptually stupid solar roadway project.
The claims made by solar roadways can be demonstrated to be impossible on the back of an envelope. Not just impractical, but forbidden by the basic laws of physics.
Why bother?
I've been on a MagLev train at 430kmh, it works, it's safe, it's robust, and it's fast enough.
To go through orders of magnitude more engineering complexity, safety, and security to get the only tangible benefit which is double the speed seems pretty darn stupid to me.
It's a completely fair conceptual benefits comparison I think.
The benefit of Hyperloop is double the speed of existing proven MagLev at the cost of orders of magnitude more complexity
The benefit of Solar Roadways is using existing road surface area at the cost of orders of magnitude more complexity.
That is a completely fair assessment and one I would not argue with but it is completely different than TF's attempt at "busting" it.
The difference is that the solar roadways claims regarding solar output (and therefore benefit of the roadway) are easily and verifiably false where as the possibility of building a hyperloop with the benefits as envisioned by Musk is unknown - despite TFs elaborating on some of the challenges. They may turn out to be insurmountable - but at this point that is an unknown.
Where as with the vactrain i.e. Hyperloop, the supposed benefit is frictionless travel.
Maglev to get rid of wheel friction and a vacuum environment to get rid of air resistance.
Why bother?
I've been on a MagLev train at 430kmh, it works, it's safe, it's robust, and it's fast enough.
To go through orders of magnitude more engineering complexity, safety, and security to get the only tangible benefit which is double the speed seems pretty darn stupid to me.
It something you can easily do back-of-the-envelope calcs on to ascertain the potential problems as TF has done.
You could use the same argument to suggest that "high speed rail" as extensively used in Germany and the UK at half the speed and half the cost again would be sufficient.
Maglev has some unique features making it attractive for short routes (Airport-CBD links are just about perfect) but its not a sure thing.
Externalising costs of the infrastructure makes air travel more cost effective than rail at the moment, and the hyper loop appears to be no more energy efficient than conventional rail so its hard to find much attractive about it.
So in light of that problem, an engineer wondering as to how much better a train would function in a low pressure environment, or
a vacuum, isn't a completely disconnected thought, unlike with the solar roadway project.
And suppose that doubling of the speed came for roughly the same energy expense as a train traveling half that speed through
air at 1atm? That would be getting a level of performance that would normally require 8 times more power!
How easy would it have been to do back of the envelope calculations to ascertain the potential problems of proposed NASA missions 60 years ago?
It something you can easily do back-of-the-envelope calcs on to ascertain the potential problems as TF has done.
I think pointing out potential problems is very different than "busting" something. As others have said, it dilutes the "busted brand". It will just lead to a boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon.
How easy would it have been to do back of the envelope calculations to ascertain the potential problems of proposed NASA missions 60 years ago?
Often projects like the Hyperloop, are used as R&D sinks to develop core technology for other future ventures. Not to say the Hyperloop team don't believe in it, but there would be much more confidence in developing the fundamental technologies.