Slashdot Mirror


University Students Made a Working Model Hyperloop

derekmead writes: Elon Musk's Hyperloop gets people excited. Promise the ability to travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in less than an hour, and you're going to get people salivating. But for as much as we've heard about it, we've had scarcely little to see—until a team of students at the University of Illinois decided to build their very own miniature hyperloop.

Mechanical engineering students at the university built a functioning 1:24 scale model of the Hyperloop, a "fourth mode of transportation" that sends pods through a partially pressurized tube at very high speeds, as part of a senior design project. It was designed to test some of the key components of Musk's design, which was outlined in a much-read, open source whitepaper (PDF) published in August of 2013. That said, there are several key differences, which keep this from truly being a proof-of-concept as to whether or not the Hyperloop will ultimately work.

154 comments

  1. Sure ... by gstoddart · · Score: 0

    the ability to travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in less than an hour

    I am exceedingly skeptical this would be survivable by humans.

    Suddenly I'm picturing Garfield plastered to the car window.

    It just seems like the forces involved in accelerating and stopping would pretty much result in "puree". :-P

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Sure ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does hyperloop have a contingency plan when all power is lost and the shuttle is stationary within the tube for 5-6 hours before emergency help arrives? IOW, what's the probability passengers will die due to lack of oxygen in the worst case scenario?

    2. Re:Sure ... by bv728 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Planes generally average around 500mph, and the average plane flight time between SF and LA is... roughly 57 minutes. You'd have to hit much higher speeds to not be survivable. You're just going to be spending the last 15 minutes slowing down gradually.

    3. Re:Sure ... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      "LaForge to bridge: Captain, the inertial dampeners are offline. Do NOT drop out of warp."

    4. Re:Sure ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Informative

      LOL ... well, I'll accept my being a moron as the problem here ... despite reading it, and knowing where those cities are located ... my brain was treating that as a "coast to coast in an hour", like New York to LA.

      You are utterly correct.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Sure ... by jules_d'entremont · · Score: 1

      It just seems like the forces involved in accelerating and stopping would pretty much result in "puree". :-P

      Let's do the math. To travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in an hour requires an average speed of 166 m/s. Accelerating at 1 G (9.8 m/s), it would take 17 seconds to reach that speed. If that's too much acceleration for you, do half the acceleration for 34 seconds. Either way, no puree.

    6. Re:Sure ... by PIBM · · Score: 1

      How long does a plane take to travel between both places ?

      There's barely 560 km between both locations. An hyperloop device accelerating at the same speed a Tesla P85D does (lets say 33 km / h / s) would reach 600 km/h in 18 seconds. And a Tesla does't tend to splatter it's occupant on acceleration. If the environment is stable and safe and the vacuum is tight and the suspension is magnetic, it's easy to think about 2 minutes of acceleration, cruise and rotate the seats, 2 minutes of deceleration (which would feel like 2 minutes of acceleration)

      Back of the hand calculations yields a speed of 3960 km/h reached after 66km (2 minutes in), 6 minutes 30 of cruise, and 2 minutes of deceleration. for a total of 10:30 without dangerous forces being used( provided the path is straight... yeah)

    7. Re:Sure ... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      They could still do so. It'd just take about 4 years from warp 2 to reach a stop... ;)

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    8. Re:Sure ... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Actually it's very achievable.
      I'm going to use metric system because I'm most used to it.
      Distance between SF and LA is 644 km.
      An object accelerating constantly for 1800 seconds which would travel half the distance (322 km) in 1800 seconds only needs an acceleration of 0.2006 m/s^2 (0.02046g). It needs to decelerate constantly by the same rate for the rest of 1800 seconds to make the whole trip in 1h.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    9. Re:Sure ... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      >>>> travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in less than an hour
      >> I am exceedingly skeptical this would be survivable by humans.

      Turn in your geek card. Here's an easy back-of-the-envelope calculation for you.

      Let's start with a gentle rate of acceleration and deceleration at 1mph/sec (e.g., "zero to sixty in 2 minutes"). That means that the vehicle is at a maximum speed of 420mph in 7 minutes, during which time it travelled about 24 miles. The distance between SF and LA is about 400 miles, so assume we have 350 miles to cover at top speed. That happens in 50 minutes, which when added to 7 times two is about 64 minutes. In other words, we can achieve this trip with less-than-elevator acceleration in about an hour.

    10. Re:Sure ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only someone as smart as you were on the project, they wouldn't have wasted all this time! Such a shame.

    11. Re:Sure ... by plopez · · Score: 0

      Nice unbiased poll you've got there.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    12. Re:Sure ... by bws111 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most of the time it is coasting, so a power loss would not cause it to stop. If one does get stuck, they have emergency air, and the capsules behind the stuck one would drive themselves back to the station with onboard motors. The life support systems are battery powered. And why would it take 5-6 hours for emergency help to arrive? This thing is not in the middle of nowhere, it is following I-5 between LA and SF.

    13. Re:Sure ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They seem to survive the hour trip just fine on a plane.

    14. Re:Sure ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Small acceleration values result in high velocity over time. That's the concept behind the ion thruster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster. The reverse is also true; small deceleration values will eventually stop an object moving at high velocity. For example, accelerating at .25 M/S^2 for 30 minutes will get you up to 450M/S. Accelerating at .5 M/S^2 will get you up to 900M/S. That's ignoring all losses due to friction of course. That's not hard acceleration. Much less than my car is capable of.

    15. Re:Sure ... by Burdell · · Score: 4, Informative

      Coast to coast still wouldn't be that big of a deal. The SR-71 Blackbird flew from LA to Washington DC in 64 minutes 20 seconds.

    16. Re:Sure ... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      But planes essentially go straight except for the very beginning and ending of the flight. They don't have to dodge the Mountains of the Southern Coast Range. And they aren't doing it at Mach I.

      So you wouldn't be plastered to the back windows, but the side windows would be a wee bit of a problem.

    17. Re:Sure ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      NY to LA is 2448 miles - at an acceleration of 1g (~22 (Miles per hour) per second) it would take 102 seconds (1.7 minutes) to achieve a speed capable of going from LA to NY in an hour. As long as there aren't any sharp curves, or things to hit along the way, there aren't any forces that would prevent a 1hr trip from LA to NY. Hell the SR-71 made the trip from NY to London in 1hr 40 minutes, and that's 1000 miles farther at ground level - let alone at the 80k - 90k feet the SR71 flew at.

    18. Re:Sure ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New York - Los Angeles is about 4000 km. To do that in one hour you need an average speed of 1111 m/s. Lets round up to mach 4 for a simple estimate (that's 1361 m/s). If you accelerate at 1/3 g (about the same ballpark as a commercial airliner taking off) it will take 6 minutes 54 seconds to reach that speed, let's round up to 7 minutes.

      Now let's reverse the calculation: If you accelerate from zero to mach 4 in the first 7 minutes, then coast for 46 minutes, and then slow down back to zero for for 7 minutes, you will travel a distance of 4328 km. So a travel time of a less than one hour for New Your to Los Angeles would be possible if the track is straight and allows a speed of mach 4. That's much more than the currently proposed speed but maybe not impossible...

    19. Re:Sure ... by bws111 · · Score: 2

      Their proposed route never exceeds 0.5g in any direction, and the capsules can bank.

    20. Re:Sure ... by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Reference please. All I have seen is a mention of following I5.

    21. Re:Sure ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good lord a correction that didn't descend into mudslinging on the internet. It really *must* be a new era.

    22. Re:Sure ... by bws111 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Their whitepaper, starting on page 39.

    23. Re:Sure ... by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      My issue is with turn radius. Using your example and constraining the maximum perceived gforce to 1.5 we come up with the following.

      With a downward force of 1G the maximum centripetal acceleration would be 1.1G. 1.5^2 = 1^ + x^2.
      The equation for centripital acceleration is A = v^2/R. Therefore 1.1 = (166)^2/r Therefore r = (166)^2/1.1 = 25km. That is a very big turning radius. To put it another way, it would take 4.3 Km of tube to change direction 10 degrees. Interstate 5 turns a lot sharper than that so I think the the "following I5" idea is a pipe dream.

    24. Re:Sure ... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 3, Funny

      And why would it take 5-6 hours for emergency help to arrive? This thing is not in the middle of nowhere, it is following I-5 between LA and SF.

      A couple of fender benders during rush hour on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving and it will take 5-6 hours to go 4 car lengths. ;-)

    25. Re:Sure ... by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      That is not much detail at all. Those two page do not show a detailed route or investigations into any of the trouble spots along the way. Drawing a line on a map is very easy. Here is a quote from the article;

      This can be achieved by deviating from the current highway system, earth removal, constructing pylons to achieve elevation change or tunneling.

      That sounds a lot like "we'lI think about it later". think they will be deviating from the current highway system a lot.

    26. Re:Sure ... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      I think your math is off. According to their whitepaper, the turning radius at 1220km/h (339m/s) is 23.5km. Plugging that into your formula gives a centripetal acceleration of 4.9m/s^2, or 0.5g.

      While they are mostly following I-5, they deviate when necessary to smooth the turns. That is one of the reasons it is built on pylons.

    27. Re:Sure ... by bws111 · · Score: 2

      Read more than 2 pages. Pages 44-50 show the details, including the turning radii and the deviations from I-5.

    28. Re:Sure ... by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      I was off by a factor of 9,8.

    29. Re:Sure ... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Now that I look at it more, that math is a big WTF. The 'A' in that formula is not in units of 'G's, it is in m/s^2. Since 1G is about 9.8m/s^2, the correct formula is 10.78 = (166)^2/r or r=(166)^2/10.78, or 2.5km.

      Instead of just assuming you know what they are doing, and using bad math to prove them wrong, why not actually READ the document and see what they are ACTUALLY proposing?

    30. Re:Sure ... by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      I finally did read the rest but it never states how much land outside the I5 right of way it would need.

    31. Re:Sure ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, drive itself back to the station. What happens when it's in Oklahoma? Drive back to Cali? This isn't a well thought out idea. I put it up there with the Mars Mission.

    32. Re:Sure ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nevermind, I made the same mistake as others. I thought it was a cross country deal.

    33. Re:Sure ... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "And why would it take 5-6 hours for emergency help to arrive? This thing is not in the middle of nowhere, it is following I-5 between LA and SF."

      Because it's California, and that's probably how long it would take to file all the required statements of environmental impact and get a court's okay, even with the expedited procedures I'm sure would be put in place if Hyperloop were actually built.

    34. Re:Sure ... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Dude, if they're on the I5 Right of Way the are turning in 3D too much. It's got a legendary "grapevine grade" in Kern County.

      If they take over a lane, or the median, and build a viaduct a couple stories high, they may be able to beat things like the Grapevine Grade. But then they have to deal with mountains and hills the I5 tunneled through, overpasses, etc. And it's kinda easy to say "we'll take over the median," but I suspect the supports for the huge towers you'd need to make the grapevine grade survivable are gonna be pretty damn expensive.

      I'd be a whole lot more sympathetic to their arguments if they didn't boil down to "we costed out the stuff that doesn't cost much, and it doesn't cost much; and clearly nothing else will be relevant because we don;t want it to be relevant."

    35. Re:Sure ... by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      I made a mistake. Sorry. The document is still pretty vague. I would like to be able to actually see how far from the right of way the proposed route actually is. The map is not detailed enough for that.

    36. Re:Sure ... by bondsbw · · Score: 4, Informative

      For that matter, at 1g for the entire duration of the ride (1g acceleration halfway, 1g deceleration the other half) it would only take a bit over 21 minutes.

      And if we want to talk about human survivability, Wikipedia tells me that humans can generally tolerate up to 5g before blacking out. At that rate it would take about 9.5 minutes one way.

      And if we're just looking to get there in an hour, 1/8 g would do the trick.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    37. Re:Sure ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the speed that kills you, it the acceleration. You could accelerate to 99% of the speed of light at 1 G (assuming you had the technology and didn't get destroyed by running into dust particles or fried by blue shifted light) and be totally fine.

    38. Re:Sure ... by Firethorn · · Score: 0

      It's not actually a poll.

      It's the Socratic Method.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    39. Re:Sure ... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Oops, forgot that it was the cube, not the square. I figured on 4C, not 2C.

      Then again, if one figures that their gravity generators aren't broken(just the inertial comp.), and they can manage to negate 2G sufficiently, it'd still only take 4 years. ;)

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    40. Re:Sure ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The SR-71 Blackbird flew from LA to Washington DC in 64 minutes 20 seconds.

      Note that the time does not include take off, climb or landing. The time starts overhead a particular navigation point with the plane flying at speed and ends overhead another point.

    41. Re:Sure ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was that takeoff-to-landing or was that passing over one city and then the other while already at cruising speed?

    42. Re: Sure ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you work out the math, about 0.02Gs constant acceleration to the mid point, then a corresponding deceleration for the second half could do it. You can get going really fast if you speed up slowly for a long time.

    43. Re:Sure ... by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      New Zealand is about 20000km from where i currently live. at 0.2g max acceleration you can cover that distance from stationary starting to stationary stop in less than two hours (6300seconds). So your idea of forces involved for high speed are quite false. Of course in this example top speed would be 6232m/s, or about 15% below orbital speed. quite impractical for a plane, or even this concept. But it illustrates the point.

      In short your top speed is what matters. There are no inherent forces that kill you at speed and acceleration can be very mild.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    44. Re:Sure ... by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      I can slow down for the sharper corners. Like High speed rail does you know. Since its a v^2 term you don't need to slow down much.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    45. Re:Sure ... by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      Aviation speed records are typically overflown, and are measured point to point. The Blackbird circled far enough over the Pacific to allow it to cross back over LA at cruising speed; it also overflew DC and then slowed and circled back.

      (BTW, any practically any pilot can set a record - just find a point to point run that hasn't been declared yet.)

    46. Re:Sure ... by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      Not every correction descends into mudslinging, you insensitive clod!

    47. Re:Sure ... by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      And they aren't doing it at Mach I.

      Maybe not Mach 1.00, but Mach 0.80 to Mach 0.85 (airliner cruising speeds) aren't that far off.

    48. Re:Sure ... by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      What if the replacement viaduct took the i5 over the grapvine grade as well as the hyperloop?

      There are a lot of roads where a viaduct over a valley would save considerable time, money and fuel over the current norm of terrain-following. Just because that's the way stagecoaches did it doesn't mean that it's appropriate for newer technologies.

    49. Re:Sure ... by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Unlike rail, the hyperloop vehicles are able to bank inside the tubes so that cabin gravity is always apparently floorwards. (In fact if the CoG is low, then the banking comes for free, assuming a cylindrical profile.)

      That in turn allows much tighter bend radii than rail where the limitations are mechanical stresses on the tube from passing pods and how much vertical G forces you're prepared to subject your passengers to (3G for 30 seconds is quite tolerable from my own experience deliberately spiral diving aircraft. More than that and passengers will probably complain loudly)

      It's worth pointing out that HSR systems in the EU use bend radii in the region of 4-5 MILES for full-speed direction changes, and as with rail, the right-of-way only needs to be 30 feet wide for hyperloop.

    50. Re:Sure ... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Hyperloop's maximum speed is projected to be 760 MPH, Mach I at sea level is 761, and Mach numbers go down as elevation goes up.

    51. Re:Sure ... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Viaducts never save construction money. The reason is pretty simple: the road-bed you build on the viaduct has to be equivalent of the one you'd build on the dirt, which means the only way to save money is on digging the hole the road-bed would go into. And that's only cheaper if you're in a magical place with easily diggable dirt patches located precisely where you need them.

      In the long-term they tend to save money as manageable grades reduce fuel consumption and the need for specialized equipment, but Hyperloop isn't in that phase yet.

    52. Re:Sure ... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      The banking thing is interesting, but you totally destroy your credibility with the 3.0 Gs thing.

      Hyperloop is not supposed to be a mode of travel grandma can't use. 0.2G is roughly what the competition is doing, and Musk's proposed 0.5 G would actually be comparable to a roller coaster.

      This is an idea that'll work great and be near or under cost at scale, but that's because people won't be in it. I am not saying it's a bad idea, or that it's not possible that we'll be zipping our way around on Hyperloops in 2100, but this is a new technology. It's not software. It is pretty much impossible for it to be all three of faster, cheaper, and better without a few more years of aggressive development.

    53. Re:Sure ... by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      It's top speed may be pushing Mach 1, but the elevation is not an issue. Fighter planes see higher (not lower) Mach numbers with increasing altitude because the speed of sound decreases with altitude (and I think that that is what you meant). However, it is the lower temperature at higher altitudes that is the cause - not the reduced pressure. The temperature in the Hyperloop tube s/b the same (or slightly) higher than its surroundings.

    54. Re:Sure ... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Textbook case of disproving a minor point. Whether it's the speed of sound in the air around the tube, or the speed of sound from a table doesn't really change the argument.

      My point is that this thing's going significantly faster then anything we let your grandma ride in today, that it's also supposed to make turns in the same radius as a car, all three dimensions (20-100 ft elevation means that you're going up and down relative to the roadbed, which itself goes up and down), etc. It's designed to have a lateral g-force of 0.5 Gs, which is comparable to roller-coasters.

      This is not an idea that's likely to actually work without a whole lot more development.

    55. Re:Sure ... by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      Textbook case of disproving a minor point. Whether it's the speed of sound in the air around the tube, or the speed of sound from a table doesn't really change the argument.

      It may seem to be a minor point, but you were the one to bring it up! The top speed of around 760 mph is quite obviously chosen so that it remains subsonic (or did you think it wouldn't pull 765?).

      My point is that this thing's going significantly faster then anything we let your grandma ride in today,

      And my point is that it is very close to typical jet speeds - which my grandma, were she alive today, would be quite comfortable with. It isn't speed you feel, it is acceleration. Its only practical speed limit is the speed of sound, which also limits your airliner speed. And speaking of acceleration . . .

      that it's also supposed to make turns in the same radius as a car,

      No, not even close. The route mostly follows the I-5, but deviates to keep the turning radii large enough to limit inertial acceleration forces to 0.5g - which is described as the most that a person can comfortably sustain for short periods.

      all three dimensions (20-100 ft elevation means that you're going up and down relative to the roadbed, which itself goes up and down), etc.

      The pylons are sized so as to keep the tube as level as possible. It is the road (and ground) that go up and down, not so much the tube.

      It's designed to have a lateral g-force of 0.5 Gs, which is comparable to roller-coasters.

      That is simply off by an order of magnitude. Here are some of the high force coasters; here's some milder Disney rides. Airliners tend to be a bit lower than 0.5 but not by much - and can readily exceed that number if need be.

    56. Re:Sure ... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      So you're arguing that it's not going Mach 1 because it's designed to only go Mach .99868593955. Apparently you don't believe in rounding to significant digits. As for typical Jet Speeds, those are below Mach .9, and typically in the Mach 0.8 range. Mach 0.15-0.2 is a pretty significant difference.

      Moreover you are talking about a different G-Force measurement then either me or the standard Musk has designed. When taking turns the relevant measure is the lateral G-Force measure, and Coasters don't go too high on that because if they did 6 Gs laterally a 200 lb dude would be exerting 1200 pounds of pressure on the side of their roller-coaster, and it probably can't handle that. They top out at 0.5 Gs lateral. Aircraft don't do a lot of lateral Gs either, partly because they have to go straight really fast or fall from the sky, partly because they have even less structural strength to resist extra pressure on the fuselage, but mostly because people start throwing the fuck up once you break 0.2 lateral. They try to stay below 0.15 laterally unless something has gone horribly wrong.

      The whole plan is vintage Musk -- equal parts brilliant engineering, pooh-poohing the standards literally everyone else uses (0.2 Gs laterally is what everything in transportation, except Hyperloop, does), unwarranted financial optimism (his $700 Million tunneling budget won't get him all the way through a single mountain, and Cali has a couple ranges of the damn things), and excellent spin (for example, his planned route technically does not go from LA to San Fran, it goes from 30 miles from LA to the San Francisco Bay, which reduces his costs by roughly 75%, but nobody calls him on it). Given some development the engineering could be very interesting, but you really need a lot of that development.

    57. Re:Sure ... by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      > you totally destroy your credibility with the 3.0 Gs thing.

      If you want to mess about with aircraft there are planes you can do this in, and places you can have the altitude to do it. It's harder to lift your arms but not intolerable. In general, unless the passengers are warned in advance it's best not to exceed 0.5G in banked turns and exceeding 2G may pull the wings off some models of light aircraft.

      > actually be comparable to a roller coaster.

      Roller coasters are deliberately designed to repeatedly throw people around in different directions in order to heighten the sense of danger. High speed banked turns in hyperloop (or anything comparable) are in no way comparable to the feeling of a roller coaster, more like riding in a widebodied air transport (note there that the apparent cabin gravity is also always floorwards thanks to banked turns.)

      Anyone who tries to make out that passengers will feel substantial lateral forces is barking up the wrong tree. Even the original vacuum train proposals made use of banking in turns and european HSR systems make extensive use of banking to avoid the same effects (You can feel the apparent gravity pushing you into the seat a little harder in some spots on the Paris-Amsterdam run).

      Any credibility loss is borne by those who try to compare the ride quality of a high speed transport system to a roller coaster. The ride on rails is comparable to that of a ship or an aircraft (without pitching and rolling) and in a tube will be even smoother than that of a maglev (try the shanghai airport shuttle sometime. It's like a magic carpet.)

    58. Re:Sure ... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      I didn't say you couldn't do 3.0 Gs. I said that your credibility is destroyed when you bring that into a discussion of mass transportation. Mass transportation is not supposed to be that jerky because mass transportation is supposed to be used by all the people you specifically agreed you weren't when you signed that contract before the pilot took you up.

      As for your comparison to current modes of transport, you're not comparing a current hi-spoed transport system with other current hi-speed systems. You're comparing a theoretical system designed by people whose job is to Fail Fast by cutting corners, and no education in transit, with those systems. The current systems you're talking about have been carefully calibrated to have 0.2 Gs lateral max, because when you cut that corner your customers put "Vomit Comet" on all your Yelp Reviews. The theoretical system is designed at 0.5 lateral Gs, which is roughly equivalent to what you get on a roller coaster.

  2. Vacuum tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Pretty sure my bank has one of these. How is this news?

    1. Re:Vacuum tubes by wooferhound · · Score: 1

      But this one is HyperExpensive . . . I wonder how they will maintain breathable air inside the vehicle which is in a near vacuum ?

      --
      We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
    2. Re:Vacuum tubes by PIBM · · Score: 1

      I wonder how they will maintain breathable air inside the space station which is in a near vacuum ? Oh yeah they are already doing it =)

    3. Re:Vacuum tubes by fatboy · · Score: 1

      But this one is HyperExpensive . . . I wonder how they will maintain breathable air inside the vehicle which is in a near vacuum ?

      CO2 scrubbers?

      --
      --fatboy
    4. Re:Vacuum tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The keyword is "HyperExpensive"

      How much do you think it costs Nasa to maintain the air in the space station?

    5. Re:Vacuum tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but that has to do with the shipping costs. Pushing stuff long distances up a gravity well, and into orbit isn't exactly easy.

    6. Re:Vacuum tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not expensive if you sell it right. Bring Your Own Air. Or we will sell you a can at the gate for $100. Your choice.

    7. Re:Vacuum tubes by PIBM · · Score: 1

      Removing the CO2 is the main point; people won't be spending too much time in there, so there's plenty of oxygen, but the CO2 level would climb quickly. Chemical CO2 scrubber's have been costed at 1K$ per ton of CO2 removed. Since we exhale about 5% of CO2, at an average rate of 10 liters per minute and 1.96 g / liters of CO2, that means that on an hour trip (planned at 35 minutes), someone would exhale approximately 60g of CO2, or it would take 15K people to use up that cartridge. Thus, less than 7 cents per trip per passenger.

    8. Re:Vacuum tubes by Cyclizine · · Score: 1

      Even less, really. If VCO2 ~ 200 ml/min then that's 0.89 mmol/min or 0.39 g/min; so 24 g/hr. Roughly 2-3 cents/hr if your costs are accurate.

    9. Re:Vacuum tubes by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      Your bank's system is a pneumatic tube, which uses air pressure to transport the pod. Other systems require very high vacuum levels in order to sufficiently reduce air friction. Musk is the first design designed to operate in a relatively low pressure tube; evacuating (and using) only the air directly in front of the capsule - that is a difference.

    10. Re:Vacuum tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd guess compressors. There's compressed air available that's used to cushion the ride, just compress it a bit further and let it bleed into the passenger compartment.

  3. They did not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do any such thing. The pods don't even float on air, but use roller bearings.

  4. What is this? A HyperLoop for Ants? by Tinsoldier314 · · Score: 2

    Is one of the key differences that it is twenty-four times too small?

    1. Re:What is this? A HyperLoop for Ants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is one of the key differences that it is twenty-four times too small?

      Mr. Burns: To the plant! We'll take the spruce moose! Hop in!
      Mr. Smithers:...But sir.
      Mr.Burns: -pulls out a gun- I said...hop in....

    2. Re: What is this? A HyperLoop for Ants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on 1:24 scale the model should be 32 miles. Looking at the pictures those must be some gigantic students.

  5. No thanks by buk110 · · Score: 0

    Could you imagine a hyperloop system being run by unions? Look at places like Washington DC where their mass transit *union run* has resulted in trains crashing into each other and trains going into a tunnel that's on fire only to lead to someone dying of smoke inhalation. This would be so much worse.

    1. Re:No thanks by prefec2 · · Score: 2

      It is much better when public transport is run by the city and state. Have a look at many European countries, they have working modern and secure public transport systems.

    2. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to point out some flawlessly run transit systems that aren't *union run*?

    3. Re:No thanks by Punko · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but I'm having trouble imagining such a facility being run by a typical American for-profit entity. Bad morale, low standards, high staff turnover, no loyalty to the employee, so no loyalty from the employee back to looking after the public.

      So how's about we agree, that we'll make the operating entity an crown (or state) owned utility (not for profit) and run with a well paid, well trained, workforce ?

      --
      If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
    4. Re:No thanks by buk110 · · Score: 2

      If it's state run that's fine, just make sure it's not a "jobs program" where people are never fired or held accountable for their actions. I don't want something like TSA where people are rummaging through luggage for SWAG

    5. Re:No thanks by dave420 · · Score: 1

      They also have unions, but the relationship between unions and companies is usually less angry and pathetic as in the US.

    6. Re:No thanks by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Could you imagine a hyperloop system being run by unions? Look at places like Washington DC where their mass transit *union run* has resulted in trains crashing into each other and trains going into a tunnel that's on fire only to lead to someone dying of smoke inhalation. This would be so much worse.

      When you say *union run* do you mean that the staff are in a union? I assume that, being the US, you're not talking about some workers' co-operative actually owning it?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  6. Novel. by stoned_ritual · · Score: 1

    It must have been fun and I'm sure the students learned a thing or two, but this model uses physical roller bearings, instead of air pressure. So there is one problem with the model straight away. The second is they built it into an oval shape, which is another challenge the hyperloop faces: how to negotiate deceleration through a sharp corner, yet still maintain a high rate of speed to make this a viable mode of transit. I understand these design flaws are limitations imposed by the scale of the model, but really if you can't model something properly, then your experiments within this model will yield unusable data. Still, it was probably a fun project no less.

    1. Re:Novel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a flaw with the concept, not the model. The people working on this realized, quite correctly, that the concept is a pie in the sky dream that ignores thermal expansion in 7 different ways.

  7. small and steady wins the race by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 1

    I was pretty surprised when I heard about Tesla or SpaceX's half-scale test track. It seems like a much better idea to start off at a smaller scale like this. If I was in charge, I would start off with whatever scale I could source the cheapest components for. Like, start at 1/32 scale, then go to 1/16, then 1/8, etc. That way economies of scale will help make the cost of the prototypes negligible.

    1. Re:small and steady wins the race by coldsalmon · · Score: 1

      I think that the scale itself is one of the biggest engineering challenges. It's difficult to keep a tube depressurized when it's that large. So building a very small-scale model doesn't give you any useful information about one of the most important aspects of the project.

    2. Re:small and steady wins the race by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "It's difficult to keep a tube depressurized when it's that large"

      Pumps capable of handling that already exist, as does the materials science to make tubes capable of handling the crush pressure (which incidentally also makes them pretty much immune to onboard bombs - the overpressure pulse isn't enough to overcome the pressure differential.)

      The most important aspect of the project is financial. Tunnel boring and building viaducts doesn't come cheap and the USA political system is so corrupt that a project can easily treble in costs just paying off officials to keep them onside.

  8. We'll lead as two kings! by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Second Decree: No more pollution. No more car exhaust or ocean dumpage! From now on, we'll travel in TUBES! Get the scientists working on the Tube Technology immediately!

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  9. Idea from the sixties by prefec2 · · Score: 2

    When I was little, I found a book in our bookshelf about the future. The book was from the early sixties. All with floating at sea nuclear plants, automatic farming, synthetic meet, maglev trains, and trains running through tubes. Propelled either by a propeller at the back or by magnets in vacuum. So Elon Musk just had a similar book in his youth and now tries to build the stuff. Some is great, but that tube thing sucks. It is expensive, it will require a lot of resources even compared to bullet trains.

    1. Re:Idea from the sixties by beelsebob · · Score: 0

      Why is it that slashdot seems to be incapable of seeing the difference between something being in SciFi books, and something being actually designed and implemented by engineers?

    2. Re:Idea from the sixties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where do you think those engineers got their ideas?

    3. Re:Idea from the sixties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > but that tube thing sucks.

      Yes, that is how it works!

    4. Re:Idea from the sixties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure the synthetic meet is called Tinder.

  10. I don't mean to be a grump, but... by coldsalmon · · Score: 2

    ...isn't this basically just a model train in a tube? It sounds like the only thing from the hyperloop they are actually using is the "electromagnetic motors." It's using roller bearings, and the tube is not depressurized. As far as I know, those are the two most important things about the hyperloop, which speak to the goal of increasing speed by reducing drag. The speed is 160mph, which is less than half the speed of the fastest trains currently operating. Using electromagnetic acceleration is pretty cool, but I remember riding on roller coasters that used this method of acceleration back in the 90s. I don't fault the students for doing a cool engineering project, but the headline chosen by the journalist is more than a little disingenuous.

    1. Re:I don't mean to be a grump, but... by slickwillie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the real thing sounds like a huge rail gun.

  11. And how do they deal with the G-Forces? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When the damn thing turns. Maglev trains for people are actually slower then the ones for freight because the freight trains don't have to worry about grandma surviving the trip. If they were going straight the whole way that wouldn't be a problem, altho there's some time for slower acceleration and deceleration they the hyperloopies don't seem to add in. But to get from LA to San Fran you can't go straight, you have to go up and down hills, around mountains, over rivers, etc.

    A big part of the reason for Hyperloops cost advantage on rail is that Musk insists that a Hyperloop track can be cheaper. He says it would be more analogous to a oil pipeline then a rail track, and have cheaper construction, more abrupt bends, etc., which leads to higher G-Forces; this is a an even bigger problem problem for actual implementation of the idea then it would be for alternatives.

    Mark my words: every trial of this will be successful until they put people in it. By the time they've smoothed out the turns, upped construction standards to virtually eliminate accidents, and reduced speed to something grandma can survive it will probably cost more then rail. It's brand-new technology and first generation check is never cheaper then the stuff it's replacing. I suspect there will be significant energy savings, and possibly some speed advantage, due to the fact that a hyperloop operates in a vacuam and there's no wind resistance, but the price advantage ain't gonna last.

    1. Re:And how do they deal with the G-Forces? by preaction · · Score: 1

      Of course it's going to cost more than rail. Rail isn't dead in the US because it's expensive, it's dead because the US does not like it.

    2. Re:And how do they deal with the G-Forces? by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Where do they claim it can do sharper turns? The route they lay out in their whitepaper is designed so there are no sharp turns, and no g-forces greater than 0.5g, which can be 'banked'.

    3. Re:And how do they deal with the G-Forces? by fiore42 · · Score: 1

      Rail is not dead in the US. Passenger rail is pretty dead in the US. Freight rail in the US, which is a much, much better use of resources, on the other hand, is top of the world.

    4. Re:And how do they deal with the G-Forces? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In every press release anyone has ever written on why Hyperloop is better they all say it's cheaper, and they base those cost estimates on the construction costs of gas pipelines. Pipelines are incredibly cheap partly because you can make the damn things do corkscrews if you want. If there's a random hill in the middle of your route you can just go around it, or above it, or use those corkscrews to get to the top of the hill, build a flat piece till you get past the peak, and then corkscrew downward. You don;t need bridges very often, you laugh at the very concept of a "viaduct," and tunnels are things that happen to those silly Civil Engineers.

      Rail, OTOH, is incredibly expensive partly because you either have to take a very long way around the hill, go through it, or build a viaduct to make the grade manageable.

      One of the reasons the train project that sparked his little Hyperloop brainstorm has costs that keep going up is that the original costs were projected from a map much like the one in the white paper, but when they send their engineers out to survey the route they find all kinds of hills/streams/valleys/dips/etc. that will require those tunnels/viaducts/bridges.

      Hyperloop is going over the same terrain at Mach I. So it will require more of that shit because a grade that a train could manage a fraction of it's speed will kill the whole damn train at Mach I. And none of that is in the budget projection.

    5. Re:And how do they deal with the G-Forces? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a grade that a train could manage a fraction of it's speed will kill the whole damn train at Mach I."

      Huh?

    6. Re:And how do they deal with the G-Forces? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Informative

      " Freight rail in the US, which is a much, much better use of resources, on the other hand, is top of the world."

      Except for our umpty-ump brazillion grade crossings. If we could only get these separated, we would be able to increase freight speeds enough so that a few passenger trains could be sent through on each route with realistic, competitive run times.

      If the government wants to help the railroad business, let it build grade separations, a type of construction that governments on all levels are already used to. Then let railroad men invest in improving the railroads.

    7. Re:And how do they deal with the G-Forces? by bws111 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Someone else who didn't bother to read the proposal, but knows all about it. The references to gas pipelines are about construction techniques, not layout. The thing is proposed to be built on pylons 20 to 100 feet tall. All those dips and valleys and hills and streams just went away. There is a tunnel through a mountain that is too high.

    8. Re:And how do they deal with the G-Forces? by amRadioHed · · Score: 2

      No, it's pretty much the cost. Rail is a way better way to travel than air for travel between cities, but it's way overpriced.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    9. Re:And how do they deal with the G-Forces? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mass automobile transport is not sustainable, nor are airplanes. They will have to get back to passenger rail eventually.

    10. Re:And how do they deal with the G-Forces? by preaction · · Score: 1

      Nah, by that time we'll have quantum teleporters.

    11. Re:And how do they deal with the G-Forces? by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      The thing is proposed to be built on pylons 20 to 100 feet tall. All those dips and valleys and hills and streams just went away.

      Except for the 4000-foot mountain range that surrounds Los Angeles.

    12. Re:And how do they deal with the G-Forces? by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Hence the sentence that says there is a tunnel through the mountain.

    13. Re:And how do they deal with the G-Forces? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      See, this sentence is really the reason that I sincerely doubt any of hyperloopies has any clue how much this will cost.

      To use the tunnel Hyperloop will have to a) come to the ground (which means that the Hyperloop's vacuum tube is no longer protected from car crashes by being 20 ft above them), and b) convince the government of California to give it a lane through the mountain. Neither is a trivial task. And you're just assuming they'll both happen.

      For free.

    14. Re:And how do they deal with the G-Forces? by bws111 · · Score: 1

      First, I am not assuming anything, I am just reading their document.

      It seems there are some recent developments you may not have heard of. These are called stairs, ramps, elevators, and escalators. These new technologies allow places like Chicago and Disney World to have magical transportation systems 20ft in the air, without having to ever come to ground level. Other cities are even starting to use these amazing new things to put transportation systems under the ground! You should check it out.

      Also, in the still-unread document, they list projected costs, including $700M for tunneling, and $1B for land and permitting. Where do you get this idiotic 'for free' idea?

    15. Re:And how do they deal with the G-Forces? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Dude, the document isn't the problem. It's its relation to the real world.

      In the real world there is not currently a tunnel through that mountain 20-100 ft in the air above the highway. To get through the mountain they either have to bore a completely new tunnel, 20 ft above the existing tunnel; or they have to bring the Hyperloop down to highway level. Neither is trivial.

      Eyeballing the cost of the tunnel, $700 million should be enough to bore a new tunnel through the mountain, but that's about it. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_Tunnel">Eisenhowere Tunnel cost the equivalent of a half-billion$ in today's money. The H-3 in Hawaii cost $80 Million a mile. In 1980s dollars. I included a lot of viaducts and tunneling, and guess which proposal is a 354 mile viaduct interrupted by the occasional tunnel though inconvenient mountains?

      And their total cost including developing a totally new mode of transportation, and buying the vehicles, etc. is $16.9 Million a mile for passengers-only, and $20 Million a mile for one wide enough to handle cars.

      So I think it'll work eventually. And I think it'll be incredibly cool. But version 1 is not gonna be a 354-mile run in California for peanuts.

  12. several key differences by kuzb · · Score: 3, Informative

    They didn't design a hyperloop. They designed something that tested some aspects that would get used by a hyperloop.

    Do editors even work here?

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  13. hyperloop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whenever I hear the term "hyperloop," I think this thing is going to throw you into hyperspace, and you are going to come out in an empty vacuum, or on some planet without any oxygen.

  14. Remarkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remarkable. That is a little longer than a flight from SF to LA, and their are dozens of flights a day. The miracle of travel is already here, brought to you by Boeing.

    1. Re:Remarkable by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Except that their projected travel time is 35 minutes, which is quicker than a plane. And it is supposed to use about 1/10th the energy per person to make that trip. And instead of 'dozens' of flights a day, it leaves every 2 minutes (every 30 seconds during peak time).

  15. Hey we got some of that stuff by GungaDan · · Score: 3, Funny

    Floating at sea nuke plants? Fukushima came pretty damn close, eh? Not to mention all those nuke subs and carriers. Maglev trains are out there. Some of them even run through tubes (and/or chunnels). And synthetic meet? Kids these days just call it "social networking."

    --
    Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    1. Re:Hey we got some of that stuff by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      The Russians have floating nuclear power stations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    2. Re: Hey we got some of that stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also have sinking nuclear power stations. Submarines.

  16. O scale would be half the size and twice the fun by Sheldon_Cooper_1 · · Score: 2

    It's O scale or no scale.

  17. "Musk's Hyperloop"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The pneumatic tube transportation system was actually invented by a French-Romanian engineer named Henri Marie Coanda (https://www.google.com.ar/patents/US3787006) who also invented the first jet engine.

  18. I have seen designs from the 1950s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The "Hyperloop" concept - putting a capsule with seats in a tube and having it speed between cities - has been around for decades. I have seen concepts for it in old engineering books from the 1950s. Somehow, this becomes "new" and Musk gets his name on it.

    I really don't get this cult of personality around Musk. He must have a god for a publicist.

    1. Re:I have seen designs from the 1950s by halltk1983 · · Score: 0

      Because they didn't come with instructions, just a picture. He had a bunch of engineers come up with a rough draft of instructions and a method that was plausible. We had people thinking we'd be shooting people into space with a cannon, that doesn't mean we can't celebrate the Apollo missions.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    2. Re:I have seen designs from the 1950s by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      It was costed in the 1960s-70s as running into the trillions, but such designs were full vacuum linear motor systems

      Hyperloop makes a number of pragmatic/practical changes (such as allowing enough air in to provide air bearings, which in turn reduces engineering costs of suspending the capsules dramatically). Whether it's fully economic to do so is another matter.

      My personal belief is that it will prove uneconomic for passengers unless longhaul freight is also carried and that in turn requires large tube diameter to handle intermodal containers.

      In all liklihood it would be easier to build a hyperloop in Europe than in the USA, for the same reasons that HSR is all over the place here and non-existant in the USA. Ditto Japan or China - I think the current japanese maglev design is likely to prove uneconomic long-term due to friction issues and the sheer cost of maintaining an uncovered track. (birdstrike?)

  19. Heavy Cargo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could probably be called an Elon Musk fanboy.. but wouldn't we rather have infrastructure that can handle a range of uses?

    A system that can transport freight as well as people on solar/wind/nuclear/whatever as well as a pretty modest passenger load? Speaking as someone who lives in San Diego and would love to be able to get to medium-distance locations like North LA or the Bay Area without hours of driving in traffic this would absolutely benefit me; I would be a paying customer in a heartbeat. But I would gladly give up a bit more time on the trip if it meant giving our infrastructure a solid foundation for more then just a few quick trips.

  20. What a bunch of naysayers by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2

    I'm glad you people weren't around when the Wright bros were doing their thing. Or the Panama Canal. Or the Hoover Dam.

    Eventually, this will be a viable project. Decades at the very earliest, before the first shovel full is dug. And then decades later before the first mile mile is complete. Gotta let the enviroweenies have their say.
    But one of these will be built. Eventually.

  21. Did Musk pass basic math? by sirwired · · Score: 1

    In theory, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the idea of a hyperloop. Pneumatic-powered transportation has been in the prototype stage for a very long time (a century or so, IIRC.)

    But a line like this between SF and LA? The finances required for such construction are daunting enough with "simple" high-speed rail line. Constructing hundreds of miles of something far more finicky and complex? I suppose if one wanted to construct such a line across the great plains (not exactly a high-demand market) that could work. But a not-flat region of CA? His estimated construction costs are for raw trackage, and do not include the extensive system of bridges and tunnels that would be absolutely required, not to mention the expensive right-of-ways. And for what? Yes, there is a lot of air traffic between LA and SF, but not so much the construction of this boondoggle makes any sense whatsoever.

  22. US Passenger Rail makes no freakin' sense by sirwired · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Outside of the Northeast Corridor, passenger rail in the US makes no sense whatsoever. The distance between viable markets, even with high-speed trains, is simply far too large to make the extensive capital costs worth it.

    1. Re:US Passenger Rail makes no freakin' sense by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      Um, 25 percent of the US population lives within 100 miles of the I-5 highway corridor in the West.

      I think it does make sense. Just not in the tax-subsidized empty states.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    2. Re:US Passenger Rail makes no freakin' sense by Cochonou · · Score: 5, Informative

      From Los Angeles to San Francisco: 559 km
      From Paris to Marseilles: 660 km, 16 high speed trains per day.

    3. Re:US Passenger Rail makes no freakin' sense by NicBenjamin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ever heard of Scotland? It has worse population density then the US East of the Mississippi. Sweden actually has a population comparable to NYC spread out over a land mass comparable to Cali. Finland's population density is more comparable to Alaska then any other US State. They don't all have record-breaking high-speed rail systems, but they all have rail systems connecting every major City.

      Look at it this way: let's say we implement Hi-speed rail in a state with a highly concentrated and relatively large population. Michigan has 9 million people, 58% of them live within two counties of Detroit. Anywhere you're likely to go is within an two hours of Detroit by car, which means means the train has to stop every 20 miles, which makes it very hard to use the high speed, all the construction is somebody's house, so it's very expensive to build, etc. The rail system that makes the least amount of nonsense for the state would probably be circa-1940 speeds from Detroit to Toledo, Gary, and the Wisconsin border, with stops in major cities on the way, and an extensive streetcar system also using 1930s tech.

      Let's say, OTOH, you just put a hi-speed rail line across the middle of Montana east-to-west. The low population density makes it incredibly useful because people're likely to be driving for hours and hours across the damn state otherwise. Now it's true there wouldn't necessarily be a whole lot of riders, but if the line actually goes from Minnesota to Seattle...

      Rail makes sense when it goes from one major population center to another through ranch land that's cheap to get right-of-way through.

    4. Re:US Passenger Rail makes no freakin' sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finland's population density is more comparable to Alaska then any other US State.

      According to Wikipedia, Finland has a population density of 18/km2.

      The same source puts Alaska at 0.5/km2. Not really the same thing. Also, there appears to be 12 other US states with a density lower than Finland. Scotland comes in at 67.5/km2, greater than 33 of the 50 states.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density

      Let's say, OTOH, you just put a hi-speed rail line across the middle of Montana east-to-west. The low population density makes it incredibly useful because people're likely to be driving for hours and hours across the damn state otherwise.

      Instead, people drive hours and hours times some fraction to get to the train terminal. After arriving at a terminal at the other end, they face a transportation problem unless the destination is within a well-connected metropolitan area.

    5. Re:US Passenger Rail makes no freakin' sense by Gavagai80 · · Score: 0

      I-5 is 1381 miles long. To have only 25% of the population living within 100 miles of that isn't very dense.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    6. Re:US Passenger Rail makes no freakin' sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      worse population density then the US East of the Mississippi.

      There are plenty of desolate areas east of the Mississippi in the US.

    7. Re:US Passenger Rail makes no freakin' sense by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      High speed rail doesn't make much sense when you have continuous density, but does make sense when you have dense cities every 1-3 hours drive apart.

      Which is the I-5 corridor.

      It takes time to get the trains up to speed. Japan uses them for the same reason.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  23. I'm impressed by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    University Students Made a Working Model Hyperloop

    Cool. When I was at university, all I made was a bong out of a half-gallon milk bottle.

    It was a pretty sweet bong, though.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  24. Screw hyperloop... by msc.buff · · Score: 1

    I want SkyTran: http://www.skytran.us/

    1. Re:Screw hyperloop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm wasn't crazy about it initially but it does seem pretty cool.

  25. Was that ever shitty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a way better 'Hyperloop' in my garage only i call it a coilgun

  26. Foreseen difficulties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    An hour to get from New York to San Francisco, an hour and a half to get through the TSA inspection and baggage handling. An enclosed tin can would be a perfect environment for a terrorist attack, and even if it wasn't the TSA would want to stick their noses in for the sake of empire building.

    Also in Musk's published photos, they'd have a hard time fitting in the disabled access and public toilets which would be demanded by regulators and pressure groups.

    Depending on cost and energy requirements, the Hyperloop may be better suited to goods transport. High acceleration and deceleration forces would not be a problem for goods shipments.

    Godel_56 posting anon. due to mod points.

  27. Humans will never survive 30+ mph car trips by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    As we all know, humans are not capable of traveling at speeds faster than 30 mph. It was common knowledge in the 18th Century.

    Obviously hyperloops can't work either.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Humans will never survive 30+ mph car trips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A) Humans routinely die in cars at speeds over 30 MPH
      B) This bullshit is being hyped because cars are clearly failing
      C) Current naysayers have a much better understanding of physics than 19th century journalists.

  28. 1:24? by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    Scale is off.

  29. Same was said for train by aepervius · · Score: 2

    And guess what ? You should know better than to rely on time or speed to make such a guess. You should rely on force and acceleration. 1 G is perfectly survivable by human , and within 1 minutes you are already at 60 meter per seconds, and in 10 minutes 600 meter per seconds or about 2160 kmh. At that sped you do paris new york in 2 and half hour and the 400 miles between los angeles and san francisco in about 15 minutes. Naturally the speed we are talking about are not even 1/4 of that, and the acceleration much lower. But still it shows you that when it comes to beeing squished, you are way way underestimating how much it would take.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re: Same was said for train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are off by one order of magnitude.

  30. Prior Art by chesterw · · Score: 1

    The drive through at my old credit union had a similar scale hyperloop prototype in about 1985. We never thought of sending anything but deposit slips through it back then. . .

  31. Big deal? by AmericanBlarney · · Score: 1

    Doesn't pretty much every bank have a model hyperloop?

  32. Cute toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now make it real size, economical and safe, and I'll start feeling impressed. Till then, cute toy, kids.

  33. golf clap by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    ... surely these people know we've used pneumatic tubes before, no?

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:golf clap by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      They're both round, and they both have capsules - ut the similarity ends in how they move relative to whatever air is in the tube. The pneumatic tube uses vacuum or pressure as a propulsive force, and the capsule moves a roughly the same speed as the air. The Hyperloop is designed to used other means for thrust, and the capsule moves through, not along with, the air in the tube. As a result, pneumatic tubes have essentially no control over individual capsules, the Hyperloop system does.

  34. The Roads must Roll! by tmjva · · Score: 1

    Robert A Heinlein germane.

    What will happen during a hyperloope worker's strike or revolt?

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
    1. Re:The Roads must Roll! by tmjva · · Score: 1

      Typo noted.

      --
      Tracy Johnson
      Old fashioned text games hosted below:
      http://empire.openmpe.com/
      BT
  35. What I post's nonsense dave420? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)

    Why'd you agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you:

    "I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    Of course not: It's impossible to dispute HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!

    Since my points in favor of hosts SINGLE FILE native kernelmode faster part show hosts doing more w/ less vs. so-called 'competitors' many part messagepassing + cpu/ram use overheads laden slower usermode FAR MORE COMPLEX 'solutions' doing less than hosts do for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity!

    I make creating a superior more efficient solution EASIER!

    (That's more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).

    ---

    "I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)

    I bother you? Then WHY DON'T YOU DO IT & use 'em? Answer that!

    (You stalk/harass me instead!)

    OBVIOUSLY you don't & you're a "ne'er-do-well" troll & you have "other motivations" (next):

    ---

    * QUESTION:

    DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , or a MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?

    Answer it!

    As per your usual you'll avoid every question, or lie & You've been EXPOSED in your "motives" in the last link just above, lol!

    APK

    P.S.=> See Dave420 the "pot puffing clown" SQUIRM - evasions galore will ensue (as well as effete downmods via sockpuppets to *try* vainly "hide it" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )... apk