MIT Team Tops Hyperloop Design Competition (google.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MIT Team Tops Hyperloop Design Competition (google.com)

Posted by timothy on Sunday January 31, 2016 @05:38PM from the never-underestimate-a-hyperloop-full-of-tapes dept.

The Dallas Morning News reports that a team from MIT has topped competitors from around 100 universities around the world at a competition held on the campus of Texas A&M by presenting a workable design vision for Elon Musk's dream of a hyperloop. The hyperloop concept, mentioned several times before on Slashdot, involves rapidly shuffling passenger pods through 12-foot-wide tubes evacuated of air, and would mean terrestrial transport at speeds topping those of commercial air travel. From the Morning News article: Delft University of Technology from The Netherlands finished second, the University of Wisconsin third, Virginia Tech fourth and the University of California, Irvine, fifth. The top teams will build their pods and test them at the world's first Hyperloop Test Track, being built adjacent to SpaceX's Hawthorne, Calif., headquarters.

144 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Yes, and the fastest way to China, by fustakrakich · 2016-01-31 17:45 · Score: 3, Funny

...is through the planet core

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
1. Re:Yes, and the fastest way to China, by Gavagai80 · 2016-02-01 00:29 · Score: 2
  
  Da planet core? Count mesa outta dis! Better dead here, den deader in da core... yee guds, whata mesa sayin?!
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
2. Re:Yes, and the fastest way to China, by stephows · 2016-02-01 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  If you start from the US and go through the core in a straight line then you will come out in the Indian Ocean in the southern hemisphere (a bit south-west of Western Australia).
  From LA you would be quite a bit east of South Africa.
  
  If you want to end up in China then you need to start from Argentina (once again, in the southern hemisphere).
3. Re:Yes, and the fastest way to China, by dgallard · 2016-02-02 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Also, you would be dead and very hard to recognize.
4. Re: Yes, and the fastest way to China, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 13:34 · Score: 0
  
  You are so narrow minded
  In this fictious universe, once you get to the core , you could turn in any direction and end up anywhere you want
Dallas news???????? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 17:47 · Score: 0

Seriously?f
1. Re:Dallas news???????? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 18:37 · Score: 0
  
  A google search shows so many other technology focused sites with better coverage on this. Honestly has timothy been allowed to sleep since Dice sold this site?
2. Re:Dallas news???????? by dreamchaser · 2016-02-01 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  What do you mean since Dice sold it? Slashdot has never had actual editors. I'm honestly not quite sure what Timothy does all day.
Toilets? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 17:51 · Score: 0

Question: How do you go to the toilet in these pods?
1. Re:Toilets? by fustakrakich · 2016-01-31 19:11 · Score: 1
  
  Depends... if you can't hold it for a half hour
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
2. Re:Toilets? by prefec2 · 2016-01-31 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  The same way as in normal trains. They have a vacuum toilet which transports the waste into a bucket. The bucket is then cleaned at the destination.
3. Re:Toilets? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 02:32 · Score: 0
  
  Based on my last flight from Las Vegas to Denver (barely over an hour) and the fact that probably 2/3rds of the plane needed to use the bathroom (I was sitting right next to it), I think asking a group of people to hold it for half an hour as possibly the most unreasonable thing on earth. I don't personally see a problem with it, but after that flight, I swear people were about to piss themselves holding it waiting for the plane to take off just so they could have the privilege of using an airplane toilet. I personally avoid them like the plague, but it's the only reason I can think of why so many people had to use it on such a short flight.
4. Re:Toilets? by tehcyder · 2016-02-01 23:27 · Score: 1
  
  Question: How do you go to the toilet in these pods?
  You give all the passengers hyper-incontinence pads.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
5. Re:Toilets? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know about you but masturbation in the planes bathroom on any flight is an experience I never skip out on. I wait to masturbate.
6. Re: Toilets? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 13:36 · Score: 0
  
  For such a short trip , you just go before and after
  Or take a cup
Pipelines by ls671 · 2016-01-31 18:05 · Score: 0

There has been talks about pipelines lately in North America. Hopefully, they have solved all issues before they implement that human pipeline. Leaks of humans need to be avoided at all cost.

--
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
1. Re:Pipelines by Rei · 2016-01-31 23:40 · Score: 0
  
  I don't understand why they even need to build it. Can't they just use the internet? Or is it already filled?
  
  --
  It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
2. Re:Pipelines by Coren22 · 2016-02-01 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  You wouldn't want to drop that much like a dump truck into the tubes, they might get clogged.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Nature Abhors a Vacuum by ebonum · 2016-01-31 18:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

I think this hyperloop is going to crash into the harsh realities of dealing with a vacuum.
a) It takes a huge amount of energy to pull a good vacuum. This thing needs to be at 0.02 psi. Vacuum pumps are really inefficient. They mostly take electricity and generate lots of heat.
b) Running the pumps is going to cost. Vacuum pumps burn out/need maintenance.
c) 0.02 psi? That translates into a HUGE amount of force trying to crush the tube. 14 lbs/ square inch. It adds up QUICK. Better hope some 13 year old doesn't think it would be funny to put an M-80 on this thing. It might implode and kill anyone in the pod.
d) Ever to try keep a vacuum? Good luck finding all the little leaks in the seals over X miles of this tube. Getting it evacuated once will be difficult. Now try to keep it sealed for a year. You have the stress of the pods flying through this thing. You have heating and cooling cycles every 24 hours.
It will make a awesome science project for some students spending lots of other people's money.
1. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 18:48 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  > HUGE amount of force trying to crush the tube. 14 lbs/ square inch.
  It's not that much. The first loop is planned to be 354 miles long. That is 2.243e+7" in length. The tube is 452" in circumference. The total surface area of the tube is 2.243e+7 * 452 = 10,138,360,000 inch^2. Multiply that by 14.7 pounds / inch^2, and you have 149,033,892,000 total pounds of pressure which is only the weight of about 9,250 Eiffel Towers.
2. Re: Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 18:51 · Score: 0
  
  The tower was built in 1889. Are you really claiming we can't do better today?
3. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 18:57 · Score: 0
  
  But surely you only need the vacuum to surround the pod. The rest of the bowels don't need to be evacuated. Wonder if they can combine this with a railgun?
4. Re: Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 19:01 · Score: 0
  
  Are you a Republican Lucan, because you sound like one. Your kind always talks about what is impossible.
  "Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about."
  -- Lachlan McLachlan
5. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 19:28 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  True. IMO it needs to be double or tri-walled with intermediate structure to be anywhere near feasible.
6. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by thePig · 2016-01-31 19:58 · Score: 2
  
  They have superb engineers who I guess would have thought about these and far more complex scenarios.
  A possible solution is to have say - the whole tube is not low pressure - only subsections.
  These subsections can be quite small, say 5-10 metres wide where they might pull the air out just as the pod reaches that area.
  Sections covered with maybe small valves which allow the pods to go in - and not air to come in from the other side.
  That itself can be done by so many different means
  Say some help from previously vacated chamber or some other system which pushes the air to some other upper chamber - or many other ways.
  There might be many many more far better solutions - this was just 5 minutes guess work.
  My point is that - these are amazing engineers, and let us believe in them.
  
  --
  rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
7. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Harlequin80 · 2016-01-31 20:07 · Score: 1
  
  One thing to point out is the 0.02 PSI is the minimum air pressure. Designs had to be done taking into account a higher air pressure.
8. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 20:58 · Score: 1
  
  It's pretty difficult to fail a 10 or 20 mm thick steel tube catastrophically. A pile of C4 would do it. A few bullet holes wouldn't. Actually the most dangerous thing is probably a good old fire impinging on the tube, I would hope they use a combination of passive fire protection and deluge systems near any road bridges to deal with the inevitable truck crashes. Of course, every meter of the tube will be under continuous AI-monitored video surveillance designed to pick up unusual activity and alert a human operator.
9. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Zorpheus · 2016-01-31 20:59 · Score: 2
  
  I am not sure about the leaking. Aren't the leaks normally at the seals where things are screwed together? The Hyperloop is built out of very long steel pipes, with quite some thickness to give stability. I think they only need to check the joints.
10. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by DrXym · 2016-01-31 21:34 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see that such a system would even have to be made of steel. Concrete pipes are used to carry water at high pressure. Why not use them at low pressure? Composite pipes could be used too where there are more than one material at work, e.g. concrete, a plastic membrane and an inner steel guide rail.
  I guess the complexity is not in the standard pipe sections but how to implement junctions, parallel sections, pressure locks and all the rest that would have to be part of any practical system.
11. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by thisisauniqueid · 2016-01-31 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. Look what happens when you introduce a small dent into a metal tube under vacuum. Collapsing hyperloop tubes would become the new frat initiation "prank".
12. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by thisisauniqueid · 2016-01-31 21:38 · Score: 1
  
  If the tube is going to be running from LA to SF, there's no way it will be 10mm thick, let alone 20mm. That would be far too cost-prohibitive.
13. Re: Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 22:03 · Score: 0
  
  Let's ask the people with a similar huge vacuum how hard it is: anyone at the LHC, how difficult is it to maintain the vacuum?
14. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Rei · 2016-01-31 22:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  a,b) 0.02 PSI is extremely mild by vacuum standards. By contrast, ultra-high vacuum is defined as less than 0.0000000000145 PSI. 0.02 PSI is not a difficult pumping challenge by any stretch. And after the initial pumping, the only vacuuming requirements are 1) airlocks at the end stations, and 2) overcoming the rate of leaks. The pump sizing and power consumption needed is well less than with equivalent-sized oil or water pipelines.
  c) And too bad inch-thick steel is such a fragile, flexible material, utterly vulnerable to M80s! Oh wait....
  You do realize that the buckling force of a cylindrical shell is actually far easier to work out (with safety margins) than the physics calculations for the structural stability of the capsules, right? Or for that matter, cars, airplanes... throw in buildings while we're at it.
  d) The plan is not to "find all the little leaks". The little leaks are the only reason that any continued pumping is required at all. Only major leaks need to be found. The pipeline is to be made by the same technology as makes our water and oil pipelines today (automated orbital welding), plus an additional finishing step on the inside.
  There are a number of serious issues that the Hyperloop teams need to show that they need to overcome. You didn't hit on a single one of them.
  
  --
  It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
15. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Rei · 2016-01-31 22:07 · Score: 1
  
  The pipeline is elevated on columns. That's be one heck of a fire to reach it up there. In a really terrible fire (ignoring that most columns aren't over anything of significance that could burn) you might spall some of the concrete after a couple hours, but that would be bloody amazing if they could get to that point without noticing anything.
  
  --
  It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
16. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Rei · 2016-01-31 22:23 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You're right, it's not 10mm or 20mm.
  It's "20-23mm". Basically, "nearly an inch", for Americans. And not only that, it's reinforced with stringers.
  Steel is cheap. Seriously, run the numbers - it's only a small fraction of the total cost. 3.14159*((2,23m/2 + 0,0215)^2 - (2,23m/2)^2) * 579800m = 88173 cubic meters of steel = 687753 tonnes of steel = ~$138m of steel. Insignificant compared to the total project costs. Now, of course, that's not the cost to build the tube - pipe costs more than raw steel, and the cost to build is well more than the raw materials. But as for the concept of "Oh my god, that's a crazy amount of steel, it'd be way to expensive!"? No. No, it's not.
  Anyway, the low air pressure isn't even the main load on the tube, it's the weight of the capsule + tubes between columns.
  
  --
  It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
17. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by thinkwaitfast · 2016-01-31 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  Take a physic class. Doesn't work like that.
18. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Rei · 2016-01-31 22:26 · Score: 1
  
  Steel is less likely to crack (some degree of cracking is considered normal with concrete) and more importantly has greater smoothness. Concrete can be polished smooth but not as smooth as steel, and the air bearing concept requires very tight tolerances. Furthermore, the cost of the steel is almost a footnote in comparison to the total project costs (see above).
  As for the "screwed together" comment... there are no joints. The pipe segments are joined together with an orbital welder, making a continuous piece of pipe. The insides are then polished smooth by a rotary polisher.
  
  --
  It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
19. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Rei · 2016-01-31 22:29 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Right, because inch-thick steel (hyperloop) just collapses like a can.
  Seriously, have you run the numbers on how much force it takes to bend inch-thick steel? Even in the event of a bomb-induced rupture it wouldn't collapse like that, it'd simply give just enough to let air in.
  Maintaining a vacuum is easier than maintaining high pressures, and we make and use long high pressure pipes all the time.
  
  --
  It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
20. Re: Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Rei · 2016-01-31 22:42 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Being borne by the mass of nearly 100 Eiffel towers, in a form naturally resistant to pressure (a cylinder).
  Seriously, we deal with far more extreme pressure differentials in pipelines all the time. There's absolutely nothing exotic about the proposed pipeline. It's fairly large, but with nearly inch-thick steel (20-23mm), buckling isn't even close to a risk; the thickness of steel required for a 2,23m cylindrical shell to not buckle is a small fraction of that. The thickness of the tube is more governed by the issues of loading between columns than by the internal pressure.
  
  --
  It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
21. Re: Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 23:23 · Score: 0
  
  It's very easy. Next question!
22. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  Nature Abhors a Vacuum
  That statement doesn't make any sense, since most of the universe is vacuum, with the average density of the universe being about one proton per 4 cubic meter. Nature loves vacuum!
  Also, 0.02psi is one atmosphere of pressure differential, which is the same as diving 10m below water. Not exactly special.
23. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by CastrTroy · 2016-01-31 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I'm not a mechanical engineer, so I didn't want to chime in too early, but 14 PSI sounds like a pretty small pressure difference. If a thin bicycle tire can withstand a 100 PSI differential, then I'm sure they can make steel hold a partial vacuum. My bigger question isn't the tube itself, but rather the train. The train itself has to have an atmosphere so the people inside can breath. How do they prevent the air in the train from emptying into the tube.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
24. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by AmiMoJo · 2016-01-31 23:52 · Score: 1
  
  To be worth it they would have to send a lot of pods down the tube, with minimal spacing. Each pod doesn't carry many passengers/much cargo. So it probably wouldn't make sense to only remove air when the car is approaching, and it could also be quite dangerous too if the pump fails and you haven't left enough time for the car to decelerate.
  The low capacity is a real problem for the hyperloop idea. By the time a commercial system is running maglev trains are expected to hit 8-900kph, while carrying hundreds of people and all their baggage at very low cost and in complete safety. Even cost wise, the new Japanese maglev is over 80% underground and they have got the tunnel building technology to the point where it's not much more expensive than buying [access to] the land, installing guard walls and sound dampening, anti-icing and snow removal systems etc. Compared to an elevated hyperloop track and associated support hardware it's likely to be cheaper.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
25. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  What vacuum are you talking about? It is only slightly reduced pressure. Did you even see any of the sketches of hyperloop capsule? How is the compressor on the front supposed to work without medium to compress?
26. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Viol8 · 2016-02-01 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  "There are a number of serious issues that the Hyperloop teams need to show that they need to overcome. You didn't hit on a single one of them."
  Indeed. The main one being what the hell is the point given that conventional trains are already hitting 200mph+ in europe and japan and 300mph+ has been succesfully trailed in france.
27. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 00:02 · Score: 0
  
  A vacuum 'pipeline' is not that crazy. There are other pipelines at much higher pressure differences (altough usually the inside is pressurized of course).
28. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Rei · 2016-02-01 00:09 · Score: 2
  
  The train has to be sealed as well; it carries its own air supply. And yeah, it's a more challenging engineering project than the tube (hence the reason for the current challenge and the test track). Really, the main engineering challenges with the tube itself have nothing to do with the pressure - they're 1) withstanding thermal expansion while still keeping the track highly straight, and 2) maintaining a very precise surface on the inner walls. They have proposals for these things, but they need to prove them (again, it's an issue for the test track).
  
  --
  It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
29. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Rei · 2016-02-01 00:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What's the point of going three times as fast with less energy at a fraction of the capital costs? Yeah, I can't figure it out either.
  
  --
  It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
30. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Viol8 · 2016-02-01 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  A fraction of the cost? Wtf are you smoking pal? TGV tech is plug and play, design costs were paid off decades ago. Also you're forgetting the carrying capacity and hence returns - TGV about 1000 passengers, pod about 10. And you won't be sending many pods all doing 700mph one after the other.
31. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 00:31 · Score: 0
  
  Yes and I bet someone also said that airplanes would be impossible.
32. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Rei · 2016-02-01 00:45 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  CA HSR is a $70B project. Hyperloop is a $6B project. Re: throughput: Hyperloop pods launch every 2 minutes during off-peak (30 seconds during peak) with 28 passengers, aka minimum of 20k per day, up to 80k per day depending on demand. HSR trains leave every 5-10 minutes with 450 passengers; they're ultimately hoping for 110k daily ridership, but it's expected to begin at well less than that (and critics think they're overestimating ridership by as much as 70%, but that's neither here nor there)
  In short, HSR is higher throughput (it's designed to service a larger area), but not by the sort of margin that justifies the order-of-magnitude budget difference. It's also significantly slower, significantly more energy consuming, and significantly more cost per ride. Now, you can doubt Hyperloop numbers - that's fine. But that's not what this conversation is about: this conversation is about what the point of Hyperloop is: far better throughput per dollar at far better passenger cost, energy consumption, and trip time. That's the point. Whether they can pull it off, that's something they have yet to prove.
  Honestly, I personally don't like how Hyperloop was set up as a competitor to HSR. Because it's really something new, something in-between high speed rail and air travel. I think they would have made far fewer "enemies" had they presented their initial pilot route as LA to Las Vegas. Probably could have gotten a lot of investment money from casino operators that way, too.
  
  --
  It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
33. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by BernardBrussels · 2016-02-01 00:54 · Score: 0
  
  2 points: - Why don't you use easy metric system??? presure and imperial is just crap. - presure doen't need to be calulated on the length of the tube... If you put a wire in the ground, will you calculate the total weight above it? If I make a fifty km wire out of 1kg of coper, dig it 5m in sand in the desert, will you calculate the weigh the machine need to move section per section it opens or like the machine is holding it all above ground?
34. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by DrXym · 2016-02-01 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  Smoothness is not an issue since the pod won't be touching the walls on purpose. The pod would ride on a maglev track and wouldn't touch the walls. Providing the pipe has a non permeable membrane that maintains the pressure then it doesn't matter what the pipe is comprised of.
  What matters is the production speed, cost, and issues such as maintenance and servicing. Concrete can certainly crack but metal expansion (and fatigue) is a thing too. If you have long lengths of steel then warping is a serious issue. A railway line incorporates expansion gaps to prevent this issue. What does a welded steel tube do to mitigate the issue?
35. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Viol8 · 2016-02-01 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  "Hyperloop is a $6B project. "
  In the sales brochure. In reality it'll be a boat load more.
36. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 01:54 · Score: 0
  
  HSR is a $70B project because of land rights. Hyperloop is a $6B project without considering land rights.
  If you could just have the land for free, you could build high speed rail for far, far cheaper.
37. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  it's not good to be such a debbie downer
38. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by bws111 · 2016-02-01 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Hyperloop is a $6B project without considering land rights.
  Wrong. It just has very few land rights requirements because most of it is supposed to be built over existing highways, and the remainder just needs rights for a pylon every hundred feet or so.
  
  If you could just have the land for free, you could build high speed rail for far, far cheaper.
  Yep, and if you could do it with slave labor it could be even cheaper. But you can't do either one so it is pointless to mention it.
39. Re: Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 02:27 · Score: 0
  
  Think about high pressure gas pipelines. They can seal them, using careful welding at each seam with x ray inspection and a seal over the exposed bare metal to prevent corrosion, and pulling them through bored holes to protect them from physical hazards.
  The challenge is economic, when scaling the diameter up by an order of magnitude.
40. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 02:48 · Score: 0
  
  I don't believe concrete is used to carry high pressure water, though I could be wrong. I'm just thinking of all the neighborhoods they're putting in around where I live. Concrete pipes are used for waste water and these greenish bluish composite plastic pipes are used for the mains.
41. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-02-01 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  The design is for reduced pressure, not a vacuum. Because the capsules 'fly' aerodynamically, rather than by maglev, it can't be a vacuum. The idea is to reduce the forward air pressure to a reasonable value.
42. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 04:12 · Score: 0
  
  You really think those people whose land the loop goes over are going to expect nothing in return?
  Hyperloop is interesting, but the numbers have been cooked by not including the cost to go city center to city center. This also means the times are cooked, as the time to get to the outside of the city station for Hyperloop removes the time savings.
43. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Muad'Dave · 2016-02-01 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  That would be the same pressure difference as a tank sealed at sea level being lowered into the ocean 34 feet. It's really not that much pressure.
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
44. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Khashishi · 2016-02-01 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose the hyperloop track will look something like this?
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
45. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Khashishi · 2016-02-01 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Or this?
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
46. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Coren22 · 2016-02-01 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure how thick the steel is on a rail car, but it is hardly equivalent to an aluminum can. The video is an oil tanker train car being crushed by vacuum, which the mythbusters tried too (one of the next videos on that one) and had to drop a 2500lb concrete block on top of the car to make it collapse.
  Personally, I am not sure why all this talk about vacuums though, the hyperloop is expected to have some air to provide a fluid bearing effect which will cause the cars to float in the tube.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
47. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  He's right. It works exactly like that. There's 14.7 psi of pressure, and he multiplied that by the number of square inches for the surface of the tube.
48. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Sir+Holo · 2016-02-01 05:01 · Score: 2
  
  I think this hyperloop is going to crash into the harsh realities of dealing with a vacuum.
  a) It takes a huge amount of energy to pull a good vacuum. This thing needs to be at 0.02 psi. Vacuum pumps are really inefficient. They mostly take electricity and generate lots of heat.
  b) Running the pumps is going to cost. Vacuum pumps burn out/need maintenance.
  A Roots blower can handle a lot of airflow. Back those up with some giant scroll pumps. Maintenance in either case is just replacement of the dry vanes. Energy is mainly spent on the initial evacuation ('work' to nature).
  
  c) 0.02 psi? That translates into a HUGE amount of force trying to crush the tube. 14 lbs/ square inch. It adds up QUICK. Better hope some 13 year old doesn't think it would be funny to put an M-80 on this thing. It might implode and kill anyone in the pod.
  Be serious. Aside from a cylinder being the perfect shape to handle this compressive stress, one atmosphere is roughly 15 psi. We have space station modules, undersea modules, subways under rivers/ocean, and aircraft. Dealing with radial pressure in metals, either tensile or compressive, is an undergraduate-level exercise.
  And your kid with an M-80? Has this same kid never heard of an oil pipeline? Or a train? Or, well, just about any piece of infrastructure that is routinely not brought down by a little M-80?
  
  d) Ever to try keep a vacuum? Good luck finding all the little leaks in the seals over X miles of this tube. Getting it evacuated once will be difficult. Now try to keep it sealed for a year. You have the stress of the pods flying through this thing. You have heating and cooling cycles every 24 hours.
  It will make a awesome science project for some students spending lots of other people's money.
  All the time. Mine are usually 10E-13 to 10E-16 atmospheres, which can be a pain. 0.02 psi is 0.1% of an atmosphere. That is silicone-gasket territory –nothing exotic will be required.
49. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Sir+Holo · 2016-02-01 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  They have superb engineers who I guess would have thought about these and far more complex scenarios.
  A possible solution is to have say - the whole tube is not low pressure - only subsections.
  These subsections can be quite small, say 5-10 meters wide where they might pull the air out just as the pod reaches that area.
  Sections covered with maybe small valves which allow the pods to go in - and not air to come in from the other side.
  Yes, this! The entire length would not need to be a single, gigantically-long vacuum chamber. Segmentation and compartmentalization of sub-lengths could be more economical. Low pressure in front, and high in the back. Well, maybe. If the capsules' travel is near-supersonic, then there would be no benefit from a 'push' of air re-inflow behind.
  Someone will do this study. Segments, periodic buffer tanks, and all the rest will be thought through. This is just solid engineering, which takes time, so I'll wait to hear from them.
50. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Shortguy881 · 2016-02-01 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking it would look more like this |=====================|
  
  --
  Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
51. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Shortguy881 · 2016-02-01 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Eminent domain. How do you think highways and railroads were built in the first place.
  
  --
  Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
52. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, high speed railways do not incorporate expansion gaps anymore. If a rail is tied down nice and tight it isn't going anywhere. This is one of those cases when revisiting age-old notions yields surprising results. For the hyperloop they might exploit the fact that the track will have curves which will simply get wider a little bit when hot.
53. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by KGIII · 2016-02-01 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  It should be noted that a "pig" is the device used to clean out large pipes. There are a bunch of different pigs like those designed to do inspection, repairs, or simple cleaning. Your username kind of checks out but probably not intentionally.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
54. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by istartedi · 2016-02-01 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  HUGE amount of force trying to crush the tube. 14 lbs/ square inch.
  The Transbay Tube has a maximum depth in water of 41m, and according to this calculator experiences 74.4696 psi at that depth.
  The tube liner by itself would probably have no trouble handling the pressure. It will almost certainly be surrounded by steel-reinforced concrete or at the very least pipeline steel because building such things is well understood. However it's built, it'll be ridiculously over-built if an M-80 or a rifle is the biggest threat. A real terrorist IED is always a threat of course, but no more so than for traditional rail.
  
  --
  For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
55. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 06:52 · Score: 0
  
  Eminent domain (or condemnation) does not obtain land for free, but at a court-determined "fair" market value.
56. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  The point is though that it isn't "free" as claimed.
  The original poster claimed they would only need to buy little patches of land for the towers, implying that the owners of the land the tube passed over would get nothing.
  Reality intrudes, and like anything else you will need to purchase or rent the entire strip of land, which will drive up your costs significantly even with Eminent domain.
  The basic problem is that nice small figure only allows for the hyperloop to get from outside of LA to outside of the bay area. To get into LA and the bay area means buying a lot of very expensive real estate, thus driving up the costs by several orders of mangnitude. The other alternative is everybody as to travel out of the urban areas to get to the hyperloop stations, which quickly eliminates the time savings.
  Hyperloop may well turn out to be a great thing, but trying to claim it is both fast and cheap while hand waving away the most expensive, in either time or cost, parts of the journey or construction, is simply misleading.
57. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  In fluid conveying tubes, the typical solution to thermal expansion are expansion loops - basically s-curves which can take up the expansion. That's probably not feasibly in a hyperloop system, as the rapid direction changes aren't really compatible with the concept. Probably some sort of expansion section with bellows, or specially selected materials. It would be way more expensive than normal pipe but you would only need them every couple kilometers.
58. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Robb · 2016-02-01 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  The scope wasn't at all the same between the CA HSR and the Hyperloop. The CA HSR was city center to city center while the Hyperloop was basically just the rural part of the CA HSR route. The rural part of CA HSR would cost about $10B compared to $6B for Hyperloop but with a significantly higher capacity although that capacity really only makes sense city center to city center. It isn't like Elon Musk invented public transportation so a lot of Hyperloop seems poorly thought out for anyone familiar with public transportation systems that actually work well.
59. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by R3d+M3rcury · 2016-02-01 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  The neat question would be how much land is needed.
  If the hyper loop is elevated, let's say 20 feet off the ground, then you only need "land" for the pylons to support it. You'd also need, I would imagine, some sort of 'right-of-way' agreement), but hat agreement can be forced by the government and you'd only have to pay for the land to support the pylon.
  Depending on how big the pylons are, that could be a pretty impressive cost savings.
60. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  Have you ever looked up how much it costs to build a mile of highway? This thing is dirt cheap in comparison. Just a big dumb pipe with single-ply steel walls under an inch thick, and hardly any surface footprint. Just one atmosphere of pressure differential, as opposed to oil/gas pipelines that run at >50 atmospheres - this is trivial to build.
61. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by spitzak · 2016-02-01 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Modern rail lines do not have expansion gaps. The rail is continuous (made of short pieces welded together) and is under tension, so heat just makes the tension go down slightly.
62. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Zorpheus · 2016-02-01 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  The pipe segments are joined together with an orbital welder, making a continuous piece of pipe. The insides are then polished smooth by a rotary polisher.
  Do you know what they planned to compensate for thermal expansion of the pipes? I guess these things are not an option: http://www.usbellows.com/expan...
63. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  I think the hyperloop is a silly idea but not for the reasons you state. I agree the vacuum will be inefficient as a way to transfer energy to the vehicle. The huge forces simply aren't. This isn't high vacuum so leaks may not be the great problem you anticipate. I think it is silly because it is more capital and more technically challenging hardware to achieve what can be done with less using rails. We should just admit that US high speed rail tech is behind everyone else and begin developing it.
64. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 01:03 · Score: 0
  
  A point based on numbers generated before even the basics of the tech are worked out is no point at all. I mean really, would you personally invest any way other than frivolously in a project that is in the stage of student teams competing to conceive of the basics? Would you believe the financial projections? Would you believe the performance claims? It's all just hype loop at this time. So by all means have fun and research but demanding we compare imaginary numbers to real ones is a bit silly.
65. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by stoatwblr · 2016-02-09 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  "I think this hyperloop is going to crash into the harsh realities of dealing with a vacuum."
  This has always been the bugbear of evacuated tubeways and what killed the 1960s propsals.
  Hyperloop doesn't pull a hard vacuum. It's more like 1-2psi than 0.02 and Whilst proposals are for induction motors for forward motion, the units are intended to fly on an aircushion, not use magnetic levitation (A suitable lifting fan would provide a fair bit of forward motion in a tube anyway, so the induction kickers can be on the tubes at intervals, not in the pods.)
66. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by stoatwblr · 2016-02-09 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  "To be worth it they would have to send a lot of pods down the tube, with minimal spacing"
  Or link them into trains once they're underway.
  My personal feeling is that the tube diameter is too small.
  The real moneyspinner is freight and if the tubes can't handle a pod carrying an unmodified intermodal shipping container (that's the kind seen on ships or the back of trucks, not the ones used in aircraft) then the extra manual handling of what's being shipped will kill the economics of using it.
  With regards to the Japanese Maglevss the huge advantage is energy consumption. Even with all that fancy aerodynamics on it, each maglev requires tens of MW to punch through the air. Partially evacuating the tubes reduecs power consumption dramatically.
  With regard to safety: if the tube pressurises, the pods will slow down quickly to zero (but not uncomfortably so - remember they're air-suchion vehicles) and if the power goes off, passive safety systems can ensure that the tube is vented to atmospheric pressure in a safe manner.
  Switching is one of the issues to be addressed but there are a number of ways of approaching this.
67. Re:Nature Abhors a Vacuum by stoatwblr · 2016-02-09 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  Have you looked at the power consumption of a TGV?
  300+mph has been trialled, but the rolling stock suffered severe coning effects (look that up) which nearly resulted in the train oscillating off the track, the track, ballast, pantographs and (more importantly) the overhead wiring all suffered major damage and the energy consumption for the test rig (a short, specially modified train) precluded doing it on a normal TGV - most TGV sets are over 1/4 mile long and at these speeds on these kinds of trains most friction is on the sides of the carriages no matter how well polished they may be - the aerodynamics up front is primarily to ensure the nose of the train stays grounded and carriage lower fairings are more about stability than reducing friction. The practical limit for railed vehicles on conventional tracks seems to be about 250mph.
  On top of that a TGV track is a very expensive piece of high precision heavy engineering with a roadbed going down 10-12 feet in most places and a very low tolerance for any kind of trash near the tracks (the winds generated by passing trains are severe and magnetic eddy currents from the motors will pick up and throw any loose bolts/nuts. FOD inspections are almost as rigorous as on airport runways and that means there's an (expensive) army of maintenance workers associated with TGVs compared with lower speed passenger lines.
  The construction costs of Hyperloop are low by comparison, which mean that it can run a lot more places and offer greater frequency of service. On longer routes you can expect that pods will link up to form trains, so it won't be "1 pod whizzing past every 30 seconds", it'll be "20-30 entrained pods every so often" - which makes route switching and other logistics much easier to handle.
  I really hope this works. If it does then shorthaul flying will be pretty much eliminated. As it is I much prefer to take the train (TGV) from my house near London to Paris/Amsterdam/Nice than to fly - and to Paris/Amsterdam the doorstep-to-doorstep time is usually significantly lower than trying to fly. To Nice it's longer - but far more comfortable.
What are miles? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 18:40 · Score: 2, Funny

Isn't the US using metric like the rest of the world?
1. Re:What are miles? by prefec2 · 2016-01-31 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  No they are one of the last three countries using the measurement system of their past overlords. I guess they do it in tribute to the Empire or because they are accustomed to it and do not want to change. Anyway, it is expensive to use such an ancient system in opposition to the rest of the world, and due to its incompatibility of inch, feet, yards, and miles which each other, it is more error prone to use.
2. Re:What are miles? by thinkwaitfast · 2016-01-31 22:30 · Score: 1
  
  Technically the US doesn't have a system and it is left up to individuals to use whatever they want. The exception to this is anything sold by weight or volume in which case it is required by law to be labeled in grams. Like most videos I watch from the UK where people talk in miles, unless they are doing it for the benefit of US viewer which seems a little silly.
3. Re:What are miles? by thinkwaitfast · 2016-01-31 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  How do you explain this then? A (very modern) BBC program talking about horsepower and miles per hour?
  https://youtu.be/OL_eIZjiLUk?t...
4. Re:What are miles? by thinkwaitfast · 2016-01-31 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  Here's another example from amazon uk... air conditioners with BTU ratings: http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=...
  Or the fact that in the US, pop is sold by the liter or two liter or that my aunt's knitting group uses mm in thei patterns?
5. Re:What are miles? by Sique · 2016-02-01 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  Great Britain being one of the two other countries mentioned in the parent.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
6. Re:What are miles? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  Does Spain count as one of those two other countries as well? When I was there talking to a guy about cars, I did think it was odd he was using horsepower to refer to the power his car produced. Even in the metric countries, they aren't as metric as you might like to believe. Though I concede the UK is legitimately odd. I'm 30 km from London and the speed limit is 70 MPH? And what the hell is a stone?
7. Re:What are miles? by jbengt · 2016-02-01 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Technically the US doesn't have a system
  
  Then what is the Office of Weights and Measures for?
  And what meaning would the Mendenhall Order of 1893 have had if the US didn't have a system?
  If there were no system back in the days when money was backed by "precious" metals, how could have the value of the US dollar been set to a particular amount of gold?
8. Re:What are miles? by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-02-01 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  "And what the hell is a stone?"
  Furthermore, the 'stone' is used only for weighing people. Not for weighing anything else.
9. Re:What are miles? by Sir+Holo · 2016-02-01 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Technically the US doesn't have a system
  Then what is the Office of Weights and Measures for?
  I think you mean NIST (National Bureau for Standards and Technology), formerly known as the NBS (National Bureau of Standards). They're related, at the least. Both are under the US Department of Commerce (DOC).
  Slashdotters should recall the a multi-national Mars-probe that crash-landed during a 'routine' orbit-adjustment. The contract was specified in Imperial (feet, pounds, etc.), but one subcontractor in the EU didn't get that memo (I don't blame them). The thing crashed into a smoking crater instead, thanks to this undergraduate-level units-conversion mistake.
  We have rid ourselves of the ha'penny, six-pence, the mil (US), and all sorts of other non-Base-10 systems of counting units.
  To answer: The cost of re-tooling is considered to be 'too expensive' for US manufacturers, so they do not make the shift. Machining and forming can be complicated enough without making the person think in base-12, base-16, and so on, depending upon what they are considering. How much did that Mars probe's crash cost us?
  It's well-past time to go metric here in the US. Scientists did so long ago. It makes everything so much easier. But ah well, I will save my breath.
10. Re:What are miles? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  the main difference being that Great Britain is actually quite half and half between using a primitive nonsense system and the one that is actually not batshit insane
11. Re:What are miles? by thinkwaitfast · 2016-02-01 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  http://politics.slashdot.org/s...
12. Re:What are miles? by volmtech · 2016-02-02 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  How many languages do most Europeans need to speak? You're not smart enough to learn two measurement systems? I have to know both systems, stay out of the US and you only need to know one.
13. Re: What are miles? by prefec2 · 2016-02-02 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  You are completely missing my point. Never mind. It is of course you prerogative to choose what ever measurement system you want. However, you will always have to convert values when you sell products to the rest of the world.
14. Re: What are miles? by volmtech · 2016-02-02 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  If you haven't noticed we are not concerned with selling to other parts of the world, we prefer cheaper and better made imports. The only things we export are death and dollars.
15. Re:What are miles? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  pop?
  you must mean soda.
Futurama design by ooloorie · 2016-01-31 18:52 · Score: 2

I prefer the Futurama design:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
We don't need no stinking carriages!
1. Re:Futurama design by prefec2 · 2016-01-31 21:46 · Score: 1
  
  This is only for local transport. When you travel between cities you want higher speeds which is not so nice if you are just sucked through a tube.
2. Re:Futurama design by Shortguy881 · 2016-02-01 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  That whoosh sound wasn't just the person in the tube above you, but you completely missing that joke.
  
  --
  Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
What were the criteria the designs judged on? by mykepredko · 2016-01-31 19:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

TFA is somewhat lacking in actual information.
I'd like to know what makes one design of a hyperloop capsule better than another.
Anybody have any links?

--
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
1. Re:What were the criteria the designs judged on? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 20:03 · Score: 0
  
  The best one has solar panels with LED lights fitted on the track.
Don't need a war, but we need a war-like effort by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 19:25 · Score: 0

Congratulations! But would it be possible for a regular joe to contribute his time/skill/brainpower towards the construction of the transport of the future? Think about it:: much like we had Chinese or immigrants built the railroad that spanned East to West, can this hyperloop be the project that will rebuild America? A nation divided can be united with a project of this magnitude, and the joes that helped build it get to ride first, even if they only stitched the uniforms of the workers. Heck, if the people wish to work for their green card, and they want to sign up, let them suit up and build the hyperloop. Forget about the Donald; vote for the candidate that wants to clear out the shelters and put those idle hands to work, dammit! Cue the angelic chorus now
You are posing as Anonymous Coward
1. Re:Don't need a war, but we need a war-like effort by prefec2 · 2016-01-31 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  The division in society cannot be solved with faster transportation. It only allows you to run away from each other. Local transport is much more an issue.
pneumatic tubes? by sittingnut · 2016-01-31 20:05 · Score: 1

what is relationship of these to pneumatic tubes ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
is this a second coming? if so, have they overcome whatever problems they had, that made them go out of fashion after fairly wide use at one time.
1. Re:pneumatic tubes? by Rei · 2016-01-31 22:34 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No relation whatsoever, except that both involve a tube. Same with a vactrain. Hyperloop is "none of the above".
  Lift:
  * Pneumatic: (Usually) wheels (though sometimes aero or maglev)
  * Vactrain: Maglev
  * Hyperloop: Aerodynamic
  Propulsion:
  * Pneumatic: Backpressure
  * Vactrain: Single-segment coilgun
  * Hyperloop: Multi-segment coilgun
  Dealing with air resistance:
  * Pneumatic: Frequent stations that have to move a lot of air
  * Vactrain: Hard vacuum, effectively no air resistance
  * Hyperloop: Compressors shunt bypass air
  
  --
  It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
2. Re:pneumatic tubes? by sittingnut · 2016-01-31 23:12 · Score: 1
  
  i did look it up myself, and find that there are too many similarities than differences between pneumatic tubes and so called hyperloop. differences you mention are actually not fundamental differences, since each method you mention can and are being used for different versions of each.
3. Re:pneumatic tubes? by Rei · 2016-01-31 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  Huh? Pneumatic vehicles are by definition vehicles propelled by pressure. That's what "pneumatic" means. In what manner do you think that is even remotely similar to Hyperloop, which operates in a low-vacuum (aka, pressure devoid) environment and has to be propelled by multiple coilgun segments?
  
  --
  It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
More information by Harlequin80 · 2016-01-31 20:08 · Score: 4, Informative

From http://www.gizmag.com/mit-hype...
The MIT team's winning design details a 250 kg (551 lb) passenger pod with an exterior crafted from carbon fiber and polycarbonate sheets. With a passive magnetic levitation system comprising 20 neodymium magnets, the pod is designed to maintain a 15 mm (0.6 in) levitation gap above the track.
The team says with the lowest available tube pressure available of 140 Pa, the pod should be accelerated at 2.4 G and have 2 N aerodynamic drag when traveling at 110 m/s. The design also features a fail-safe braking system that automatically brings the pod to a halt should the actuators or computers fail, and low speed drive wheels that can move the pod forwards or backwards at 1 m/s in an emergency situation.
1. Re:More information by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 22:20 · Score: 0
  
  Uh, I'm not sure most of the general public would be entirely comfortable pulling 2.4G...
2. Re:More information by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 22:29 · Score: 0
  
  gizmag better than most, but what they don't mention (and which is critical) is the drag on the magnetic levitation - if by repulsive eddy currents in aluminum they will be lucky to do better than about 50N drag (50:1 Lift to Drag) making the aero drag irrelevant.
3. Re:More information by Rei · 2016-01-31 23:37 · Score: 1
  
  This is for making a test capsule, not actual hyperloop pods. Hyperloop is not to the stage of full-scale implementation. A small scale test track has to be produced and validated first.
  You may have also noticed that the test pod only travels at 110 m/s (far below the baseline Hyperloop speed), is only 250kg, and *ahem* has no seats.
  
  --
  It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
4. Re:More information by Rei · 2016-01-31 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  Hyperloop does not use magnetic levitation. Try again.
  
  --
  It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
5. Re:More information by gnupun · 2016-01-31 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  If Musk's company earns billions a year from hyperloop travel, how much does the company plan to pay the MIT team in royalties? Better not be 0%.
6. Re:More information by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 00:05 · Score: 0
  
  Rei; if you RTFA http://www.gizmag.com/mit-hyperloop-competition/41589/, or the quote from the parent "The MIT team's winning design details a 250 kg (551 lb) passenger pod with an exterior crafted from carbon fiber and polycarbonate sheets. With a passive magnetic levitation system comprising 20 neodymium magnets, the pod is designed to maintain a 15 mm (0.6 in) levitation gap above the track."
7. Re:More information by Rei · 2016-02-01 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  Weird... I may stand corrected. The Hyperloop Alpha document (the original design proposal)was built around specifically avoiding maglev - yet the winner here appears to be using it. Given that then I'm not sure what the point to having any atmosphere in the tube at all is. Yet the pod description talks several times about drag (such as the nose shell being designed to keep it at a minimum), so they're expecting it to go through an atmosphere, not hard vacuum. Yet I see nowhere on their design the compressors that the Hyperloop Alpha document spent so much time going on about. Which raises the issue, how are they planning to shunt the air behind them (the whole point of the design document's compressors)?
  Wait a minute, what the heck? "The pod’s lateral control will utilize passive magnets and active electromagnetic damping to maintain lateral stability and keep the pod centered on the rail." What rail? Looking over their pictures, they're drawing riding a bloody monorail. Is the test track going to be a monorail? Are they now planning to have the final design be a monorail?
  Looking over it yet again... they're drawing the "permanent magnets" on the bottom... downward-facing permanent magnets causing levitation? The only system I'm aware of that causes that is something like Inductrack. Has Hyperloop now morphed into Inductrack?
  This design raises vastly more questions than it answers. I have no idea what they're thinking now.
  
  --
  It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
8. Re:More information by Rei · 2016-02-01 01:23 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Looking into it some more, I found this document, thanks to the Badgerloop team. It most definitely includes a monorail (???). Their logic is:
  
  The test track is designed to be flexible and to allow competitors to implement, at a minimum, the following three types of levitation/suspension:
  1. Wheels: The concrete (and aluminum) flat sections along the outside allow for a good wheel surface and aluminum rail(s) allow for horizontally oriented wheels, as implemented on certain roller coasters.
  2. Air bearings: The aluminum plate allows for a much smoother and flatter surface than the steel tube itself. The rail(s) can be used for lateral control, either through side-mounted bearings or wheels.
  3. Magnetic levitation: Several forms of magnetic levitation require a conductive non-magnetic surface (e.g. copper or aluminum). The sub-track allows for magnetic levitation and the rail(s) allow for lateral control
  So from the sound of it...
  1) They don't plan to have the system set up for polishing the walls for the test track, so even for air bearings they'd have to use the aluminum plate to get the requisite level of smoothness
  2) They're designing the track to allow any conceivable type of vehicle to operate there, not just the air bearing-based one that they proposed.
  So now 22 teams, each with their own different proposals for lift (including no levitation at all) can move on to build and test their proposals at the track.
  Still, kind of weird how they're doing it...
  
  --
  It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
9. Re:More information by Harlequin80 · 2016-02-01 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  It is because creating a hard vacuum is basically impossible. In a best case scenario they are looking 140pa but realistically it will be more than that. Still significantly lower than sea level pressures but definitely not a hard vacuum. Given that, drag will be a major factor and hence why it is such a focus of the design.
  As for the compressors, who knows. The level of detail on the article is close to zero but there are a lot of boxes that do something in their design.
10. Re:More information by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  Hmm, a passive magnetic levitation system. I wonder how they got around Earnshaw's theorem?
11. Re:More information by Rei · 2016-02-01 02:43 · Score: 2
  
  Overall I just find this winner very disappointing compared to the (rather innovative) Hyperloop Alpha proposal. 14:1 LD ratio, no obvious signs of shunting the piled-up air (looking at all of the boxes... there's no compressor, no battery packs, no cooling, none of what would be required for it)... they're talking about a vehicle with vastly higher drag. Which throws off the whole Hyperloop concept, which was built around brief accelerator segments and the vehicle coasting between them with almost no accumulated air drag and a 2000:1 LD ratio from the air bearings. Would they build vastly more accelerator segments, even continuous, to keep the thing moving? How is this scaleable?
  Just a very disappointing direction.
  
  --
  It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
12. Re:More information by dwillden · 2016-02-01 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  A series of mysterious accidents when the Tesla Model S's the receive as their reward explode on activation. He's out a few factory rejects and little other cost. ;)
  
  --
  I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
13. Re:More information by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  I think this is actually very clever. Try out every technology at once, in the same facility, and then pick the best one(s) to develop further. Way more efficient than pursuing just one method at a time.
Design and build are two different things... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 23:51 · Score: 0

How much above ground rail, under ground rail or high speed compare cost wise to the proposed hyper loop?
The way I see this, it is essentially a large diameter vacuum jacket pipeline, carrying high loads at high speeds. This is going to be prohibitively expensive.
Why not spend all that money and right of way access for something proven to work? You could build a lot of new track for passenger and freight service.
Oh wait, its not tech and its not green. The proven ways refined over 100-200 years are no longer appreciated by todays modern techie generation. It is a shame that people may not want to accept certain technological limitations in lieu of the latest scientific break throughs.
Shelling out billions of dollars for a one trick pony is foolish.
1. Re:Design and build are two different things... by Rei · 2016-02-01 00:30 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The cost for pipeline construction is... well, the cost of pipeline construction. We already make giant elevated pipelines thousands of kilometers long. The costs aren't prohibitive, and are far less than rail. Compared to a big oil pipeline project, Hyperloop has some advantages and disadvantages.
  Advantages:
  * Significantly less column loading
  * No fire risk
  * No spill risk
  * Easier thermal management
  * Easier permitting (one of the biggest costs)
  * Less NIMBY opposition
  * Lower pumping loads/power consumption
  Disadvantages:
  * Much greater need for internal precision (requires an internal polisher)
  * Must be maintained highly straight, even during thermal expansion
  * Human lives directly involved, not just indirectly.
  * Larger diameter than most pipelines; comparable to the size of the worlds' largest pipelines
  * New technology
  Neutral/shared:
  * Both require regular monitoring equipment, although different types
  * Both need to meet stringent standards again natural or manmade disasters, such as earthquakes or car accidents
  * Oil requires valves/tees/access points; Hyperloop requires periodic emergency exits
  * Fairly similar wall thicknesses, though an oil pipeline of this diameter would have slightly higher walls due to the higher loading
  I see no reason to expect the costs (for a given diameter) to be off from each other by orders of magnitude. And the cost of the steel itself is almost irrelevant compared to the total costs (see the calculations above).
  And no, you could not "build a lot of new track for passenger and freight service" for $6B. California's HSR project for example is $70B. Part of the main impetus of Hyperloop was to be significantly cheaper than HSR while providing higher transit speeds (although to be fair to HSR, Hyperloop is not designed as a direct replacement; it's only point-to-point, no intermediary stops, and lower net throughput - more of an cross between rail and air travel). The main way in which it's cheaper (in addition to not having all of the stops, aka having to go through towns, and instead largely sticking to rural highways where right-of-way and permitting is much cheaper and easier) is that by dividing the load out into numerous smaller vehicles, the peak "track" loadings are far less with Hyperloop. Loadings are strongly correlated with cost.
  
  Oh wait, its not tech and its not green.
  That's a bizarre claim, given that its energy per passenger mile is far less than any other current form of transportation and it's designed to generate its own power via solar.
  
  --
  It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
2. Re:Design and build are two different things... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  For your advantages, I disagree with quite a few.
  "No spill risk" - There's a huge spill risk, it's just in the opposite direction. Trying to manage leaks in oil pipelines is a bloody fricken nightmare and was considered one of the biggest problems with the pipeline from the oil sands. Now you're needing to maintain vacuums while dealing with the same leaks. Yes, the leak is no longer leaving oil around, but it's still just as big of a problem. Not only that, but the leaks are going to be far more common since oil pipelines are between 12-24 inches, no meters across.
  "Easier thermal management" - What are you talking about? True you don't have to worry about keeping it warm enough, but if it starts to get hot, you don't have a liquid shooting through it to actively cool it. Now, I realize in an ideal world there would be no heat since the it wouldn't touch the walls of the thing and there would be no air to compress, but from what I've heard, the vacuum may not be as much of a complete vacuum as some would like us to believe, and if that's the case, dissipating heat could become a problem. Time will tell on this as the project continues.
  "Easier permitting" - Said from a guy who clearly has never been involved with the permits to get a road built. This will be an absolute nightmare. I've seen before where you said they'd just build above roads, but the roads weren't permitted to be built that high in the first place. And the NIMBYs will come out in force. In area, there's a multi-million dollar lawsuit going on because somebody built a fence and it "spoiled the view" of some of the other residents. If you don't think this is going to be a major problem, you are delusional.
  "Less NIMBY opposition" - See my previous portion on permitting.
  "Lower pumping loads/power requirements" - I'm going to need to see justification for this. You are trying to maintain a near vacuum through a massive pipe. Maintaining vacuums on small scale isn't efficient, why will it be at large scale? The pipe is going to leak, even with the best welds. We see this in ships and submarines today which is why they need water pumps to remove the water, why would this tube be any different? I saw people mentioning that they would only evacuate the portions of the pipe currently in use. How? I've never seen a near vacuum made quickly. And even if they can, how are they going to do it efficiently? We see it in our world, it's relatively easy to add something quickly, but tends to be hard to remove things quickly. Flash boiling water by adding a lot of energy, easy. Flash freezing water by removing a lot of energy, not so easy. Adding pressure, easy. Removing pressure, I'm going to need to see some justification that this is easy.
3. Re:Design and build are two different things... by hey! · 2016-02-01 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm. The only pipelines that have the 2m + ID required for a hyperloop are water pipelines, and those ginormous mains are typically not elevated, but rather buried. Sometimes they're bored through rock and the walls cast in place like NYC's Tunnel #3, a project which when it completes in 2020 will have taken fifty years to bridge 100 km.
  Of course the biggest advantage as you point out is that the weight of a hyperloop is going to weigh much less than a pipeline that carries liquid, so you wouldn't have to bury it. But I think it's likely that the project will be unique, and I doubt you can estimate it precisely just by extrapolating from experience with water or oil pipelines. I think they'll have to build a non-trivially sized working model first.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
4. Re:Design and build are two different things... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 09:21 · Score: 0
  
  You need to understand that oil and gas pipelines have pressure differentials much higher (like 50-100 times higher) than the Hyperloop would. This is way, way more demanding on the pumps and uses a huge amount of energy. One atmosphere just isn't a whole lot of pressure when it comes to pipelines. This also means that a small leak is insignificant - the volume of the pipe is so enormous that a trickle of air has no appreciable effect on the internal pressure and can be trivially compensated for by pumping. There's not enough pressure in the atmosphere to cause some kind of a catastrophic blow-out, or erosion where a small leak becomes larger over time (any conceivable air flow speed is not enough to chew away solid steel). You just need to size the pumps for expected leakage rate plus some margin to cover deterioration over the service lifetime.
Wtf? by Viol8 · 2016-01-31 23:54 · Score: 1

"These subsections can be quite small, say 5-10 metres wide where they might pull the air out just as the pod reaches that area."
So you're going to have vacuum containment doors all along this tube that have to open just as a 700 mph pod comes barrelling through and suck the air out in that moment too? Oh yeah, thats sounds workable. What other projects is the Mad Hatter working on in Wonderland at the moment just out of interest?
"this was just 5 minutes guess work."
No shit.
1. Re: Wtf? by thePig · 2016-02-01 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  :-)
  Good one. Quite funny too.
  I don't disagree it looks rather far fetched.
  But the point I was trying to make was that there are more than one way to skin a cat, even though this way of skinning was rather far fetched.
  I started with sub sections which is not very bad, but then went and decreased the size a lot - which might be:-)
  
  --
  rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
Controversy over the Winnipeg-Amarillo hyperloop by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-02-01 04:20 · Score: 2

Greens are protesting this proposed line because of the possibility that a leak will release Canadians into the environment, endangering the Nebraska sandhill crane.
wrong cite by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-01 05:58 · Score: 0

Reported by Associated Press, not by Dallas Mourning News. The latter simply put the former's story on a piece of paper or cloud.
Ugh by CanadianMacFan · 2016-02-01 08:25 · Score: 1

Single passenger row. So if you are going with someone you can't talk to them during the trip. Or a parent can't sit with their child. Image a young brat misbehaving for the trip and the parent isn't beside them to get them to stop. And what are you supposed to do with someone who is afraid to travel that way? Strap them in and leave them alone?
I know the selling point is the speed of the trip but, for example, if business people can't make use of the time while on there then it becomes less useful for them.
I've seen this idea before on TV.... by tuorum · 2016-02-02 09:41 · Score: 1

There was an episode of Sea Quest DSV that had a concept similar to this.