Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hyperloop One Technology Tested Successfully In Nevada Desert

Posted by BeauHD on from the age-of-hyperloop dept.

Dave Knott quotes a report from CBC.ca: Hyperloop One (formerly known as Hyperloop Technologies) conducted a successful test of its high speed transportation technology Wednesday in the desert outside Las Vegas. The seconds-long, outdoor demonstration featured what appeared to be a blip of metal gliding across a small track before disappearing into a cloud against the desert landscape. A fully operational hyperloop would whisk passengers and cargo in pods through a low pressure tube at speeds of up to 1,207 kph (750 mph). Maglev technology would levitate the pods to reduce friction in the city-to-city system, which would be fully autonomous and electric powered. A day earlier, the company had announced the closing of $80 million in financing and said it plans to conduct a full system test before the end of the year.

100 comments

  1. Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that is all

  2. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    speeds of up to 1,207 kph (750 mph).

    Correction: 1207.008 kph (750 mph)

    1. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No - it is 1210 kph.

      The original number is given to 2 significant digits so the conversion should likewise have 2 significant digits.

    2. Re:Correction by stooo · · Score: 1

      No. it's km/h.
      "kph" does not mean anything.

      --
      aaaaaaa
  3. possibly a great idea... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

    but it troubles me that the name of the company and the technology both start with "hype".

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:possibly a great idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elon Musk is the Dyson of the millenials.

  4. Obligatory... by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Funny

    LInk to the classic Simpsons musical, Monorail

    Monorail, Monorail, MONORAIL!

    I mean, HYPERLOOP!

    Seriously though, train systems of all sorts are an important part of an overall transportation network - it's just too appropriate not to post.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Obligatory... by RyanFenton · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actual link

      Teach me not to preview!

    2. Re:Obligatory... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I always suspected that song was about the Detroit People Mover and the vain hope that it would revive the city. Anyone closer to the subject matter have any ideas on that?

    3. Re: Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe. I think it's relatable for any city that had/has a monorail - seriously it was just like in the cartoon for us, except without the critters and solar power.

    4. Re: Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The streets have holes and are broken /
      Sorry mom the mob has spoken.

    5. Re:Obligatory... by rvw14 · · Score: 1

      Does North Haverbrook have one?

    6. Re: Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone been through the Chunnel? It's not a pleasant experience.

      How do you combat turbulence in a tube, going 750 MPH?

    7. Re: Obligatory... by jtgd · · Score: 1

      How do you combat turbulence in a tube, going 750 MPH?

      Remove the air.

      --
      J
  5. Looking in the wrong place for emissions cuts by Dorianny · · Score: 2

    If you are looking to cut emissions expanding Freight Rail is a much better investment then Sexy Hyperloops or Bullet trains.

    1. Re:Looking in the wrong place for emissions cuts by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So ideally for a freight rail system we want high throughput, short delivery times, cheap, and running to/from convenient nearby locations.

      Breaking this down further, it suggests we want
      * Small trains (lowers latency - less time to wait for a train going to your destination. Removes/reduces need for transferring cargo between trains by allowing point-to-point service, so long as the 'point's are train stations.)
      * Autonomous (required by 'small trains' and 'cheap')
      * Handles congestion well (for high throughput with lots of small trains)
      * Fast
      * Moderately priced infrastructure.
      * High density of train stations around the country
      I.e. something like an internet for shipping containers.

      Hyperloop gives us 'fast', but fails on infrastructure price, fails at least initially on density of stations, and congestion may be problematic. Starting with the existing rail network and moving to more automation and smaller trains and solving some congestion problems (perhaps the hardest bit) gives everything but 'fast', but for many purposes is 'fast enough'.

      It still needs to be competitive compared to autonomous trucks.

      TL;DR: I agree.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    2. Re:Looking in the wrong place for emissions cuts by Ramze · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That sounds like a solution looking for a problem. My uncle and grandfather work(ed) for the railroad. For freight, you're never going to make a dent with this plan. Freight is all about momentum, not speed. Starting and stopping cargo are the hardest parts. You need a powerful engine just to move 1 fully loaded car, but that same engine can pull lots of cars -- it just hast to pick up speed over time. You're never going to pick up serious speed before you get to a populated area where you have to slow down -- because railways cross roadways. Stopping even a single car quickly requires a bag of sand to be dropped on the steel railing and makes enough friction to ruin the wheels. You're not going to get cars carrying tons of cargo to go faster than the current system. Worse -- breaking up a single locomotive train w/ tens of cars into lots of smaller cars means lots and lots of wasteful engines that have to pull those smaller cars. They'd also have to have a much larger space between each car to be able to reasonably slow down in time should one have a problem. You'd need to increase the number of tracks to make up for the wasted space to push the same amount of cargo over time. In short, there's reasons why they do things the way they do them now... mostly physics and logistics reasons.

      Assuming you could update the patchwork of decades old systems properly, it wouldn't give you much savings as humans will likely be required for safety reasons well into the future - just like pilots still fly passenger planes even though autopilot does most of the work between take-offs and landings... even subway trains have conductors. We're talking about miles of track that cross public roadways with children on bikes -- not going to go fully automatic anytime soon.

      Even if you re-designed the entire system to be above-ground mag-lev freight with novel breaking systems to achieve this insane acceleration/deceleration, you'd have such massive construction and power issues, it would be super-expensive. The average weight for a freight rail car is around 130 tons fully loaded. A fully loaded passenger maglev car is between 50 and 70 tons. It's not impossible... and one could often just split the cargo between multiple cars if needed. It'd be expensive, though. You'd still need to use trucks to get from the train station to the final destination.

      The hyperloop is for extremely fast passenger travel to replace airlines. It has lightweight cargo (people and maybe luggage), and can be built on railways above ground with cheaper construction than the support needed for heavy freight. Above-ground tubing can be safe enough to be an automated system. It's horribly expensive because of the land purchase, construction, maintenance, safety, etc... but, once it's built, it could offer transportation faster and safer than air travel. Should eventually be cheaper, too -- and no need to worry about hijackers as it's on a track... and there's no explosive fuel to blow up a building with even if it went off-track.

      Basically, the hyperloop is the replacement for air travel over land. It could also carry cargo/freight in addition to passengers if the weight and space constraints allow. A hyperloop or maglev train system might solve other problems with the freight industry as well.

    3. Re:Looking in the wrong place for emissions cuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * Small trains (lowers latency - less time to wait for a train going to your destination. Removes/reduces need for transferring cargo between trains by allowing point-to-point service, so long as the 'point's are train stations.)

      No, that's extremely inefficient. What you want is a system where the cars can join onto larger trains for going long distance then break away into smaller trains of down to a single car for the local part of the journey. Which is roughly how it's done now. Trucks are then used to get the freight to/from the local terminus, with only large exceptions (eg steel factories) possibly having their own dedicated one.

    4. Re:Looking in the wrong place for emissions cuts by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I'd be curious to know(I'm not doing doubt-in-the-form-of-a-question, I honestly don't know) how much freight goes by truck rather than by rail because of deficiencies in the rail network; and how much does because the itinerary or the cargo don't mesh well with rail transport(eg. a truck doing a long haul on the highway is probably less efficient than putting the same container on the train track running the same route; but the truck can get off the highway and drive all the way to the loading dock barring any especially low bridges or strict regulations on vehicle size in certain neighborhoods; trucks are also fairly 'granular' in that you can get one sent out for basically any cargo too large for a van, assuming you are willing to pay for mileage on a somewhat underfilled vehicle; while trains offer comparatively static times and routes; but enormous capacity).

      Identifying routes where no better reason than our 'highways aren't socialist infrastructure spending but railways are!' approach is the cause of a lot of unnecessary trucking seems like an obvious win; but dealing with the cases where the goods go by road because it's substantially cheaper or faster to go from loading dock to loading dock seems like a trickier problem.

      That is, though, one thing that might be a virtue about passenger-focused development efforts: passengers tend to demand reasonably convenient terminal locations, schedules, frequent service, etc. which are all virtues that could also be attractive to cargo uses that are too small(per load, we certainly run zillions of them every year) or time sensitive or the like to want to deal with conventional freight trains.

      Given the cost of a giant hamster tube pumped down to low pressure, 'hyperloop' cargo would probably be closer to air freight than train freight in price; but assuming that the hyperloop designers aren't complete idiots, they could presumably make switching a given car between passengers and freight relatively quick and seamless based on demand(whether that's by swapping out a passenger car for a freight car, or by having the passenger-amenities module be a freight container that gets loaded into one of the all-cars-are-freight-cars hyperloop cars if sufficient passengers are present to justify it), which would allow the same sort of high speed and flexibility that air freight offers.

      Not an obvious choice for shipping 10 zillion tons of coal or iron ore or what have you; but the greater flexibility might make it viable for cargo that doesn't fit as well with conventional freight rail.

    5. Re:Looking in the wrong place for emissions cuts by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      I'm not entirely convinced by the Hyperloop idea. It's not that much faster than the maglev is expected to be (the main limitations at the moment are the length of the test track and an abundance of caution) and carries many fewer passengers.

      That could be a big issue in the US, because people there are not as disciplined as the Japanese when boarding trains. Bullet train doors open for 30 seconds exactly. People line up and board in an orderly fashion. Thus stops are short and turn-around fast (the cleaning staff do the whole train in 10 minutes, while technicians do an examination from a trench below the platform.)

      Maybe there is a clever solution to this, but otherwise the small number of passengers and the relatively slow boarding times could end up making it slower. Plus you have to worry about the TSA ruining it.

      The new Japanese maglev is projected to cost around $80bn, and is 90% tunnels. Final length will be around 300 miles. It will start off at around 500km/hour, but is expected to reach 900km/hour eventually. Local governments at the Osaka end of the line, which will be built last, are trying to get additional funding to speed the process up.

      For freight there is already a fairly extensive network of lines. A lot of freight moves at night on lines that are fully utilized by commuter trains during the day. The high speed bullet trains mostly have their own dedicated tracks.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Looking in the wrong place for emissions cuts by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that analysis. I bow to your superior knowledge.

      Humans for safety: "We're talking about miles of track that cross public roadways with children on bikes." The human on board can't do anything useful if a kid crosses in front of their train (it takes hundreds of meters to stop), so this one is a non-issue.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    7. Re:Looking in the wrong place for emissions cuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullet train doors open for 30 seconds exactly. People line up and board in an orderly fashion.

      You mean they don't hold the door open when the time runs out? Wow, you'd never get that discipline here.

    8. Re:Looking in the wrong place for emissions cuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for that analysis. I bow to your superior knowledge.

      Humans for safety: "We're talking about miles of track that cross public roadways with children on bikes." The human on board can't do anything useful if a kid crosses in front of their train (it takes hundreds of meters to stop), so this one is a non-issue.

      The Hyperloop is an extremely expensive solution to the problem you described when a fence would be just as good.

    9. Re:Looking in the wrong place for emissions cuts by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Even on the normal commuter trains they keep the doors open for a fairly short time. They have a system where 10 seconds before the doors close they play a little melody. Each station has a different one. If needs be they can extend the time it plays a little bit, or even cut it short.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Looking in the wrong place for emissions cuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'd be curious to know(I'm not doing doubt-in-the-form-of-a-question, I honestly don't know) how much freight goes by truck rather than by rail because of deficiencies in the rail network;

      I've been a supply chain and logistics guy for most of my career. The answer is not much but it depends on what you want to do.

      First of all, you can never get rid of the truck. The problem with trains, ships and the Hyperloop is they're lines to single points, but the freight is only useful at the point where it needs to go IE a store or warehouse or factory. You will never have a Hyperloop station at every store or warehouse or factory, so you always need a truck to deliver from the station to the destination point; this is referred to as drayage.

      AIr freight is not an option. It's 100 times more expensive per lb than any other method and it's used only for specialty stuff. 98% of the worlds' goods move via containers and no plane can handle a container at all. So we'll just take the plane out.

      Truck across country is beneficial because you can move a whole container fast; a truck driving from the East Coast to the west coast with a 2 man team (where one sleeps while the other drives) can move across the country in 24 to 36 hours. This is expensive, it costs around $6,000 to $10,000 per container and only used in "rush" jobs.

      Rail has time constraints because you have to stick to the train schedules, adn the trains may make several stops. If time is not a factor this is ideal, as it costs around $1,500 to move a container via rail and can take about 1 to 2 weeks depending on when you can get rail booked.

      Ship is best. If you're in the Midwest and shipping to the East coast, you're near the Mississippi River system and you can put a container on a barge and float it all the way to Maine if you want. It takes about 2 weeks but the cost is about $300. This is not really an option for West Coast to East Coast or back shipping because Central America is in the way, and the Panama Canal is expensive unless it's on a ship that can handle 2,000 to 5,000 containers.

      The cheapest is by water, always. It's around 10% of the cost of any other form of freight, adn the bigger the ship, the lower the cost. The Panama Canal is mainly used for international freight, goods from Asia being sold in the US, but you can only get a 5,000 container ship through the Canal whereas the biggest ships are 18,000, so some freight is offloaded on the West coast and sent via rail East. All that is changing with the Canal expansion which can now take 12,000 container ships, so there is going to be a reduction in freight moving via land already.

      But the truck will never go away. Rail, water, or Hyperloop, freight has to go to a station, and then it has to get from the station to it's destination. That requires a truck, period. Hyperloop will not deliver to every store or every warehouse in the world. This is called drayage and it's expensive, drayage runs around $300 to $500 per truck depending on size and what you're carrying. So Hyperloop for moving freight is actually competing iwth water transport via the canal and still has the trucks for the final point delivery, and quite frankly I don't see how they get there at all.

    11. Re:Looking in the wrong place for emissions cuts by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Instead of "small trains" specify "reconfigurable trains". If you work like Japan's bullet trains and use motorized wheels on each car, and put some battery on each car, then with a bit of other jiggering you should be able to separate trains in motion and shuffle the cars onto different lines. You do need automation for this, so I agree with that part. Instead of air brake lines running the length of the train, you have power conductors, and the engines effectively become generator cars. Such a train would also have other benefits, like being able to handle steeper grades, regenerative braking, and smoother operation in general. Regen doesn't work on trains now because it all has to happen at the engine.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Looking in the wrong place for emissions cuts by funwithBSD · · Score: 0

      Not only that, the failure mode for trains is bad enough, can you imagine this thing?

      Maintaining a partial vacuum over long distances, how do you protect it from anyone who wants to take a crack at it with something as simple as a pipe bomb?

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    13. Re:Looking in the wrong place for emissions cuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...when a fence would be just as good."

      And make the kid pay for the fence. --Donald

    14. Re:Looking in the wrong place for emissions cuts by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Fundamentally, this is the old FedEx problem - people think that if three points line up A B C, then the best way to get from A to B is a straight line. Federal Express was founded by Fred Smith when he realized that when you have multiple lines like this, the most efficient route is in fact A-C-B, as long as you make sure point C is the same for every line. C then becomes your hub. For overnight packages, instead of trying to fly planes between every combination of two airports in the country, you fly from every point to the hub, sort the packages, then fly from the hub back to every point. You've turned a n^2/2 problem into a 2n problem.

      For trains (and to a lesser extent buses and subways), people who want to get from Los Angeles to San Jose see the L.A. to San Francisco train passes right through San Jose. Since the train is already going through San Jose, why not stop there and let the people whose final destination is San Jose get off early? Well, the problem is you start applying this reasoning to every stop along the way, and suddenly your L.A. to S.F. train which used to take 4 hours now takes 8 hours because it's making a dozen stops, and nobody wants to ride it anymore when they can just drive there in 5 hours.

      You're better off with a high-speed train which makes the run between major hubs without any stops (L.A. to S.F.; actually Oakland is probably a better endpoint - more central to the metro area), coupled with slower trains which make the trip to cities along the outskirts of those hubs (S.F. to San Jose). So for this example, the best route between A and B is actually A(B)CB, where (B) is a pass-through with no stopping.

      This works for freight rail as well. The reason freight rail is dying is unfair competition from trucking. Trucks enjoy subsidized interstate highway construction, and subsidized maintenance (trucks do the vast majority of damage to the roads due to their higher load pressures, but only pay for about half of the maintenance via fuel taxes). The most effective freight system would be ships offloading containers onto trains, which take them to their respective cities (speed is not as important for freight, so they can stop at multiple cities along the way). Containers offloaded at a city are put onto trucks for delivery to their final destination. Clears up a lot of congestion on the interstate highways, reduces road maintenance costs, allowing a drop in fuel taxes. Everyone wins. Well, except the truckers who will have less work. So this would probably have to be phased in gradually over about 30-40 years, to give time for their investments (trucks) to wear out and for them to retrain for a new job.

    15. Re:Looking in the wrong place for emissions cuts by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2

      Bullet train doors open for 30 seconds exactly. People line up and board in an orderly fashion.

      You mean they don't hold the door open when the time runs out? Wow, you'd never get that discipline here.

      The door closes, that's it. That's why they have helpers that, well, help passengers get in, and pack them up nicely and safely before the bell sounds that it is time to close the door. No limbs or noses will protrude from closed doors.

      Plus, the typical Japanese passenger will not try to force his/her way once it's time to close the doors. That system works because the Japanese people make it work. It is something that it is almost impossible to grasp until you experience it (btw, being packed like a sardine sucks.)

      That would never work here. You'll get a riot with assholes pushing themselves through the doors. I can only imagine: "Yo! Hold on, I'm still here, what is this closing of doors in 30 seconds. This is bullshit, this America! Huuur huuur! Get out of my way!" followed by someone pulling a gun and shooting as part of a new phenomenon: train rage.

      I mean, people trample and beat the shit out of each other for some cheap shit on Black Friday, like if we were in a post-zombie apocalypse famine and everyone is fighting for the last burrito on the face of the Earth. We are that much of savage and dumb.

    16. Re: Looking in the wrong place for emissions cuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In any rail network, you have to have forks and branches and merges. The prospect of a train pushing air through a tube at 750 MPH, through a fork, and the drag effect it would have on the other branch of the fork --- sounds impractical. The alternative to the network is a spaghetti-like blanket of mag-lev tubes covering our landscape, each tube going point to point. Not a pretty sight, looking down from the Google satellite.

    17. Re: Looking in the wrong place for emissions cuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mag-lev tubes would not be cheap, as you say, since you have to have nearly perfect vacuums inside. How you achieve the perfect vacuum, when you have entrance and egress to the outside world, is a problem. You haven't examined all the vulnerabilities of cost-effective mag-lev tubes. They would have to be built like Fort Knox to be safe.

    18. Re:Looking in the wrong place for emissions cuts by catprog · · Score: 1

      So the vacuum is broken and the train slows down?

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
  6. Maglev,,,, really? by TechnoCore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought tve whole point of hyperloop systems were that they did not use maglev, but floating on a cusion of air insude a tunnel instead. To radically reduce cost.

    1. Re:Maglev,,,, really? by Firethorn · · Score: 0

      Building a low pressure tube that's hundreds of miles long isn't cheap. But it would enable faster speeds, competitive with a plane while cheaper per trip.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re: Maglev,,,, really? by TechnoCore · · Score: 1

      Its still cheap compared to building hundreds of miles of superconducting magnets.

    3. Re: Maglev,,,, really? by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      If you are running it in a vacuum where there is less resistance, you shouldn't need to place magnets the entire length of the tube, just every so often to keep the speed up. Reminds me of redstone on a Minecraft track.

    4. Re: Maglev,,,, really? by jsm300 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maglev is becoming a viable technology for long distance rail. The low pressure tunnel allows for more efficient low drag travel, perhaps even supersonic travel. How do you propose that the train "float" on a cushion of air in a low pressure environment? What form of propulsion are you proposing that is going to work in this low pressure environment, assuming you have a solution for the "floating" problem that doesn't involve maglev?

    5. Re: Maglev,,,, really? by jeti · · Score: 1

      Which is why the system uses passive rails.

    6. Re: Maglev,,,, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you have a small clearance between the train and the walls of the tube, and a pressure differential: the air rushing past the high pressure side will lubricate the train. If the vacuum compressor on the low pressure side can evacuate air faster than it can be replaced through the flow-restriction: this could continue on a continuous basis.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_bearing
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foil_bearing

      It's likely substantially cheaper to just use electromagnetism to levitate the vehicle than to lose all that energy on compressing/heating air(PV=nRT).

    7. Re: Maglev,,,, really? by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      The low pressure tunnel allows for more efficient low drag travel, perhaps even supersonic travel. How do you propose that the train "float" on a cushion of air in a low pressure environment?

      The same way a plane 'floats' at high altitude - a large amount of speed gives you access to all the air you need.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    8. Re: Maglev,,,, really? by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't need superconducting magnets for maglev trains. There are a surprising number of options. At least one uses an induced current into wires to create a temporary magnetic field so the only power source needed is in the train. You can work this in reverse as well, so the train doesn't need to supply any power.

      Most are still expensive, of course.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    9. Re:Maglev,,,, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firstly, if you use air within the tunnel that 1) increases drag and 2) the compression of the air will heat the air causing issues. A total vacuum probably isn't viable, but reducing the air pressure is. That's the entire reason for making it a sealed tunnel.

      Secondly, maglev provides the propulsion as well as lifting the vehicle to reduce friction.

    10. Re:Maglev,,,, really? by Rei · · Score: 2

      It was. I don't even know what "Hyperloop" is supposed to mean anymore, as SpaceX held an official Hyperloop competition and selected as winners craft that were absolutely nothing like in the Hyperloop Alpha design. Their test track is designed to allow for all kinds of vehicles, maglev or not... but most of the teams were focused on maglev. No compressors, either, meaning that they can't shunt air from in front to behind, meaning either high drag or requiring a hard vacuum for operation.

      I personally find the deviations from the Hyperloop Alpha design to basically ruin the entire concept.

      --
      Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
    11. Re:Maglev,,,, really? by Rei · · Score: 2

      No harder than a high pressure tube that's hundreds of miles long (pipeline), and we do that all the time. The cost of the steel for the proposed route isn't much over $1B, if I recall the numbers correctly.

      --
      Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
    12. Re:Maglev,,,, really? by Rei · · Score: 2

      Firstly, if you use air within the tunnel that 1) increases drag and 2) the compression of the air will heat the air causing issues. Secondly, maglev provides the propulsion as well as lifting the vehicle to reduce friction.

      As per Hyperloop Alpha, air bearings produce significantly less drag than maglev for the given application. As for the bulk air, in Hyperloop Alpha, the compressor shunts air ahead of the vehicle to behind it (it's exceedingly sparse). Lastly, in Hyperloop Alpha, total drag was so low that propulsion segments were only needed rarely, very spaced out along the track.

      Of course, the new competitors are so different from Hyperloop Alpha as to render the term "Hyperloop" meaningless.

      Though the Hyperloop air bearings provided a solution that's cheap per unit distance and very low drag, they were not without flaws. Foremost was the very narrow gap (0,5-1,3mm) between the bearings and the walls (needed for high lift at low pressures/drag). That said, those gaps are positively gargantuan compared to some air bearing applications - hard drive air bearings float at heights often no more than a couple nanometers over the surface. But that still means close tolerances. Hyperloop Alpha's solution for construction was a polishing robot that drives down the tunnel with a circular polisher, grinding off any unevenness in the welds or the bulk pipe. Achieving 0,1-0,5mm tolerances with such a system isn't particularly far fetched.

      --
      Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
    13. Re:Maglev,,,, really? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There are actually two magnetic systems at work with a maglev, or linear motor car as the Japanese call them.

      You have the floating magnets, which just raise the car off the ground and don't rely on being powered constantly to work (otherwise if they failed it would crash to the ground or fly off the track). There are usually some either side too, to keep the train over the right area.

      Then you have the linear motor, which is like a normal electric motor except that instead of electromagnets being wrapped around a core, the "core" is part of the track and the electromagnets are in a long line (linear) on the bottom of the train. The linear motor provides propulsion.

      The Hyperloop cars don't seem to have pantographs and the propulsion seems to be generated by the tubes, so they must have batteries to run their compressors that stop pressure build up and provide levitation at low speed. Could be interesting if one breaks down half way through the tunnel though.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Maglev,,,, really? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Hyperloop Alpha's solution for construction was a polishing robot that drives down the tunnel with a circular polisher, grinding off any unevenness in the welds or the bulk pipe. Achieving 0,1-0,5mm tolerances with such a system isn't particularly far fetched.

      you're going to need polishing equipment on every car, because what happens if there is an earthquake?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Maglev,,,, really? by Rei · · Score: 2

      Earthquakes make surfaces rough? That's news to me.

      I assume you actually mean "out of alignment". Wherein, you need to read the Hyperloop Alpha document, they spend a good bit of time talking about isolation, maintaining alignment, and earthquake resistance.

      --
      Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
    16. Re:Maglev,,,, really? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      However, a 4 foot diameter pipeline is a HUGE pipe, here we're looking at more like 8-10'.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    17. Re:Maglev,,,, really? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that someone looking to build a rail system in central California absolutely did not take anything seismic into their design, because earthquakes are so rare there.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    18. Re:Maglev,,,, really? by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      And if you get small leaks in your high-pressure pipeline that only has gas flowing down it and not a heavy rail car, you still have a functional pipeline. If you develop small leaks on a hyperloop tube, you loose your vacuum and the high speeds are kaput. Not catastrophic, but potentially very expensive from an ongoing maintenance point of view. Or an initial cost point of view, depending on how robust you build.

    19. Re:Maglev,,,, really? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      And if you get small leaks in your high-pressure pipeline that only has gas flowing down it and not a heavy rail car, you still have a functional pipeline.

      No you don't, you get the EPA breathing down your neck until it's fixed and even after.

      I'm in Alaska; the pipeline is a big deal. It hits the news when they have a malfunction.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  7. What does an outdoor test prove? by jcr · · Score: 1

    Isn't the whole point of this idea that you run the train inside a low-pressure tube?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:What does an outdoor test prove? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Think about it. If this works well OUTSIDE of a tube where one must contend with the typical forces of nature (unpredictable crosswinds and such) and crash into sand on the track and remain on track OUTSIDE of a tunnel, then imagine the performance INSIDE a tunnel.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:What does an outdoor test prove? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      This was purely an engine test.

  8. Pressure suits and air supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A low pressure tube is fine for transporting cargo, but not passengers. A passenger system needs to fail safe.

    For a train, the air resistance per passenger mile is lower the longer it gets. So a long smooth train doesn't need a tube.

    1. Re:Pressure suits and air supply by jsm300 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is already partially solved in a way similar to passenger jets, which have to deal with a similar problem. You need enough oxygen for each passenger to last long enough until the problem can be addressed. For a passenger jet, that means 12-15 minutes while the pilot dives to low altitude. For a low pressure tunnel emergency that means slowing the train down and then letting normal air pressure into the tunnel in a controlled fashion. As far as air resistance is concerned, I think you are thinking about lower speeds than are planned for a hyperloop solution. Hyperloop designs are considering speeds that approach or possibly exceed mach 1. Drag goes up exponentially (velocity squared), so the air density becomes a much greater issue at those speeds. Besides drag, you also have to take into account the heating of the train due to drag.

    2. Re:Pressure suits and air supply by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      Drag goes up exponentially (velocity squared)

      Please, no.

    3. Re:Pressure suits and air supply by Rei · · Score: 1

      Aerodynamic drag force does. 1/2 rho Cd A v^2. Of course, power is force times velocity, so that's cubic. But the (change in) energy is force times distance, and distance for the trip is constant, so it's only quadratic with velocity.

      Assuming a constant Cd, of course.

      --
      Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
    4. Re:Pressure suits and air supply by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      You're right, but the GP basically wrote that exp(x)==x**2.

    5. Re:Pressure suits and air supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Constant in exponent is called polynomial (and does not grow exponentially). Both your examples have time in the exponent (not the base) and does grow exponentially. Almost everything you wrote is wrong.

  9. So amatuerish by Powerbear · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I couldn't believe how crude their contraption is. Everything they did is 20+ years old. There are theme park rides a hell of a lot more advanced than that thing and they will brake automatically and carry passengers.

    Why aren't they concentrating on a 1/10 scale proof of concept that will be a hell of a lot cheaper to make and can advance the technology?

    1. Re:So amatuerish by nyctopterus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I'm sure they're all idiots and you have the complete engineering context for this test.

    2. Re:So amatuerish by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      How dare you call me a cunt on Slashdot - where cunt calls you!

      Wait... that's not true is it.

  10. Come on Slashdot, use ISO nomenclature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    km/h not 'kph'.

  11. A station wagon full of SD cards by goombah99 · · Score: 2

    this is just the old bandwidth comparison between a staionwagon full of mag tapes versus the internet. yes the station wagon wins on carry more with less effort. but it loses on latency. Hyperloop is for people, freight trains are for freight.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:A station wagon full of SD cards by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Hyperloop is for people, freight trains are for freight.

      Hyperloop is also for freight when speed is more important than cost, which includes any freight currently shipped by aircraft ... which is a lot.

    2. Re:A station wagon full of SD cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is just the old bandwidth comparison between a staionwagon full of mag tapes versus the internet. yes the station wagon wins on carry more with less effort. but it loses on latency. Hyperloop is for people, freight trains are for freight.

      Hyperloop will never get the latency either. You can't build the tube or track through other municipalities without creating a stop for them; this is exactly the issue that made the CA high speed rail so costly and eventually fell apart. If you're stopping in every town along the way, you'll never get to optimal speed; it'll fail.

      For cargo, this is just flat stupid. You'll never get rid of the truck even with the hyperloop because of a term called drayage; drayage is essentially the last mile of delivery to the ultimate destination. Will there be a hyperloop stop at every single store and factory in every town? No, it'll be at stations. The cargo is useless at the station, it needs to be delivered to the point where it's useful, and the only way is by truck.

      Not only that, there are essentially two routes for freight since they want to start in LA. One is up and down the West Coast, and the truck will always be faster because it can go point to point whereas with hyperloop it's point to station to station to point; adding congestion at the stations. The other is East/West to let's say Houston. Then you have to determine where the freight is coming from. In most West to East transits, freight is coming from Asia in ships too big to fit through the Panama Canal and then loaded on trains or trucks for delivery. However with the Panama Canal Expansion ships that are not 250% bigger than the previous limit can go through, meaning most freight is going to bypass West coast ports anyways and go directly to the East cost through the canal. At best Hyperloop would have a shot at this if they can move a container from the WEst to the East for $100, otherwise it'll be far cheaper to just ship through the canal and no one will use the system.

  12. Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We can't even build a decent high-speed train system in the US, never mind a maglev train system, but we're going to build a maglev train system IN A GIANT FREAKING TUBE dozens, maybe hundreds of miles long.

    Yeah right.

    1. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah Elon. Your vacuum tube train will be cheaper than regular high speed rail. What, a bunch of gravel, some concrete, and two thick beams of steel on the ground. But you'll save on land acquisition costs by elevating it? Guess what. You can make elevated regular high speed rail to reduce land acquisition costs. In fact CHINA DID DO THAT. I think hyperloop will just be too expensive to build. There isn't enough travel in the United States, except for the Northeast, to justify regular high speed rail, much less hyperloop.

      Hyperloop. Because Silicon Valley is smarter than everyone, including Alstom, and JR Central. Yeah right.

    2. Re: Yeah right by c.s.carlson6 · · Score: 2

      Unless people love it. What if it's super convenient?

    3. Re:Yeah right by Rei · · Score: 2

      Note: everything I write below pertains only to Hyperloop Alpha. As for whatever else passes as "Hyperloop" these days, I have no comment.

      What, a bunch of gravel, some concrete, and two thick beams of steel on the ground.

      Made of segments with two welds, polished, versus a single orbital weld, polished.

      We make long cylindrical pressure vessels all the time. They're called pipelines. No, they don't cost a fortune (relative to the cost of HSR). Their cost/(cross section * length) ratio is similar to that proposed for Hyperloop. Of the differences, they're mixed pros and cons. For example, hyperloop doesn't carry toxic chemicals - permitting / environmental review (a major cost) should be far easier. But Hyperloop requires much straighter segments and requires internal polishing. Hyperloop doesn't deal with elevated temperatures and doesn't have to pump fluids. But it still has to have accelerator segments. It doesn't have liquid terminals, but it does have capsule terminals. Etc.

      I ran the calculations on the volume of steel described in the Hyperloop Alpha proposal and compared them to current billet steel costs. The cost was a small fraction of what the proposal budgeted. For manufactured segments, delivered, they're probably right on.

      You can make elevated regular high speed rail to reduce land acquisition costs.

      The cost of elevating a track is almost directly proportional to its peak loading. The peak loading of Hyperloop is an order of magnitude less than that of HSR.

      I think hyperloop will just be too expensive to build

      Cost estimates are not based on "feelings".

      --
      Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
    4. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You address costs (and I don't agree with you there), but how is HYPERLOOP! going to solve all the other problems that prevent us from building high-speed rail?

      Like politics and NIMBY and right-of-way.

      There are reasons why we don't have high-speed rail in the US and they aren't all technological.

      And shouting HYPERLOOP! isn't going to solve them.

    5. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hyperloop is twice as fast as current high-speed rail, and faster than some airliners. Ordinary rail won't go that fast, ever. You elevate it so you can put it on top of regular railroad, hence no land aquisition on straight paths. Run freight on the steel rails, and passengers in the hyperloop tubes.

    6. Re:Yeah right by Rei · · Score: 1

      You address costs (and I don't agree with you there), but how is HYPERLOOP! going to solve all the other problems that prevent us from building high-speed rail? Like politics and NIMBY and right-of-way.

      That's the very reason for elevating it and designing the route to follow highways - to avoid most "politics and NIMBY and right-of-way." Well, that and the simplification of handling small elevation fluctuations.

      That said, it's fair to point out that Hyperloop isn't a 1 for 1 substitution for HSR in terms of functionality; it's more like a functional intermediary between HSR and plane travel (but designed to be far cheaper and lower energy consumption than either). Air travel is very high speed, low capacity, low capital cost for new routes, direct point to point, no stops, limited in-town accessibility. HSR is low (by comparison) speed, high capacity, high capital cost for new routes, high in-town accessibility and numerous stops. Hyperloop is moderate (by comparison) speed (although closer to air than rail), moderate capacity, moderate in-town accessibility (it can be extended further into town than air travel can, but it faces some speed reduction), and while easier to have stop at intermediary points en route than aircraft is harder than HSR.

      I think SpaceX erred in presenting it as an "alternative to HSR" - I feel they should have presented it as something new altogether. Rather than run LA to SF, I think they should have done a LA to Vegas route. HSR fans wouldn't feel threatened. Casino owners would go nuts for the Los Angeles market to be able to pop down to a station on a Friday night on a whim, pay $20, and half an hour later be blowing their money on slots. There's less vested interests in having intermediary stops on the route. Etc. But I know that doesn't interest Musk as much because he spends a lot more time in SF than Vegas.

      --
      Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
    7. Re:Yeah right by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There's less vested interests in having intermediary stops on the route. Etc. But I know that doesn't interest Musk as much because he spends a lot more time in SF than Vegas.

      That's only a four hour drive. San Francisco to Las Vegas would be a lot more useful... that's an eight hour drive. Accomplish that and Vegas will be interested, because they can fucking murder Reno.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Yeah right by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      These idiots are missing the point of Hyperloop by trying to build it. It's not meant to be built. It's meant to be an argument to shut down HSR projects, to use as yet another excuse to not do what we should do by pretending there are better alternatives.

      Texas Central will hopefully change things, as will, to a lesser extent, All Aboard Florida.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is also vaporware, unlike the high-speed rail. But maybe you'll be able to buy a ticket with a small downpayment of $1000, for when it is built. If ever.

    10. Re:Yeah right by Rei · · Score: 1

      The most reasonable route would still be LA to Vegas first. Then SF to LA. Then Reno would be in trouble. Seriously, if people could hop a $20 ride/half hour ride to LA and then another one to Vegas, who would go to Reno? Reno would pretty much have to build a route of their own. But that wouldn't be easy, the terrain between Sacramento and Reno is pretty much custom-designed to be hostile to any form of high-speed surface travel. You'd have to take the Japan approach (drill through every mountain, bridge the gaps in-between). And I'm sure there'd be environmental sensitivity to such an approach.

      Hmm, what's probably the easiest route... because I-80 is just so windy. Maybe US-50 east of Sacramento. There'd be reduced speed / minor tunnels / bridges from Placerville to Riverton, but spend most of the next leg through the mountains in a fairly straight valley and could probably just hug a wall and change tower heights... up until you get near Sierra-At-Tahoe, which would definitely need tunnels/bridging... maybe over to 89, bridge down to Sorensens, reduced speed through the valley around to Alpine Village, and then you're out onto the open plains for a final acceleration segment to the north (with slowdowns past Carson City). Hmmm.. honestly, I'm not sure that's any better than I-80.

      --
      Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
    11. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mostly it's because anything that has been referred to as "high speed rail" in the US hasn't actually been high speed - it's been a 20mph increase of current passenger rail, which sucks balls and is barely competitive with renting a car and driving on the freeway. And, that's when things are optimal - most of the track is owned by freight companies, and if they have a train coming through you get to sit on a side track until they're done.

    12. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High-speed rail in the US is also vaporware. Your point?

    13. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why in the world should "we" be building a high speed rail at taxpayer expense that will have huge operating subsidies throughout its life and still never service a significant number of passengers? Even at high speed rail velocity, going to the airport will be more convenient and speedier for most folks.

      The whole point of hyperloop is to demonstrate that there are ways to positively compete with air travel on all fronts, from cost to environmental to travel time. A hyperloop from LA to NY would have a distinct advantage, as the best speed available now is about 200mph slower than the proposed hyperloop. Apparently about 3 million passengers fly that route every year. Beating air travel by about an hour and beating their cost would likely garner you most of that 3 million passengers.

      Nobody is taking a train that costs more and takes longer. It just doesn't make any sense.

    14. Re:Yeah right by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Why in the world should "we" be building a high speed rail at taxpayer expense that will have huge operating subsidies throughout its life and still never service a significant number of passengers?

      Why do you keep beating your wife?

      Even at high speed rail velocity, going to the airport will be more convenient and speedier for most folks.

      No it won'. The whole point of hyperloop is to demonstrate that there are ways to positively compete with air travel on all fronts, from cost to environmental to travel time.

      Nope, the whole point of hyperloop is to pretend there's a cheaper alternative to HSR. The system Musk proposed didn't even join the same points (it served only two of the four cities CAHSR is slated to serve, supported a quarter of the number of people, and both stations were over 50 miles away from the cities they "served".) In fact, total travel time with the Hyperloop will be more than by CAHSR, despite the supposedly faster speeds, because it doesn't join the end points. Musk also seriously lowballed the pricing, suggesting it can be done for $250,000 a mile. Real price is likely to be 100x that.

      Basically the entire proposal was a fraud: it would have been obvious to Musk when he made the announcement that it wasn't a replacement for CAHSR yet he announced it anyway,and claimed we should be building that, not rail.

      A hyperloop from LA to NY would have a distinct advantage...

      Nobody is going to site in a vibrating swinging windowless vomit train for 8 hours. And nobody's going to build it either.

      Nobody is taking a train that costs more and takes longer. It just doesn't make any sense.

      Nobody's proposing either a train or hyperloop connecting NY and LA.

      Hyperloop is a fraud. You've been hoodwinked. Just admit it and move on.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  13. Re:100 miles per hour per second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a demonstration on a short track. The full scale system won't weigh as much.

  14. Re:100 miles per hour per second by just+another+AC · · Score: 2

    is 4.5g forces. That's the lower bound on how many g's it pulled in the test. if you accelerated that fact to 750 miles per hour that's 7 seconds. You would pass out unless you were in a g-suite, and maybe even then.

    Where do you get that idea?

    It is reasonable to say that some people might pass out, but the tolerance to g forces is highly individualistic. Also passing out is highly dependent on direction. Hence you can black out with downward g, or red out with upward g. being pushed into the seat is the most friendly of these, and at only 4.5 should be tolerated by most people, albeit not that comfortably.

  15. Re: 100 miles per hour per second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've done 6g in an aerobatic plane for that long with nothing but a flight suit. It just felt like pressure. Some people have a low tolerance, but many can tolerate 4g and some can tolerate much more.

  16. Re:100 miles per hour per second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It also depends on duration. You can cope with higher G forces better if they're only for a short period of time. Hence accelerating to 750mph in 7s might be absolutely fine as long as you're only at 4.5G for a few seconds.

    To put 4.5G in perspective the highest G force on a rollercoaster is 6.3G (Tower of Terror). So we already put people through those kinds of forces. There are several rollercoasters above 4.5G.

  17. Re:100 miles per hour per second by Rei · · Score: 2

    On a test track, the G forces are irrelevant.

    --
    Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
  18. With All Deliberate Speed by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Can't wait! We need to offload and distribute those Chinese shipping containers ASAP, now that more and more of us will have aaaallll day to buy stuff with our non-existent salaries.

  19. Re: 100 miles per hour per second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same here, I guess it's not linear, maybe I would be much more likely for every fraction of a g after that, but I didn't feel remotely like passing out.

  20. Re:100 miles per hour per second by Apostalypse · · Score: 2

    They need to accelerate quickly because of the shortness of the test track, otherwise they'd never get it up to a significant speed.

  21. are you not happy with your shiny toy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the great democratizing effect of teh intarwebz : any idiot can have an opinion on anything.

  22. Hi-speed trains and Pneu-tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the US, high speed trains aren't, because politics demand they have to stop at a station every 5-10 miles.
    You won't get me in one of those tubes, a passenger jet is bad enough.

  23. TSA? by Shompol · · Score: 1

    Travel time = distance / 750 mph + 2 hour long TSA patdown.

  24. That's true, but is that the point? by pablo_max · · Score: 1

    Maybe I am wrong, but I didnt think that freight delivery was ever the point of the hyperloop. There is nothing which can beat a 1 mile long freight train in terms of cost for shipping cargo.
    The hyperloop is a people mover.
    I would love to see people use this "train in a tube" to travel from place to place. Not because it would be faster, but because I am sick of hearing air planes until 11pm every damn night. This hyperloop should be silent or near enough to the people outside of the tube.

    For freight though, it makes zero sense.
    What they should do to dig a canal from the gulf of Baja CA to the Salton Sea and use that as a distribution hub for rails and automated trucks.

  25. Re:100 miles per hour per second by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

    Sure as hell ain't gonna be holding on to the overhead handstraps at 4.5 Gs.

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra