Slashdot Mirror
Student Engineers Build Hyperloop Test Pods That Set a New Speed Record (bbc.com)
Engineering students from the Technical University of Munich have won a hyperloop competition that aims to refine the technologies that could underpin the super-fast transport system. According to the BBC, "The team's pod hit 457km/h (290mph) on a 1.2km (0.75 mile) test track." This marks the third win in a row for the team. From the report: In the latest round of the competition, the Munich team, WARR Hyperloop, outpaced rival capsules, which could manage speeds of only 88mph (Delft University) and 55mph (EPF Loop, from Switzerland), to beat its own record speed, 323km/h, set in the second competition, in September 2017. In a change from earlier competitions, all the pods being tested this time had to be self-propelled. Previously, the pods could rely on a SpaceX-built "pusher" vehicle that helped them travel down the test tube.
1) This is a scale model. You cannot just do a simple comparison.
2) The track was only 1.2 km including the portion needed for deceleration. How many Kilometers does it take for a Maglev to reach top speed? You would have to go back to point #1 to calculate the comparison.
290 mph is fucking pathetic. A regular maglev can do nearly 100 mph faster.
And a commercial passenger jet can travel at double that speed. And doesn't require spending billions of dollars to build hundreds of miles of track.
The hyperloop makes as much sense as the Springfield Monrail.
Rather than pump the air out of the tube, treat the tube like a wind tunnel and blow air through the tube, or through injectors along the tube, at what ever speed you want the vehicle to go. For 100 - 500 Km stretches pumping tons of air out of the tube would take hours and maintaining the vacuum would take a lot of expensive energy. The inside of the tube could be dimpled or treated in some way to reduce the Reynolds Number. The positive pressure would keep the weather out and make leaks easy to find ... they'd whistle.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Can it accelerate to that speed, and stop again in 1.2km
Look up how much distance it takes a supercar. World record 0-400-0 is 2.4 km.
So it only takes half the distance of the world record setting Koenigsegg Agera and it got another 50 km/h.
Lame
maglev is artificially limited in acceleration and deceleration to protect the passengers. really it is a very big rail gun that could easily accelerate at speeds that are dangerous/deadly for the passengers. so getting to speed and back again is not a problem, getting to speed and down again with passengers intact is another matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
MonoRail... MonoRail.... MonoRail....
46137
A fast and efficient way for kids to get to the Zoolander Center For Kids Who Can't Read Good.
What's your point? Any transportation scheme will have the same limitations. Hyperloop is just a less efficient, more dangerous concept that doesn't have decades of proven engineering behind it.
I am curious about the full conditions of the track/tube that they do not tell us about. However, the average commercial jet cruises around 540 mph. So this is more than 1/2 of typical commercial jets. So, they are getting there. In addition, hyperloop should be cheaper to run than a jet. While tracks have to be put in, and pressure brought down, hyperloop should have much lower labor hours, lower drag (9000 meter vs 36000 meter ), and much lower energy costs.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Wasn't making any particular point, just informing the deluded OP who seems to be under the mistaken impression that maglev is not capable of such acceleration.
TFS mixes mph and km/h. Poor practice to report the slower ones in mph and the fastest in km/h; it makes the difference look larger. It's large enough that you don't need to exaggerate it.
Normal high speed trains (CRH) in China travel at 300 kph. The maglev train from Shanghai to Pudong International travels at ~430 kph. I have been on both types at these speed (they conveniently put the current speed in every car). The maglev does always travel this fast, ostensibly due to energy demand during peak usage (couple of times I was on it we only broke 300 kph). The shanghai maglev is about 30km long. Hyper loop needs to be much faster to impress me given the existing in-service trains.
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Oddly, it was not using maglev, just electric motors and wheels.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1) This is a scale model. You cannot just do a simple comparison. 2) The track was only 1.2 km including the portion needed for deceleration. How many Kilometers does it take for a Maglev to reach top speed? You would have to go back to point #1 to calculate the comparison.
Only a scale model you say? OK, how about this unmanned scale model? (Mach 8.5 or 6,416 mph) http://www.af.mil/News/Article...
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
As for maglevs, they're just really toned-down coil guns. In 1978, the USSR sent a 2-gram ring to 5000 m/s in just 1 cm of length. That's 250 times more acceleration than a regular gun, which produces muzzle velocities of 1200 m/s over a 60 cm long barrel. So if you want to get somewhere really really fast and you're okay with not arriving in one piece, coil guns have you covered.
In more survivable applications, the US Navy is investigating electromagnetic catapults on their carriers:
The EMALS' 300-foot (91 m) LIM will accelerate a 100,000-pound (45,000 kg) aircraft to 130 kn (240 km/h; 150 mph).
If you extend its length to 600 m, it'll be able to reach 900 mph (400 m/s) while carrying the weight of a fully-loaded fighter jet.
...You gain nothing useful by build a rail gun
Except...you know..you get a railgun.
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Can it accelerate to that speed, and stop again in 1.2km
No because competent engineers think about things like not killing their passengers.
Cowards...
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Why would it have to be less efficient when it minimizes aerodynamic drag by design? Perhaps some other things compensate for it, but overall I don't see an inherent reason for it to be less efficient.
Ezekiel 23:20
And none of those problems would be fixed by hyperloop. Security is going to be just as tight. The stops will be even more limited. Now scheduling might be improved. A smaller craft leaving every 10 minutes is going to make it easier to match people's schedules. If you ignore the ginormous capital costs, the per rider maintenance and operation costs may or may not be competitive with airlines.
The other big problem for all types of transport is noise. Current high speed rail is limited not by the technology but by the amount of noise it generates, especially when tunnels are involved. Maglev has the same issue.
Would be interesting to see the noise implications of Hyperloop. Obviously they have the partial vacuum, but it's still moving a lot of air and creating pressure waves. And you will need lots of them with such a low capacity.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
That minimization of aerodynamic drag comes at a cost, namely keeping a leaky tube at a near vacuum while the system is in operation. What energy you might gain in reducing drag by a negligible amount (overland high speed passenger trains are already pretty good at this) is more than made up for by constantly having to pump air out of a tube that's hundreds of miles long.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
To be fair, the Delft University entry possibly reached a speed greater than what was entered in the official record, but the judges were obligated to use the speed the pod had obtained when it inexplicably vanished, leaving behind only a trail of flames.*
*As an interesting coincidence, it should be noted that the Delft University pod most closely resembled the ones depicted in Elon Musk's initial concept drawings.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
In more survivable applications, the US Navy is investigating electromagnetic catapults on their carriers:
The EMALS' 300-foot (91 m) LIM will accelerate a 100,000-pound (45,000 kg) aircraft to 130 kn (240 km/h; 150 mph).
If you extend its length to 600 m, it'll be able to reach 900 mph (400 m/s) while carrying the weight of a fully-loaded fighter jet.
Not arguing with the math there, but I rather doubt anyone ever wants to hit Mach 1.2 on the flight deck.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
There's no vacuum, only significantly decreased pressure. It's a little bit like the difference between metallurgic grade silicon and IC-grade silicon. The difference in silicon contents is rather small but still one of the two is significantly cheaper than the other. The hyperloop concept reminds me more of the high altitude test chambers for rocket engines like NASA's B-2 facility which maintains decreased pressure continuously even with a rocket engine inside the vacuum chamber spitting a hundred kilograms of exhaust gases into it every second.
Ezekiel 23:20
See my comment above.
Ezekiel 23:20
And a commercial passenger jet can travel at double that speed. And doesn't require spending billions of dollars to build hundreds of miles of track.
...and it can't run off of electricity. That's a bit of a bummer.
Ezekiel 23:20
The inherent reason it's less efficient is that it's based off of the concept of pods, which carry a lot less than trains carry. Furthermore, maintaining the low-pressure tunnels is a massive (and expensive) engineering challenge fraught with risk.
When it comes to complex engineering projects, often times simpler is better. I doubt that the hyperloop concept will ever outpace high-speed trains in terms of cost or efficiency.
The problem with air travel long-term is it really depends upon fossil fuels because of their power density.
Careful with those aneurysms! ;)
Ezekiel 23:20
It depends on high energy density fuel, but it doesn't have to come from fossil sources. There is currently no commercially viable source of renewable fuel for jet travel but that could change eventually.