Your understanding of Rei's arguments about a useful model for Hyperloop appear to be severely flawed.
I do think that your understanding of my critic is seriously flawed too. For example:
The fluid in a Hyperloop is a soft vacuum of gases of roughly the composition of Earth's atmosphere
From statements like this one you seem to believe that you can plainly ignore the inside air (interactions capsule-air), what denotes how unrealistic your approach is (precisely the whole point of my critic to Rei's ideas). This system is extremely complex and involves extremely complex interactions of a particularly complex/unknown-for-us sub-type (= fluid-dynamics). Under ideal conditions and/or for small enough sizes (-> what seems the start point for believing that most of Hyperloop goals are actually doable), all these aspects might even be deemed irrelevant and the main analysis might be actually focused on more simplistic aspects as you do (= just caring about weights and main vertical component). But when you are talking about a so big object (you don't need even to take into account the numerous problems associated with dealing with human lives. BTW, I re-insist in my advice to Hyperloop's people: if you seriously want anything of this to ever be close to become a reality, you should start focusing on having ready a much smaller version only dealing with goods. Once you are able to prove that this is a viable alternative, you might have a chance of reaching a version of what you want. The chances of any other approach to ever reach anywhere, other than forums, videos and the mouths of promising-a-lot-and-delivering-nothing, gullible, not-too-knowledgeable people are zero) flying free inside a fluid, you are talking about a true nightmare from the calculations perspective; and you can certainly not even dream about assuming that such a scenario is equivalent to just having any random continuous substance flowing through.
See, I am not sure about your exact knowledge, intentions (honestly understanding or blindly defending because of ignorance/other reasons?) and don't want to be disrespectful, but don't want to continue this conversation. My point should be clear to anyone willing to understand it and keep repeating it doesn't seem to make too much sense. If you were the first person to whom I was replying, I might even have extended this discussion a bit further, but look at all my replies yesterday!
Hyper-loop cars are not moving in a fluid but in very thin air
Can you get the problem with that sentence after reading it again or do you need to do a quick research to get some help?
Momentum: i = m * v. Give back your engineering badge
Are you downgrading your abstract-theory-based understanding to a one-specific-formula-based understanding? I am speechless right now.
The only thinkable thing it could impact with is the destination station
Sure. Because for you, the air (+ its turbulence + the provoked over-pressure + etc.) and the tube walls mean nothing, right? Ah! I understand it now: they aren't part of your formula and that's why you don't recognise their existence. LOL.
Seriously, let's better cut it here and focus on talking to people more compatible with each other's (how to call it?...) perception of the world.
I did not adress your other points because they are nonsense
Very sensible introductory statement from what seems a very reasonable and knowledgeable individual (just in case you don't get it, this is sarcasm).
An oil pipelin has probably 1000 times the weight and definitely a similar if not higher momentum than a hyoer-loop car.
You are messing things up here. Firstly, less consider the main vertical component, where you can treat everything identically (= just weights). Now let's move to everything else and analyse the situation a bit more carefully: on one hand, you have a fluid flowing (with mass and momentum) and, on the other hand, you have a fluid flowing (with mass and momentum) + a quite big capsule (with mass and momentum). If we analyse both scenarios from an external point of view (e.g., the end/start points of the pipe), they might even be considered identical under very specific conditions. In any other case (= all what happens when the capsule is moving within the fluid) we would have the additional "little" problem of having to deal with the interactions between the capsule and the surrounding-fluid momenta. In other words, a pipe with just a fluid and a pipe with a fluid + an object inside are different things and, if your theoretical approach tells otherwise, you should better reconsider its accuracy.
if engineers plan such a thing you usually can trust hthat they know the math
As an engineer and a properly-understanding-prone person, I will never endorse ideas on these lines because of basically representing the most anti-scientific, sheep and fanatic behaviour ever. You can either know what you are talking about and make your positive (or even negative) contribution to a conversation or accept your ignorance (and/or unwillingness to adequately understand and/or to participate in that discussion, etc.) and not intervene. Any other behaviour is highly censurable and even deserves a reaction similar to the NYP reference in one of the last articles here (yes, I was waiting for an opportunity to write this one:)): go copulate with yourself! LOL.
The momentum is only relevant in curves
Momentum is a way to measure the impact of a moving object on any other thing, what means that it affects anything anywhere exactly like a force, pressure, etc. To not forget that the "momentum" concept is also a quite big simplification as far as there are different momenta associated with the multiple 3D movements (forwards, backwards, lateral, rotation, etc.).
In English, concerning physics, "resistance" generally means electrical resistance, thermal resistance, or drag (e.g. "air resistance"). How bodies deform under stress is studied via finite element analysis (FEA / FEM).
I meant strength of materials (not too difficult to find after a quick search, what I should have done in my first comment), by bearing in mind that this is just a generic reference to a wide variety of (engineering) sub-specialities dealing with pretty much the same: more accurate approaches for the generic non-deformable-solid physics.
And as was pointed out to you, the issue has nothing to do with the bullet or the water, it's that in a gun you're dealing with several thousand atmospheres of pressure. It's like if someone said "this house would collapse if the roof has to bear five meters of snow but not one meter of snow", and you said, "but what if the one meter of snow was moving at a good fraction the speed of light?" It's not at all relevant to the problem at hand.
You don't seem to still be getting the point. You keep thinking that the same rules (X bar of pressure) are equally applicable regardless of anything else and this is precisely the flaw in your reasoning. If you have a fluid with certain properties and you want to keep it under pressure X, it would cost you Y effort (= cost = reactions which have to be contained by the tube). If now you put a big object inside that fluid at very high speed, the conditions would change completely; what means that your effort would have to be now much higher. Both scenarios (normal piping vs. Hyperloop) are completely different and cannot be assumed equivalent.
Building a pipe to send oil of certain density at certain pressure certain distance has completely different requirements than sending a big/heavy object inside a fluid under the same pressure that same distance. You are trying to make both situations equivalent by replacing that object with an equivalent amount of fluid by focusing on a generic analysis; and its mass is even irrelevant in comparison with what really matters here (= its big mass + velocity = tremendous momentum). It is a completely different ball park, with completely different requirements which you are systematically ignoring by relying on imagine-that-we-have kind of ideas. Your
It's like if someone said "this house would collapse if the roof has to bear five meters of snow but not one meter of snow", and you said, "but what if the one meter of snow was moving at a good fraction the speed of light?"
denotes that misunderstanding because this example doesn't show what I am saying at all. A proper version would be: "this isn't the case because you are assuming that my roof is type-1, but actually my roof is type-2 and it can bear up to 10 meters of snow". You are talking about getting certain results like X pressure without wanting to understand the real implications of actually getting there: the effort/cost/reaction-to-oppose to reach that target in these two scenarios are completely different. "By assuming that we have whatever, let's think what we do next" isn't engineering/physics/science is just wishful thinking or scientific-looking dreams or something like that.
The same mass of water? Actually the water would do a pretty damned good job. Ever seen what a non-abrasive water jet cutter does? That's what happens when water moves at bullet-speeds, even tiny amounts of water. The faster the object, the more it's just the kinetic energy that matters and the less that the object's structural integrity matters. If you had a bullet's mass worth of water moving at bullet speeds, it'd cut deep into a person, if not right through. High speed liquid jets are how shaped charges pierce through armour. As a matter of fact, water charges [youtube.com] are shaped charges that use water as their piercing fluid.
As explained in different parts of my other comments, you are focusing on a small part of a much bigger problem. Statically (or more theoretically), both types of scenarios might be considered identical, but more realistically the Hyperloop one adds a very relevant problem: a big heavy solid moving very fast inside a fluid, what makes both scenarios completely different and changes the container requirements.
You have a very big momentum which doesn't exist in the case of normal piping. A very big momentum inside a fluid implies a different hydrodynamic regime, lots of potential over-pressures/stresses/forces/problems at many different levels, over-complicates the whole analysis tremendously. It converts the original premise of "just use what we do with normal piping" in virtually useless.
I have no clue what you mean by "resistance requirements".
Just in case that all these ideas aren't clear to you, note that there is a (mechanical) engineering sub-field called material resistance (by assuming that I am not making a bad translation from Spanish), a closely-related branch is structural mechanics. Unlikely dynamics/kinematics, these branches deal with deformable solids (as your pylons do), with material properties and more realistic conditions what means that a bullet doesn't behave as a stream of water with the same mass. Engineers designing the containers of both objects would bring these analyses into picture to determine the strength requirements (= actual load being exerted on it) of the given structure, what the given material under the given conditions can resist. For your focused-on-masses analysis, a stream of fluid behaves identically to the capsule (= expects a similar container); in reality and for these more-realistic analyses, both scenarios are completely different. That's why your concerns are wrongly focused on the pylons (you only care about the vertical forces from weights) and you think that fluid and solid-in-fluid are basically equivalent situations, because you aren't accounting for all the consequences ignored by more theoretical analyses which become very relevant in a situation like this. That's why my point of not being possible to replace the capsule with an equivalent amount of water in the analysis; it would be OK only for a sub-part of the problem (= weights).
A gun experiences several hundred megapascals of pressure (several thousand atmospheres). A toy watergun experiences a small fraction of one atmosphere
You didn't get that point right. I was trying to give a graphical example about the kind of differences which theoretical analyses ignore. Let me put it in a different way: imagine that you can shoot water at the same speed than a steel bullet, would both of them do the same damage? Logically, they will not. In fact, the water will not even reach the target. But for your theoretical analysis, only caring about masses, both situations would be identical (?!). This was my whole point.
Well okay then. Thanks for taking the time to let me know.;)
You should already know something about me: I love letting people know about things which they might not care about:)
Where on Earth did you get the concept that part of the design involves chilling the capsules (and thus the passengers) to absolute zero?
It seems that you didn't get the joke (it doesn't really matter, but I think that it was meant for 0C), perhaps it was because of the translation. Please, re-read that part and understand that I didn't suggest anything even close to that.
I'm sorry if you see this as an attack; that is not the intent.
It does seem that you are too willing to have a critical discussion about any of these points, but I am an incurable optimistic so here I go anyway.
A transient (89ms) mass loading (short enough not to allow for any meaningful deflection**) of far lower peak magnitude versus a permanent mass loading of far greater peak magnitude - there is no contest, the latter is much more expensive to build (all else being equal). As for any knock-on effects from variations, the pylons incorporate 3-axis dampers (needed for earthquake protection and maintaining alignment). Note that the pylons are a separate cost line item.
The length of a Hyperloop capsule's worth of a 1g/cc liquid is well over 100 tonnes, vs. 3,1 tonnes for a Hyperloop capsule (plus ~2 tonnes for passengers / luggage). That's a huge difference. And this is ignoring that the bulk of the tube at any given point in time only bears its own weight. A pipeline bears vastly more weight.
Are you saying that it is possible to compare the resistance requirements of the container of a fluid vs. the ones of a solid within a fluid by plainly replacing the mass of that solid with an equivalent fluid mass? Are you saying that the stress suffered by the walls of a gun (the part through which the bullet flies, whatever the technical name is) which shoots a bullet is equivalent to the one of a toy guy shooting water (logically, care only about what the bullet momentum provokes in comparison with just water like much higher turbulence)? Even by forgetting about the (extremely relevant issue) of being a very short straight stretch with virtually no lateral movement, do you think that you can accurately assess such a situation by plainly replacing the volume of the bullet with air (or any other low-density fluid)?! You can plainly focus on the masses/weights?! There are other comment-worthy parts in that paragraph, but I think that this reference is more than enough to support my point of your analysis being naively theoretical (in the sense of physics-with-non-deformable-solids-and-under-ideal-conditions theoretical, nothing even close to the required analysis for any real-life machine).
Preventing collapse in vacuum systems is not magic, it's well-understood engineering. Any engineer worth their salt can readily calculate wall thickness vs. segment length vs. ring diameter in order to make a vacuum system safe against implosion
I am not even sure what to say here.
Right, because transporting flammable (if not explosive) fluids doesn't threaten human lives?
You are saying that transporting a flammable fluid which might eventually pass near some humans might be considered even more dangerous (= stricter regulations) than actually transporting a relevant number of people?! Curious approach. Luckily, most of worldwide regulations think different than you do.
What are you even talking about? You do realize that the net heat transfer even in a mild vacuum is almost nil, don't you?
I understand that they are planning to reach a heat-free situation inside the capsule, right? Like in that old joke "neither hot nor cold, zero degrees".
In short, ignoring "things that by their very definition are rare", and assuming exactly what is spelled out in the design document rather than arbitrarily changing it to attack the concept?
Shall I understand that considering emergency alternatives (expressly-although-honestly-not-too-fairly eliminated from the main critic) shouldn't be included in the design document of a vehicle (or any other real-world thing)?
In summary, you seem to stick to your original intention of defending than building a pipe to transport a random fluid can be even more expensive than what Elon is planning?! Do you think that this is a sensible assumption at all?! It also seems that you are taking my words as an attack and/or you are trying to defend what doesn't look as easily defendable, at least not from an objective and technically correct perspective. Either way, if you keep having that attitude, I would not continue participating in this discussion because of not seeing the point.
I guess that most of people should know that I wasn't referring to omniscient beings, but just in case I meant "Design, build and operate this Hyperloop for goods".
Advantages:
* Far lower mass loadings
* Does not carry things that could "leak" and contaminate the ground (much easier environmental permitting, less NIMBY)
* Simpler thermal management
* Much lower pumping requirements (just to head this off: it's a mild vacuum, not a hard vacuum. The energy required (and pump sizes) to pump fluids through a pipeline is far more than is required to simply maintain a mild vacuum)
* Usually periodic branch points
So, you are basically saying that building a standard piping system to conduct fluids is more difficult than one hosting the very fast transportation of persons except for these points? Even by ignoring diameter/length aspects, I am afraid that such a claim is very far away from being truth.
The points which you are referring aren’t even too relevant IMO:
* Far lower mass loadings -> I guess that you make that assumption by focusing your analysis on eminently theoretical aspects (considering just mass/volume/density inside the pipes) and by completely ignoring more practical ones like what is provoked by the associated momentum (e.g., stress/pressure variations). The resilience requirements of a container dealing with a fluid are far lower than the ones associated with a relatively big/heavy solid moving at high speeds inside that fluid. * Does not carry things that could "leak" and contaminate the ground -> when dealing with vacuum, leaks are certainly a concern; they might not contaminate the environment, but their consequences might be much more dangerous. Additionally, dealing with human lives is usually seen as a much bigger problem than environmental contamination and, consequently, your "easier environmental permitting" really means "having to comply with the much stricter safety regulations dealing with people transportation". * Simpler thermal management -> again, dealing with human lives is always orders of magnitude more problematic than doing it with lifeless fluids. With persons, the main problem isn't just the external isolation, but also the internal temperature ranges. * Much lower pumping requirements -> this might be right theoretically, but not so sure practically. One of the biggest problems of this vacuum-based transportation is people going inside/outside (+ associated pumping out/in). Even by forgetting about emergency situations and by assuming long trips with no stops, the adding/removing vacuum + all the associated actions required to ensure all the passengers to be completely safe during these processes are likely to be much more problematic and expensive than the ones in the version for fluids. * Usually periodic branch points -> not completely sure what you mean with that, but if it refers to a more discrete structure (understood as formed by more parts/variations) it would be a drawback. A straight plain pipeline will always be much cheaper than a more intrincate one including many joints, different materials, section variations, etc.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the transition from abstract theory to actually-functional complex system, mainly if it deals with something as important as human lives, is way much more complex than what you are trying to suggest. Your initial "so you start with base pipeline costs for the given diameter" is as unrealistic as trying to build a car by starting from "let's just make this toy car bigger". Starting any analysis of a complex system which deals with human lives (also with the extremely important issue of a reasonably big and heavy object running at a huge speed) by mostly caring about what the dealing-with-fluids equivalence does is also extremely naïve and unrealistic.
In any case, I think that your post describes an appealing-to-Hyperloop scenario: build a scaled-down version which emulates existing piping structures and completely ignores the very-problematic-human-lives issue and prove that your ideas work. Design, build and operate this Hyperloop for gods. Prove that
I saw one of their job offerings and applied for it (as an external contractor). In principle, just for fun, but I would certainly want to work with them in case that my proposal was accepted; basically, I said that I would deliver objective and honest assessments expected to be exclusively constrained by best engineering practices, physics and other intrinsic limitations (e.g., budget). In my application, I expressly highlighted my almost-intuitive scepticism regarding anything of this ever working as advertised.
Clarification: although I do have a BEng in mechanical engineer and some experience in the field, most of my professional career has been focused on programming and numerical analysis. On the other hand, I applied for a work mostly consisting in numerically/theoretically assessing the actual applicability of the their intentions, an aspect where I am reasonably experienced. In any case, I honestly think that they can rightfully reject my application for various reasons other than my perhaps-too-honest intentions.
Your best (actually, only one) contribution so far: you have taught me a new word. Congrats! You should be very proud of yourself because people like you rarely teach me anything. Although it doesn't describe my behaviour here, only your crazy misinterpretations making up non-existent meanings for everything.
Your usage of the English language seems to indicate that my original guesses regarding the source of your evident in-denial behaviour, living in made up realities, always selling (and probably easily buying) dishonesty, etc. might not be fully related to your occupation (note that I didn't read your previous reply and don't know whether it contains more information about yourself), but perhaps also to your way of life understood in its widest sense, as defined by your social status, life choices and expectations. In any case, this doesn't have any effect on what really matters: your behaviour denotes not only serious understanding lacks, but also a distorted self-perception.
You being a knowing-nothing-and-talking-a-lot CEO, a rich kid who hasn’t ever done anything relevant or any other over-protected, detached from reality and completely unaware about this fact idiot is completely irrelevant. Additionally and as already explained, I don’t have generic prejudices and plainly focus on current personalities/attitudes (+ noting the high probability of certain conditions to generate similar outcomes). The only thing that matters is that I have nothing to do with you, I don't want to talk to you and all what you say (interpret, hope, etc.) is, by using an expression honouring your deep love for the English language, bollocks.
you can't keep your word
This is a new proof of your serious understanding limitations. It had nothing to do with keeping my word (to whom!? to myself?!), I plainly used a descriptive-enough (although nothing is descriptive enough for a person like you) approach to summarise an evident-to-anyone-reading-this-chat conclusion: I am not interested in continue reading your incoherent nonsense. Please, stop making a fool of yourself and inventing a whole conversation including your interlocutor being involved in it at all.
better for your karma
By assuming that you are not using karma in the sense of this site (i.e., the global assessment determining good/bad track-records of logged-in users, mostly relevant to become eligible in the random selection of moderators. BTW, mine is excellent), this reference would confirm your "solid" scientific background eminently formed by absolute truths like "science is good" (sorry, I meant "science is splendid"). A fact that makes even more ridiculous you expecting your opinion (better: aggregation of random irrelevant ideas only proving your unwillingness to adequately understand anything) being taken seriously regarding any scientific issue.
My first intention was to not read a single character of your likely-to-be dishonest, misinterpretation-prone, abstract, etc. new nonsense, but then I said to myself "what kind of person are you? Someone as sad as this clown? With no respect for yourself and others? Living in a made-up reality built over fears, misunderstandings and prejudices? Never willing to adequately understand anyone or anything? No. This isn't me". So, I reconsidered my decision and started to read your comment until reaching
Hmm, your message is further establishing to me, that the advice I already gave you, is something you really ought to consider, as your manner of behavior doesn't fit very effectively with your professed belief in yourself.
This is when I decided to stick to my original intention of plainly ignoring you and your "infra-world". Bye.
In fact, if anything, my understanding likely differs from yours considerably.
I have no doubt on this front. In fact, this last message is further proving a kind-of-prejudice I got about you since the first moment (I am a prejudice-free person, but cannot avoid having likely-to-be-true expectations about certain people on account of my experience and my big interest in properly knowing and understanding others. Logically, I dismiss these pre-ideas as soon as possible, although they tend to be very accurate in certain contexts): you are a person who usually talks without knowing; one of those using expressions like "I am here to see the big picture"; the kind of personality usually working in managerial, political or other abstract talking environments; an individual who cannot see a discussion as a way to gain more understanding into the given situation (and/or grow as a person), but as something to win/lose; you rarely understand almost anything adequately and plainly focus on looking for weaknesses in your opponents (for you, everyone is an opponent to beat and everything is a game/war to win; you are also permanently afraid of virtually anything) to ease your win; the net contributions of persons like you to the world or to others is usually none as far as you only care about one person (= yourself), ironically you behave in a way which is mostly damaging for you (if those of your kind ever discovered how marvellous is truly knowing, truly not fearing, actually contributing, etc. you would change immediately your ways); etc.
I knew all this from your previous comments, but the absolute confirmation has been your reaction to my (over-)apology (something that a person like you never does, even though you are wrong most of the times): only people like you see an apology as an excuse to attack (a weakness?! No. It shows honesty and self-confidence or, by using an easier-for-you language, strength) and to try to cover their lacks. The normal/reasonable behaviour? Accepting/understanding the apology and, in case of being applicable, repaying it with your own (in this case? Something like "sorry for posting so misleading and clearly wrong statements; I honestly don't know too much about all of this and was just repeating what I read somewhere else" would make my aforementioned prejudice invalid and you respect-worthy for me).
I think you believe you know more than you really do
This is a new sample of generic talking which tries to cover your evident lacks on what is being discussed. Your whole message is full of meaning-nothing (or self-help-book-material or CEO-talk or abstract-nonsense or canned-knowledge samples) sentences on these lines which you (very wrongly) think that are helpful to deal with any situation where you don’t have the required knowledge. I have met many people like you and have tried quite a few times to make you understand (even just via "let's just understand that our positions are very different and what works for each one of us doesn't work for the other"), but always failed. Apparently, you don't want to see yourself and what you represent clearly (perhaps this is a basic requirement for a personality like yours); I am not sure whether you are fully lying to yourself or are so committed to your life role of selling-distorted-images that can never reach a point of acceptation ("OK. My techniques don't work with certain type of people and I would have to accept it"), a practical stalemate by applying your always-competing perception of the world.
You keep repeating your proceedings, standardised answers, calculated reactions, etc. which have worked on other contexts, by ignoring the reality in front of you clearly telling "your bag of tricks isn't good here". You will never understand even the tiny fraction of reality defined by the simple: there are actually honest, knowledgeable, wanting-to-understand-&-be-understood people for whom your world of abstract really-meaning-nothing is a complete (s
Again: sorry, sorry and re-sorry. I am certainly not the kind of person ignoring others, easily misjudging or not adequately understanding their positions. I am not trying to justify my behaviour, but bear in mind that I answered your first reply after having written other two answers (+ not having too much time/planning to do that + as already said, not liking this kind of discussions too much). Also bear in mind my solid background on this front what makes kind of difficult to take certain statements too seriously. Hopefully, you will understand my position.
I took a quick look at the paper you were referring (this one, download the cached version because the NASA links don't seem to work) and it doesn't show any surprising to me result. Bear in mind that what we call (toxic) pollutants (e.g., the referred NOx) are very dangerous, what means that they provoke cancer in open space. Getting highly concentrated doses of virtually anything might be unhealthy, but this isn’t enough to say that certain substance is toxic. Also note that I did expressly clarify in my first comment that, under exceptional circumstances CO2 might be somehow problematic (as everything else under extreme conditions).
The basic conclusions of this paper are summarised in table 2 (page 19) which includes a very descriptive list of situations (good work, Mrs. Law! Sorry again:)) which describe the non-applicability of these conclusions to atmospheric (or any other kind of accidental/under normal conditions) contamination. You have to get a dose 20 times higher than normal atmospheric conditions just to reach "Empiric threshold established by flight surgeons" (= an astronaut is still able to perform his demanding work perfectly!), what also means getting locked in a very small room with lots of CO2 (BTW, if you do that with something like a car, the other pollutants, most likely CO, would kill you before that you could start feeling the indicated CO2 effects). You need to get over 40 times the normal atmospheric concentration to start feeling "Slight performance decrement after chronic exposure" (= after being under these conditions for too long, you might not be able to perform all the actions which an astronaut have to perform at 100%). If you get 65 times more, you would reach "the maximum Maximum CO2 concentration on Apollo 13" (= astronauts flight under these conditions!). If you keep increasing the values, you would get increasingly slightly worse effects eminently defined by symptoms like headache, sweating, dizziness, etc. I couldn't find in that paper any reference to words like "bone", "cognitive" or "kidney" (= you aren't too honest and/or don't know what you are talking about; an idea which was pretty clear in my mind since the very first second).
In summary, it seems a study only relevant under very specific conditions (= maximising the performance of astronauts), which doesn’t seem applicable anywhere else and, in any case, is certainly very far away from representing even the starting point for claims on the lines of "CO2 is bad for human health". No, it is certainly not. It isn't enough under normal atmospheric conditions and not even for very concentrated doses (inside an actual greenhouse). Taking a very high dose of CO2 (or anything else like water or oxygen) cannot be good, but this is evident and doesn't convert it into bad not even watch-your-dose material; just in don't-get-completely-crazy-and-start-living-24hours-with-a-high-CO2-concentration-because-you-might-get-headaches material. Anyone claiming that CO2 is bad for your health is plainly a liar. In any case, I do apologise again for my very far from ideal behaviour. Hopefully, this will be enough to finish this chat.
ah! Big apologises! I seriously didn't read your comment (very bad impression from your first one), but you did include a reference to the (actually existing!) Mrs. Law! Really sorry about that. I will read it right away and come back to you ASAP.
And? This means what, that because they didn't do something, they couldn't be wrong?
I read that first sentence, then skimmed through all your links to find a reference to the marvellous contribution of Mrs Law (BTW, I didn't mock anyone other than you inventing a name which happened to have certain curious appearance), confirmed that it wasn't there and now I am writing these reasonably-respectful farewell lines. Bye.
My original intention of not wanting to get involved in CO2-related discussions should be clearer now by reading the replies I got. Honestly, I was expecting much more aggressive attitudes + down-votes. Although I am pleasantly surprised with what I have seen so far, am still not interested in getting involved in these discussions.
It is not simply a matter of suffocation, but studies (including on the ISS) show issues with cognitive function, kidney function and bone loss.
?! Seriously?! I worked during 2 years for a company whose business was focused on emissions (mostly from internal combustion engines) and, as per my knowledge, all the industry wasn't even considering CO2 as a pollutant until relatively recent times. Also I wasn't aware about the fact that humans (or any other living being) are systematically generating poisonous-to-themselves compounds. Are you saying that just breathing is bad for your health?! Wow! You should quickly let everyone know about your discoveries because there are lots of people wrong out there. The medical community should start recommending people not breathing and/or not being around of other breathing things. Logically, I believe that all what you are saying is completely true, but just for future readers not knowing you, your knowledge and intentions as well as I do (random other AC), would you mind to share some reference from a reasonably trustworthy source somehow supporting your words?
The Paris agreement technically covers all relevant GHGs.
According to Wikipedia, you mean H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs. If this is true (why or how could I doubt about the reliability of such a trustworthy source of knowledge as you have proven to be?!), it would mean that, out of the main pollutants from internal combustion engines, they only care about the referred CO2. Note that N2O has nothing to do with the dangerous NOx (NO + NO2), also that its other name (laughing gas) gives a good idea about its actual relevance.
Sorry, two for two.
Yes, I agree I think that the first paragraph reflects much better your surprisingly in-denial (dishonest?!) ignorance though.
I'd post links but I am on mobile, so a bit more trouble.
But you did share all that knowledge with the rest of the world anyway. Thanks! And I am saying that as both a human and a learner.
Jennifer Law did one of the studies, as a NASA flight surgeon, it should be public documentation though. And fo the other, just read the treaty.
Jennifer Law doesn't sound like the kind of made-up name intended to be appealing to gullible audiences? Like the fake name used by a scammer or what Sarah Silverman's last trailer is mocking with "Tom Virtue"? Also a flight surgeon?! Are now (flight!!) surgeons taking care of emissions and their effects on health? I thought that all this was taken care of by biology-focused specialities, but what has a surgeon to do with anything of this? And also NASA (well... they might do some work on emissions, although not sure that via their flight surgeon)?! Please, do a little effort as soon as you can and share a like to that breaking-through research! We have to let the industry and the world know! They have done so many mistakes and Jennifer is so unfairly not extremely famous!
DISCLAIMER: yes, this post contains looooots of sarcasm.
Sure, as indirectly as dreaming with a number might have an impact on your chances of winning the lottery. No. Even by assuming that the most ambitious long-term CO2-reduction goals are achieved, we would continue heavily relying on fossil fuels and all the worldwide emission regulations would continue being eminently focused on reducing actually-harmful-for-health pollutants (+ including some references to the CO2 newcomer).
This is probably the trendy idea with lowest applicability ever. We have been burning fossil fuels since we became an industrialised society over 200 years ago and we don't know anything better than that. Talking about not burning fossil fuels at all is almost like talking about magic.
Just replacing internal combustion engines (a tiny proportion of the burning-fossil-fuels reality) is so complex that, at this point, can even be considered a completely unrealistic long-term goal. We already have acceptable alternatives for small engines (cars) but replacing all the existing ones isn't a reasonable expectation for the next 20-50 years; and we are still not even close to replacing heavy-load ones (trucks, ships, planes, etc.), which are the biggest pollutors by far.
Down here in the actual reality where we have to deal with burning fossil fuels without dreaming about magical what-if scenarios, reducing CO2 and NOx (or any other pollutant) are completely different stories. Each emission type requires different approaches with different drawbacks (because most of people, many of them systematically complaining about non-environment-friendly policies, want their engines to continue running as so far, their electricity to continue being reliably provided, etc.), even different fuels and conditions are more (un)likely to output certain pollutants. NOx and CO2 will never be considered at an equivalent level absolutely anywhere unless in the mouths of generically-speaking people.
Even though I have little interest in getting involved in CO2-related discussions, I want to clarify a tiny detail which quite a few people don't seem to know: CO2 is not harmful for human health (perhaps it might not be too good in very high doses, but this is an extremely unlikely scenario). In fact, it is a normal output of any combustion like the ones associated with the breathing process of all the living beings. That linked article can only refer to the other pollutants generated by car engines (e.g., NOx, HC, soot/particles, etc.).
I am not too familiar with the exact conditions of the Paris agreement, but in case of being exclusively focused on CO2/climate change it wouldn't have any impact on the deaths which you are mentioning.
I guess that the previous comment and the related ones being a joke should be evident for virtually everyone. What I am about to tell is still not too serious, but certainly more relevant: after various weeks when getting mod points has been quite difficult, today I got 15 of them!!! This my first time with more than 5 mod points.
I am sharing all these issues about the Slashdot modding system to help those interested to know a bit more about this aspect of the site, which IMO is quite nice but also kind of shady. The more you know....
Slashdot Mirror
Your understanding of Rei's arguments about a useful model for Hyperloop appear to be severely flawed.
I do think that your understanding of my critic is seriously flawed too. For example:
The fluid in a Hyperloop is a soft vacuum of gases of roughly the composition of Earth's atmosphere
From statements like this one you seem to believe that you can plainly ignore the inside air (interactions capsule-air), what denotes how unrealistic your approach is (precisely the whole point of my critic to Rei's ideas). This system is extremely complex and involves extremely complex interactions of a particularly complex/unknown-for-us sub-type (= fluid-dynamics). Under ideal conditions and/or for small enough sizes (-> what seems the start point for believing that most of Hyperloop goals are actually doable), all these aspects might even be deemed irrelevant and the main analysis might be actually focused on more simplistic aspects as you do (= just caring about weights and main vertical component). But when you are talking about a so big object (you don't need even to take into account the numerous problems associated with dealing with human lives. BTW, I re-insist in my advice to Hyperloop's people: if you seriously want anything of this to ever be close to become a reality, you should start focusing on having ready a much smaller version only dealing with goods. Once you are able to prove that this is a viable alternative, you might have a chance of reaching a version of what you want. The chances of any other approach to ever reach anywhere, other than forums, videos and the mouths of promising-a-lot-and-delivering-nothing, gullible, not-too-knowledgeable people are zero) flying free inside a fluid, you are talking about a true nightmare from the calculations perspective; and you can certainly not even dream about assuming that such a scenario is equivalent to just having any random continuous substance flowing through.
See, I am not sure about your exact knowledge, intentions (honestly understanding or blindly defending because of ignorance/other reasons?) and don't want to be disrespectful, but don't want to continue this conversation. My point should be clear to anyone willing to understand it and keep repeating it doesn't seem to make too much sense. If you were the first person to whom I was replying, I might even have extended this discussion a bit further, but look at all my replies yesterday!
Hyper-loop cars are not moving in a fluid but in very thin air
Can you get the problem with that sentence after reading it again or do you need to do a quick research to get some help?
Momentum: i = m * v. Give back your engineering badge
Are you downgrading your abstract-theory-based understanding to a one-specific-formula-based understanding? I am speechless right now.
The only thinkable thing it could impact with is the destination station
Sure. Because for you, the air (+ its turbulence + the provoked over-pressure + etc.) and the tube walls mean nothing, right? Ah! I understand it now: they aren't part of your formula and that's why you don't recognise their existence. LOL.
Seriously, let's better cut it here and focus on talking to people more compatible with each other's (how to call it?...) perception of the world.
I did not adress your other points because they are nonsense
Very sensible introductory statement from what seems a very reasonable and knowledgeable individual (just in case you don't get it, this is sarcasm).
An oil pipelin has probably 1000 times the weight and definitely a similar if not higher momentum than a hyoer-loop car.
You are messing things up here. Firstly, less consider the main vertical component, where you can treat everything identically (= just weights). Now let's move to everything else and analyse the situation a bit more carefully: on one hand, you have a fluid flowing (with mass and momentum) and, on the other hand, you have a fluid flowing (with mass and momentum) + a quite big capsule (with mass and momentum). If we analyse both scenarios from an external point of view (e.g., the end/start points of the pipe), they might even be considered identical under very specific conditions. In any other case (= all what happens when the capsule is moving within the fluid) we would have the additional "little" problem of having to deal with the interactions between the capsule and the surrounding-fluid momenta. In other words, a pipe with just a fluid and a pipe with a fluid + an object inside are different things and, if your theoretical approach tells otherwise, you should better reconsider its accuracy.
if engineers plan such a thing you usually can trust hthat they know the math
As an engineer and a properly-understanding-prone person, I will never endorse ideas on these lines because of basically representing the most anti-scientific, sheep and fanatic behaviour ever. You can either know what you are talking about and make your positive (or even negative) contribution to a conversation or accept your ignorance (and/or unwillingness to adequately understand and/or to participate in that discussion, etc.) and not intervene. Any other behaviour is highly censurable and even deserves a reaction similar to the NYP reference in one of the last articles here (yes, I was waiting for an opportunity to write this one :)): go copulate with yourself! LOL.
The momentum is only relevant in curves
Momentum is a way to measure the impact of a moving object on any other thing, what means that it affects anything anywhere exactly like a force, pressure, etc. To not forget that the "momentum" concept is also a quite big simplification as far as there are different momenta associated with the multiple 3D movements (forwards, backwards, lateral, rotation, etc.).
In English, concerning physics, "resistance" generally means electrical resistance, thermal resistance, or drag (e.g. "air resistance"). How bodies deform under stress is studied via finite element analysis (FEA / FEM).
I meant strength of materials (not too difficult to find after a quick search, what I should have done in my first comment), by bearing in mind that this is just a generic reference to a wide variety of (engineering) sub-specialities dealing with pretty much the same: more accurate approaches for the generic non-deformable-solid physics.
And as was pointed out to you, the issue has nothing to do with the bullet or the water, it's that in a gun you're dealing with several thousand atmospheres of pressure. It's like if someone said "this house would collapse if the roof has to bear five meters of snow but not one meter of snow", and you said, "but what if the one meter of snow was moving at a good fraction the speed of light?" It's not at all relevant to the problem at hand.
You don't seem to still be getting the point. You keep thinking that the same rules (X bar of pressure) are equally applicable regardless of anything else and this is precisely the flaw in your reasoning. If you have a fluid with certain properties and you want to keep it under pressure X, it would cost you Y effort (= cost = reactions which have to be contained by the tube). If now you put a big object inside that fluid at very high speed, the conditions would change completely; what means that your effort would have to be now much higher. Both scenarios (normal piping vs. Hyperloop) are completely different and cannot be assumed equivalent.
Building a pipe to send oil of certain density at certain pressure certain distance has completely different requirements than sending a big/heavy object inside a fluid under the same pressure that same distance. You are trying to make both situations equivalent by replacing that object with an equivalent amount of fluid by focusing on a generic analysis; and its mass is even irrelevant in comparison with what really matters here (= its big mass + velocity = tremendous momentum). It is a completely different ball park, with completely different requirements which you are systematically ignoring by relying on imagine-that-we-have kind of ideas. Your
It's like if someone said "this house would collapse if the roof has to bear five meters of snow but not one meter of snow", and you said, "but what if the one meter of snow was moving at a good fraction the speed of light?"
denotes that misunderstanding because this example doesn't show what I am saying at all. A proper version would be: "this isn't the case because you are assuming that my roof is type-1, but actually my roof is type-2 and it can bear up to 10 meters of snow". You are talking about getting certain results like X pressure without wanting to understand the real implications of actually getting there: the effort/cost/reaction-to-oppose to reach that target in these two scenarios are completely different. "By assuming that we have whatever, let's think what we do next" isn't engineering/physics/science is just wishful thinking or scientific-looking dreams or something like that.
The same mass of water? Actually the water would do a pretty damned good job. Ever seen what a non-abrasive water jet cutter does? That's what happens when water moves at bullet-speeds, even tiny amounts of water. The faster the object, the more it's just the kinetic energy that matters and the less that the object's structural integrity matters. If you had a bullet's mass worth of water moving at bullet speeds, it'd cut deep into a person, if not right through. High speed liquid jets are how shaped charges pierce through armour. As a matter of fact, water charges [youtube.com] are shaped charges that use water as their piercing fluid.
Y
As explained in different parts of my other comments, you are focusing on a small part of a much bigger problem. Statically (or more theoretically), both types of scenarios might be considered identical, but more realistically the Hyperloop one adds a very relevant problem: a big heavy solid moving very fast inside a fluid, what makes both scenarios completely different and changes the container requirements.
You have a very big momentum which doesn't exist in the case of normal piping. A very big momentum inside a fluid implies a different hydrodynamic regime, lots of potential over-pressures/stresses/forces/problems at many different levels, over-complicates the whole analysis tremendously. It converts the original premise of "just use what we do with normal piping" in virtually useless.
I have no clue what you mean by "resistance requirements".
Just in case that all these ideas aren't clear to you, note that there is a (mechanical) engineering sub-field called material resistance (by assuming that I am not making a bad translation from Spanish), a closely-related branch is structural mechanics. Unlikely dynamics/kinematics, these branches deal with deformable solids (as your pylons do), with material properties and more realistic conditions what means that a bullet doesn't behave as a stream of water with the same mass. Engineers designing the containers of both objects would bring these analyses into picture to determine the strength requirements (= actual load being exerted on it) of the given structure, what the given material under the given conditions can resist. For your focused-on-masses analysis, a stream of fluid behaves identically to the capsule (= expects a similar container); in reality and for these more-realistic analyses, both scenarios are completely different. That's why your concerns are wrongly focused on the pylons (you only care about the vertical forces from weights) and you think that fluid and solid-in-fluid are basically equivalent situations, because you aren't accounting for all the consequences ignored by more theoretical analyses which become very relevant in a situation like this. That's why my point of not being possible to replace the capsule with an equivalent amount of water in the analysis; it would be OK only for a sub-part of the problem (= weights).
A gun experiences several hundred megapascals of pressure (several thousand atmospheres). A toy watergun experiences a small fraction of one atmosphere
You didn't get that point right. I was trying to give a graphical example about the kind of differences which theoretical analyses ignore. Let me put it in a different way: imagine that you can shoot water at the same speed than a steel bullet, would both of them do the same damage? Logically, they will not. In fact, the water will not even reach the target. But for your theoretical analysis, only caring about masses, both situations would be identical (?!). This was my whole point.
Well okay then. Thanks for taking the time to let me know. ;)
You should already know something about me: I love letting people know about things which they might not care about :)
Where on Earth did you get the concept that part of the design involves chilling the capsules (and thus the passengers) to absolute zero?
It seems that you didn't get the joke (it doesn't really matter, but I think that it was meant for 0C), perhaps it was because of the translation. Please, re-read that part and understand that I didn't suggest anything even close to that.
I'm sorry if you see this as an attack; that is not the intent.
OK. I do deserve this.
I also meant "a toy gun shooting water".
Yes, I know. I should maximise the previewing options further.
I meant "It does not seem that you are too willing"
A transient (89ms) mass loading (short enough not to allow for any meaningful deflection**) of far lower peak magnitude versus a permanent mass loading of far greater peak magnitude - there is no contest, the latter is much more expensive to build (all else being equal). As for any knock-on effects from variations, the pylons incorporate 3-axis dampers (needed for earthquake protection and maintaining alignment). Note that the pylons are a separate cost line item. The length of a Hyperloop capsule's worth of a 1g/cc liquid is well over 100 tonnes, vs. 3,1 tonnes for a Hyperloop capsule (plus ~2 tonnes for passengers / luggage). That's a huge difference. And this is ignoring that the bulk of the tube at any given point in time only bears its own weight. A pipeline bears vastly more weight.
Are you saying that it is possible to compare the resistance requirements of the container of a fluid vs. the ones of a solid within a fluid by plainly replacing the mass of that solid with an equivalent fluid mass? Are you saying that the stress suffered by the walls of a gun (the part through which the bullet flies, whatever the technical name is) which shoots a bullet is equivalent to the one of a toy guy shooting water (logically, care only about what the bullet momentum provokes in comparison with just water like much higher turbulence)? Even by forgetting about the (extremely relevant issue) of being a very short straight stretch with virtually no lateral movement, do you think that you can accurately assess such a situation by plainly replacing the volume of the bullet with air (or any other low-density fluid)?! You can plainly focus on the masses/weights?! There are other comment-worthy parts in that paragraph, but I think that this reference is more than enough to support my point of your analysis being naively theoretical (in the sense of physics-with-non-deformable-solids-and-under-ideal-conditions theoretical, nothing even close to the required analysis for any real-life machine).
Preventing collapse in vacuum systems is not magic, it's well-understood engineering. Any engineer worth their salt can readily calculate wall thickness vs. segment length vs. ring diameter in order to make a vacuum system safe against implosion
I am not even sure what to say here.
Right, because transporting flammable (if not explosive) fluids doesn't threaten human lives?
You are saying that transporting a flammable fluid which might eventually pass near some humans might be considered even more dangerous (= stricter regulations) than actually transporting a relevant number of people?! Curious approach. Luckily, most of worldwide regulations think different than you do.
What are you even talking about? You do realize that the net heat transfer even in a mild vacuum is almost nil, don't you?
I understand that they are planning to reach a heat-free situation inside the capsule, right? Like in that old joke "neither hot nor cold, zero degrees".
In short, ignoring "things that by their very definition are rare", and assuming exactly what is spelled out in the design document rather than arbitrarily changing it to attack the concept?
Shall I understand that considering emergency alternatives (expressly-although-honestly-not-too-fairly eliminated from the main critic) shouldn't be included in the design document of a vehicle (or any other real-world thing)?
In summary, you seem to stick to your original intention of defending than building a pipe to transport a random fluid can be even more expensive than what Elon is planning?! Do you think that this is a sensible assumption at all?! It also seems that you are taking my words as an attack and/or you are trying to defend what doesn't look as easily defendable, at least not from an objective and technically correct perspective. Either way, if you keep having that attitude, I would not continue participating in this discussion because of not seeing the point.
I guess that most of people should know that I wasn't referring to omniscient beings, but just in case I meant "Design, build and operate this Hyperloop for goods".
Advantages: * Far lower mass loadings * Does not carry things that could "leak" and contaminate the ground (much easier environmental permitting, less NIMBY) * Simpler thermal management * Much lower pumping requirements (just to head this off: it's a mild vacuum, not a hard vacuum. The energy required (and pump sizes) to pump fluids through a pipeline is far more than is required to simply maintain a mild vacuum) * Usually periodic branch points
So, you are basically saying that building a standard piping system to conduct fluids is more difficult than one hosting the very fast transportation of persons except for these points? Even by ignoring diameter/length aspects, I am afraid that such a claim is very far away from being truth.
The points which you are referring aren’t even too relevant IMO:
* Far lower mass loadings -> I guess that you make that assumption by focusing your analysis on eminently theoretical aspects (considering just mass/volume/density inside the pipes) and by completely ignoring more practical ones like what is provoked by the associated momentum (e.g., stress/pressure variations). The resilience requirements of a container dealing with a fluid are far lower than the ones associated with a relatively big/heavy solid moving at high speeds inside that fluid.
* Does not carry things that could "leak" and contaminate the ground -> when dealing with vacuum, leaks are certainly a concern; they might not contaminate the environment, but their consequences might be much more dangerous. Additionally, dealing with human lives is usually seen as a much bigger problem than environmental contamination and, consequently, your "easier environmental permitting" really means "having to comply with the much stricter safety regulations dealing with people transportation".
* Simpler thermal management -> again, dealing with human lives is always orders of magnitude more problematic than doing it with lifeless fluids. With persons, the main problem isn't just the external isolation, but also the internal temperature ranges.
* Much lower pumping requirements -> this might be right theoretically, but not so sure practically. One of the biggest problems of this vacuum-based transportation is people going inside/outside (+ associated pumping out/in). Even by forgetting about emergency situations and by assuming long trips with no stops, the adding/removing vacuum + all the associated actions required to ensure all the passengers to be completely safe during these processes are likely to be much more problematic and expensive than the ones in the version for fluids.
* Usually periodic branch points -> not completely sure what you mean with that, but if it refers to a more discrete structure (understood as formed by more parts/variations) it would be a drawback. A straight plain pipeline will always be much cheaper than a more intrincate one including many joints, different materials, section variations, etc.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the transition from abstract theory to actually-functional complex system, mainly if it deals with something as important as human lives, is way much more complex than what you are trying to suggest. Your initial "so you start with base pipeline costs for the given diameter" is as unrealistic as trying to build a car by starting from "let's just make this toy car bigger". Starting any analysis of a complex system which deals with human lives (also with the extremely important issue of a reasonably big and heavy object running at a huge speed) by mostly caring about what the dealing-with-fluids equivalence does is also extremely naïve and unrealistic.
In any case, I think that your post describes an appealing-to-Hyperloop scenario: build a scaled-down version which emulates existing piping structures and completely ignores the very-problematic-human-lives issue and prove that your ideas work. Design, build and operate this Hyperloop for gods. Prove that
I saw one of their job offerings and applied for it (as an external contractor). In principle, just for fun, but I would certainly want to work with them in case that my proposal was accepted; basically, I said that I would deliver objective and honest assessments expected to be exclusively constrained by best engineering practices, physics and other intrinsic limitations (e.g., budget). In my application, I expressly highlighted my almost-intuitive scepticism regarding anything of this ever working as advertised.
Clarification: although I do have a BEng in mechanical engineer and some experience in the field, most of my professional career has been focused on programming and numerical analysis. On the other hand, I applied for a work mostly consisting in numerically/theoretically assessing the actual applicability of the their intentions, an aspect where I am reasonably experienced. In any case, I honestly think that they can rightfully reject my application for various reasons other than my perhaps-too-honest intentions.
conniption
Your best (actually, only one) contribution so far: you have taught me a new word. Congrats! You should be very proud of yourself because people like you rarely teach me anything. Although it doesn't describe my behaviour here, only your crazy misinterpretations making up non-existent meanings for everything.
Your usage of the English language seems to indicate that my original guesses regarding the source of your evident in-denial behaviour, living in made up realities, always selling (and probably easily buying) dishonesty, etc. might not be fully related to your occupation (note that I didn't read your previous reply and don't know whether it contains more information about yourself), but perhaps also to your way of life understood in its widest sense, as defined by your social status, life choices and expectations. In any case, this doesn't have any effect on what really matters: your behaviour denotes not only serious understanding lacks, but also a distorted self-perception.
You being a knowing-nothing-and-talking-a-lot CEO, a rich kid who hasn’t ever done anything relevant or any other over-protected, detached from reality and completely unaware about this fact idiot is completely irrelevant. Additionally and as already explained, I don’t have generic prejudices and plainly focus on current personalities/attitudes (+ noting the high probability of certain conditions to generate similar outcomes). The only thing that matters is that I have nothing to do with you, I don't want to talk to you and all what you say (interpret, hope, etc.) is, by using an expression honouring your deep love for the English language, bollocks.
you can't keep your word
This is a new proof of your serious understanding limitations. It had nothing to do with keeping my word (to whom!? to myself?!), I plainly used a descriptive-enough (although nothing is descriptive enough for a person like you) approach to summarise an evident-to-anyone-reading-this-chat conclusion: I am not interested in continue reading your incoherent nonsense. Please, stop making a fool of yourself and inventing a whole conversation including your interlocutor being involved in it at all.
better for your karma
By assuming that you are not using karma in the sense of this site (i.e., the global assessment determining good/bad track-records of logged-in users, mostly relevant to become eligible in the random selection of moderators. BTW, mine is excellent), this reference would confirm your "solid" scientific background eminently formed by absolute truths like "science is good" (sorry, I meant "science is splendid"). A fact that makes even more ridiculous you expecting your opinion (better: aggregation of random irrelevant ideas only proving your unwillingness to adequately understand anything) being taken seriously regarding any scientific issue.
Hmm, your message is further establishing to me, that the advice I already gave you, is something you really ought to consider, as your manner of behavior doesn't fit very effectively with your professed belief in yourself.
This is when I decided to stick to my original intention of plainly ignoring you and your "infra-world". Bye.
In fact, if anything, my understanding likely differs from yours considerably.
I have no doubt on this front. In fact, this last message is further proving a kind-of-prejudice I got about you since the first moment (I am a prejudice-free person, but cannot avoid having likely-to-be-true expectations about certain people on account of my experience and my big interest in properly knowing and understanding others. Logically, I dismiss these pre-ideas as soon as possible, although they tend to be very accurate in certain contexts): you are a person who usually talks without knowing; one of those using expressions like "I am here to see the big picture"; the kind of personality usually working in managerial, political or other abstract talking environments; an individual who cannot see a discussion as a way to gain more understanding into the given situation (and/or grow as a person), but as something to win/lose; you rarely understand almost anything adequately and plainly focus on looking for weaknesses in your opponents (for you, everyone is an opponent to beat and everything is a game/war to win; you are also permanently afraid of virtually anything) to ease your win; the net contributions of persons like you to the world or to others is usually none as far as you only care about one person (= yourself), ironically you behave in a way which is mostly damaging for you (if those of your kind ever discovered how marvellous is truly knowing, truly not fearing, actually contributing, etc. you would change immediately your ways); etc.
I knew all this from your previous comments, but the absolute confirmation has been your reaction to my (over-)apology (something that a person like you never does, even though you are wrong most of the times): only people like you see an apology as an excuse to attack (a weakness?! No. It shows honesty and self-confidence or, by using an easier-for-you language, strength) and to try to cover their lacks. The normal/reasonable behaviour? Accepting/understanding the apology and, in case of being applicable, repaying it with your own (in this case? Something like "sorry for posting so misleading and clearly wrong statements; I honestly don't know too much about all of this and was just repeating what I read somewhere else" would make my aforementioned prejudice invalid and you respect-worthy for me).
I think you believe you know more than you really do
This is a new sample of generic talking which tries to cover your evident lacks on what is being discussed. Your whole message is full of meaning-nothing (or self-help-book-material or CEO-talk or abstract-nonsense or canned-knowledge samples) sentences on these lines which you (very wrongly) think that are helpful to deal with any situation where you don’t have the required knowledge. I have met many people like you and have tried quite a few times to make you understand (even just via "let's just understand that our positions are very different and what works for each one of us doesn't work for the other"), but always failed. Apparently, you don't want to see yourself and what you represent clearly (perhaps this is a basic requirement for a personality like yours); I am not sure whether you are fully lying to yourself or are so committed to your life role of selling-distorted-images that can never reach a point of acceptation ("OK. My techniques don't work with certain type of people and I would have to accept it"), a practical stalemate by applying your always-competing perception of the world.
You keep repeating your proceedings, standardised answers, calculated reactions, etc. which have worked on other contexts, by ignoring the reality in front of you clearly telling "your bag of tricks isn't good here". You will never understand even the tiny fraction of reality defined by the simple: there are actually honest, knowledgeable, wanting-to-understand-&-be-understood people for whom your world of abstract really-meaning-nothing is a complete (s
Again: sorry, sorry and re-sorry. I am certainly not the kind of person ignoring others, easily misjudging or not adequately understanding their positions. I am not trying to justify my behaviour, but bear in mind that I answered your first reply after having written other two answers (+ not having too much time/planning to do that + as already said, not liking this kind of discussions too much). Also bear in mind my solid background on this front what makes kind of difficult to take certain statements too seriously. Hopefully, you will understand my position.
:)) which describe the non-applicability of these conclusions to atmospheric (or any other kind of accidental/under normal conditions) contamination. You have to get a dose 20 times higher than normal atmospheric conditions just to reach "Empiric threshold established by flight surgeons" (= an astronaut is still able to perform his demanding work perfectly!), what also means getting locked in a very small room with lots of CO2 (BTW, if you do that with something like a car, the other pollutants, most likely CO, would kill you before that you could start feeling the indicated CO2 effects). You need to get over 40 times the normal atmospheric concentration to start feeling "Slight performance decrement after chronic exposure" (= after being under these conditions for too long, you might not be able to perform all the actions which an astronaut have to perform at 100%). If you get 65 times more, you would reach "the maximum Maximum CO2 concentration on Apollo 13" (= astronauts flight under these conditions!). If you keep increasing the values, you would get increasingly slightly worse effects eminently defined by symptoms like headache, sweating, dizziness, etc. I couldn't find in that paper any reference to words like "bone", "cognitive" or "kidney" (= you aren't too honest and/or don't know what you are talking about; an idea which was pretty clear in my mind since the very first second).
I took a quick look at the paper you were referring (this one, download the cached version because the NASA links don't seem to work) and it doesn't show any surprising to me result. Bear in mind that what we call (toxic) pollutants (e.g., the referred NOx) are very dangerous, what means that they provoke cancer in open space. Getting highly concentrated doses of virtually anything might be unhealthy, but this isn’t enough to say that certain substance is toxic. Also note that I did expressly clarify in my first comment that, under exceptional circumstances CO2 might be somehow problematic (as everything else under extreme conditions).
The basic conclusions of this paper are summarised in table 2 (page 19) which includes a very descriptive list of situations (good work, Mrs. Law! Sorry again
In summary, it seems a study only relevant under very specific conditions (= maximising the performance of astronauts), which doesn’t seem applicable anywhere else and, in any case, is certainly very far away from representing even the starting point for claims on the lines of "CO2 is bad for human health". No, it is certainly not. It isn't enough under normal atmospheric conditions and not even for very concentrated doses (inside an actual greenhouse). Taking a very high dose of CO2 (or anything else like water or oxygen) cannot be good, but this is evident and doesn't convert it into bad not even watch-your-dose material; just in don't-get-completely-crazy-and-start-living-24hours-with-a-high-CO2-concentration-because-you-might-get-headaches material. Anyone claiming that CO2 is bad for your health is plainly a liar. In any case, I do apologise again for my very far from ideal behaviour. Hopefully, this will be enough to finish this chat.
ah! Big apologises! I seriously didn't read your comment (very bad impression from your first one), but you did include a reference to the (actually existing!) Mrs. Law! Really sorry about that. I will read it right away and come back to you ASAP.
And? This means what, that because they didn't do something, they couldn't be wrong?
I read that first sentence, then skimmed through all your links to find a reference to the marvellous contribution of Mrs Law (BTW, I didn't mock anyone other than you inventing a name which happened to have certain curious appearance), confirmed that it wasn't there and now I am writing these reasonably-respectful farewell lines. Bye.
My original intention of not wanting to get involved in CO2-related discussions should be clearer now by reading the replies I got. Honestly, I was expecting much more aggressive attitudes + down-votes. Although I am pleasantly surprised with what I have seen so far, am still not interested in getting involved in these discussions.
I meant "share a link to that breaking-through research".
It is not simply a matter of suffocation, but studies (including on the ISS) show issues with cognitive function, kidney function and bone loss.
?! Seriously?! I worked during 2 years for a company whose business was focused on emissions (mostly from internal combustion engines) and, as per my knowledge, all the industry wasn't even considering CO2 as a pollutant until relatively recent times. Also I wasn't aware about the fact that humans (or any other living being) are systematically generating poisonous-to-themselves compounds. Are you saying that just breathing is bad for your health?! Wow! You should quickly let everyone know about your discoveries because there are lots of people wrong out there. The medical community should start recommending people not breathing and/or not being around of other breathing things. Logically, I believe that all what you are saying is completely true, but just for future readers not knowing you, your knowledge and intentions as well as I do (random other AC), would you mind to share some reference from a reasonably trustworthy source somehow supporting your words?
The Paris agreement technically covers all relevant GHGs.
According to Wikipedia, you mean H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs. If this is true (why or how could I doubt about the reliability of such a trustworthy source of knowledge as you have proven to be?!), it would mean that, out of the main pollutants from internal combustion engines, they only care about the referred CO2. Note that N2O has nothing to do with the dangerous NOx (NO + NO2), also that its other name (laughing gas) gives a good idea about its actual relevance.
Sorry, two for two.
Yes, I agree I think that the first paragraph reflects much better your surprisingly in-denial (dishonest?!) ignorance though.
I'd post links but I am on mobile, so a bit more trouble.
But you did share all that knowledge with the rest of the world anyway. Thanks! And I am saying that as both a human and a learner.
Jennifer Law did one of the studies, as a NASA flight surgeon, it should be public documentation though. And fo the other, just read the treaty.
Jennifer Law doesn't sound like the kind of made-up name intended to be appealing to gullible audiences? Like the fake name used by a scammer or what Sarah Silverman's last trailer is mocking with "Tom Virtue"? Also a flight surgeon?! Are now (flight!!) surgeons taking care of emissions and their effects on health? I thought that all this was taken care of by biology-focused specialities, but what has a surgeon to do with anything of this? And also NASA (well... they might do some work on emissions, although not sure that via their flight surgeon)?! Please, do a little effort as soon as you can and share a like to that breaking-through research! We have to let the industry and the world know! They have done so many mistakes and Jennifer is so unfairly not extremely famous!
DISCLAIMER: yes, this post contains looooots of sarcasm.
Indirectly the Paris Agreement...
Sure, as indirectly as dreaming with a number might have an impact on your chances of winning the lottery. No. Even by assuming that the most ambitious long-term CO2-reduction goals are achieved, we would continue heavily relying on fossil fuels and all the worldwide emission regulations would continue being eminently focused on reducing actually-harmful-for-health pollutants (+ including some references to the CO2 newcomer).
if we stop burning fossil fuels
This is probably the trendy idea with lowest applicability ever. We have been burning fossil fuels since we became an industrialised society over 200 years ago and we don't know anything better than that. Talking about not burning fossil fuels at all is almost like talking about magic.
Just replacing internal combustion engines (a tiny proportion of the burning-fossil-fuels reality) is so complex that, at this point, can even be considered a completely unrealistic long-term goal. We already have acceptable alternatives for small engines (cars) but replacing all the existing ones isn't a reasonable expectation for the next 20-50 years; and we are still not even close to replacing heavy-load ones (trucks, ships, planes, etc.), which are the biggest pollutors by far.
Down here in the actual reality where we have to deal with burning fossil fuels without dreaming about magical what-if scenarios, reducing CO2 and NOx (or any other pollutant) are completely different stories. Each emission type requires different approaches with different drawbacks (because most of people, many of them systematically complaining about non-environment-friendly policies, want their engines to continue running as so far, their electricity to continue being reliably provided, etc.), even different fuels and conditions are more (un)likely to output certain pollutants. NOx and CO2 will never be considered at an equivalent level absolutely anywhere unless in the mouths of generically-speaking people.
Even though I have little interest in getting involved in CO2-related discussions, I want to clarify a tiny detail which quite a few people don't seem to know: CO2 is not harmful for human health (perhaps it might not be too good in very high doses, but this is an extremely unlikely scenario). In fact, it is a normal output of any combustion like the ones associated with the breathing process of all the living beings. That linked article can only refer to the other pollutants generated by car engines (e.g., NOx, HC, soot/particles, etc.).
I am not too familiar with the exact conditions of the Paris agreement, but in case of being exclusively focused on CO2/climate change it wouldn't have any impact on the deaths which you are mentioning.
I guess that the previous comment and the related ones being a joke should be evident for virtually everyone. What I am about to tell is still not too serious, but certainly more relevant: after various weeks when getting mod points has been quite difficult, today I got 15 of them!!! This my first time with more than 5 mod points.
I am sharing all these issues about the Slashdot modding system to help those interested to know a bit more about this aspect of the site, which IMO is quite nice but also kind of shady. The more you know....