Hyperloop Freight is a Joke • Hacker News Board

Re: Hyperloop Freight is a Joke

#121

Post by Retric » Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 2:02 AM UTC

sib wrote: post #78

taneq wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A train that accelerates at 0.5g to 1200kph would be awesome and I would ride it at every available opportunity.

The issue is not acceleration front/back, which can be dealt with in design and is fairly stable and consistent, but acceleration as much as 0.5G side/side, which is also more intermittent and against which it's difficult to build seats that would protect customers.

Really it's just a question of track design as these are 100% predictable G forces. If you really need to turn you can just roll the cabin and keep these g's directly under you and or slow down apraoching it. Elevators can also quickly have a fairly wide range (0.8 to 1.2) g's and people don't really get sick in them.

Highways for example have fairly wide banks which people rarely notice. https://sterlingpearce.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/img_0054....

Re: Hyperloop Freight is a Joke

#122

Post by jdmichal » Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 2:02 AM UTC

bwilliams18 wrote: post #98

notahacker wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the biggest point the article makes is the great deal of care that needs to be taken in packing loads to meet weight requirements and avoid movement of goods in transit. What makes sense for international air mail doesn't make sense for a four hour journey by truck, especially if that truck can take a container straight from the ship to the city depot without carefully repacking everything, or go door to door…

Maybe I'm totally unaware, but don't trucking, air freight and sea freight have the same problems w/ regards to weight requirements and movement of goods in transit? Is this not a solved problem? Build Hyperloop Freight to fit a ULD and we're all set no?

Container ships will have a dozen plus containers loaded across. Even if all the cargo shifted to one side of each container, the general balance of the vessel would remain roughly the same.

Re: Hyperloop Freight is a Joke

#123

Post by Glyptodon » Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 2:03 AM UTC

Are all the hyperloop proposals really for a single tube instead of a bank of tubes?

Re: Hyperloop Freight is a Joke

#124

Post by spectrum1234 » Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 2:11 AM UTC

I wish this was readable but this guy comes off as extremely arrogant. It was a white paper for godsakes!!

Is there an app that ensures I never read anything by this guy again? What is his name so I can avoid in the future?

I'm not saying Hyperloop is perfect...its the tone of this jerk.

Re: Hyperloop Freight is a Joke

#125

Post by ansible » Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 2:19 AM UTC

taneq wrote: post #53

Xorlev wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading through the criticisms the consensus is "sure, this can work if you allocate 10-100x more money than estimated." I'm not sure if it's truly innovative if it costs more, places considerable stress (up to 0.5g!) on the rider/cargo (what the author calls a "barf ride"). The analysis picks apart the touted benefits of additional speed when ultimately the capacity is lower and it takes longer to depart. In the cas…

A train that accelerates at 0.5g to 1200kph would be awesome and I would ride it at every available opportunity.

Yeah, seriously. I'd fly out to California just to take a trip on it.

Re: Hyperloop Freight is a Joke

#126

Post by brandmeyer » Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 2:19 AM UTC

mangeletti wrote: post #90

kinofcain wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of the air resistance of a train-sized object (about a quarter mile long) you'd have air resistance equivalent to a train 300 miles long (think of the tunnel as an inside out train). It's inefficient by several orders of magnitude.

Ah, I see what you mean :/ EDIT: Wait, if the walls were made to be near frictionless, then the aggregate energy, minus what's lost to hear from turbulence, would be used for motion, right?

Air has viscosity. Even for extremely smooth surfaces, you would expect the flow to be fully turbulent over such a distance.

Re: Hyperloop Freight is a Joke

#127

Post by cvs268 » Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 2:26 AM UTC

LordHumungous wrote: post #107

smokeyj wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It almost sounds like you have no credibility on the matter along with a highly critical opinion of Musk.

Well this is the internet. We're all just assholes with opinions, aren't we?

Assholes on the internet. Now that's an image i won't be forgetting soon.

Reminds me of the following quote:

Assholes ARE like opinions - Everyone has one.

Re: Hyperloop Freight is a Joke

#128

Post by Balgair » Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 2:28 AM UTC

Every time I see the HyperRail stuff, I just get this little song monoloop'd into my head. It's so strange. Anyone else have that too?

EDIT: I found the song!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM

Re: Hyperloop Freight is a Joke

#129

Post by wilam » Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 2:36 AM UTC

jheriko wrote: post #111

D_Alex wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon Musk had zero experience building cars, yet he made Tesla happen. Perhaps a high intellect and a good general purpose engineering training can accomplish more than you think. You, on the other hand, are overwhelmed by the challenge of maintaining vacuum in a tube that spans a mere 17 miles. At the very least, you should restrain yourself from using language like "...some idea he farted out...".

be careful, tesla is not successful as a car company yet, and its not in good shape to become one either. one day it might be, and more generally i do hope that we see more progress in the electric car world... but for now tesla only turns a profit as a car company coupled with government incentives. even then, outside of the US (and inside actually) their market share is tiny or zero with very little growth. saying…

year over year grown >50% seems a lot for a car company.

Re: Hyperloop Freight is a Joke

#130

Post by mangeletti » Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 2:48 AM UTC

brandmeyer wrote: post #126

mangeletti wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, I see what you mean :/ EDIT: Wait, if the walls were made to be near frictionless, then the aggregate energy, minus what's lost to hear from turbulence, would be used for motion, right?

Air has viscosity. Even for extremely smooth surfaces, you would expect the flow to be fully turbulent over such a distance.

What I mean is that the energy wouldn't be lost. The turbulence wouldn't result in a net loss of energy, except that which was lost as heat through the walls (a 1cm layer of vacuum would insulate against that).

Am I thinking if this wrong?