Live data from Hacker News

Hyperloop: Pipes of Fancy

economist.com

161–170 of 322 posts

Re: Hyperloop: Pipes of Fancy

#161
post #81

This is evergreen when talking about Hyperloop: http://www.cat-bus.com/2017/12/gadgetbahn/ The problems with building this have nothing to do with technology but with right-of-way, investment, and politics. If those factors were solved, we'd already have high-speed rail in places where Hyperloop has been proposed. The fact that we don't says that Hyperloop is unlikely to be feasible as well.

first time I heard that term was in donoteat01's video on the loop[0], haven't got around to reading that post till now though (thanks for the reminder) [0] Elon Musk's "Loop" - It's bad, folks https://youtu.be/4dn6ZVpJLxs

His style reminds me of RedLetterMedia's takedown[1] of Star Wars, but more technical.

[1]https://www.redlettermedia.com/plinkett-reviews/mr-plinketts...

Re: Hyperloop: Pipes of Fancy

#162
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three words: vacuum expansion seals.

There are multiple ways to solve this problem. It’s not a showstopper. 1) Bury the lines. Basically isothermal at depth. 2) insulate the tube and maintain stable temperature 3) use materials that don’t drastically change length with temperature 3) allow the tubes to change length. Put them on rollers. 4) use vacuum expansion joints just like us common in vacuum engineering. People act like vacuum is this new thing. P…

Plus earthquakes

Re: Hyperloop: Pipes of Fancy

#163
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three words: vacuum expansion seals.

There are multiple ways to solve this problem. It’s not a showstopper. 1) Bury the lines. Basically isothermal at depth. 2) insulate the tube and maintain stable temperature 3) use materials that don’t drastically change length with temperature 3) allow the tubes to change length. Put them on rollers. 4) use vacuum expansion joints just like us common in vacuum engineering. People act like vacuum is this new thing. P…

Good point. A little hyperloop is nothing compared with CERN.

Re: Hyperloop: Pipes of Fancy

#164
It's also the whole idea is stupid, unlike spaceX and the boring company which took some technology which was used thousands of times and now trying to incrementally improve it, the hyperloop is basically a maglev in a vacuum. But there are only 2 or 3 high speed maglevs operational right now, shouldn't we wait until there are at least 100 maglev lines before we go to the next stage of sticking them into a pipe? Did we already reaped all the benefits of a regular maglev line like we did with space crafts or tunnelling machines? It's no wonder Musk didn't create a company, he just through a stupid idea into the air and all kind of other delusional companies are wasting investor's money on it.

Re: Hyperloop: Pipes of Fancy

#165

This is evergreen when talking about Hyperloop: http://www.cat-bus.com/2017/12/gadgetbahn/ The problems with building this have nothing to do with technology but with right-of-way, investment, and politics. If those factors were solved, we'd already have high-speed rail in places where Hyperloop has been proposed. The fact that we don't says that Hyperloop is unlikely to be feasible as well.

>The problems with building this have nothing to do with technology but with right-of-way, investment, and politics. If those factors were solved, we'd already have high-speed rail in places where Hyperloop has been proposed. The fact that we don't says that Hyperloop is unlikely to be feasible as well. I disagree with your conclusion. Hyperloop technology is so lucrative that it might galvanize America to update its…

> - 2-3x speed of bullet trains. Can change the way we perceive geographic distance.

> - Cost isn't as much of a concern because a national hyperloop network would create a lot more value than a bullet train equivalent.

High speed brings with it some pretty severe problems. The most well-known is curve geometry: curve radii scale with the square of velocity. Transition track (how long the "S" of a S bend needs to be) scales with the cube. But it's not the only issue. Also scaling quadratically with speed is energy consumption and stopping distance. Speed only gives you a linear improvement in time, so things like capacity decreases [1] and stop penalties are only linear.

But the difficulty you face is switches. Here, you have curve radii constraints, which means your problems are in the quadratic issue. I've never seen any depiction of a hyperloop switch [2], but I imagine it's going to be more in the vein of move the entire tube than just swap a point. In any case, a high-speed switch capable of being traversed at 200 km/h is... 164m long. To go 1000 km/h would require it to be 4.1km. That means it will take a vehicle at least 14.76s to traverse it. So you can't schedule vehicles any tighter than that, but for safety reasons, you want the following vehicle to be able to come to a complete stop in case the switch breaks down before it can complete moving--which is going to slow you down to minutes between vehicles [3].

With these constraints, you might think people would be trying to design high-capacity vehicles, competing with the ~1000 you can stick on a normal trainset. But the design is more akin to a small airplane with the wings and tail cut off, fitting maybe a few dozen people per pod. Actually, the more you look at the designs, the more you see airport-style operational motifs sinking in. It starts to look a lot more like a long chain of point-to-point links, with the capacity issue of airplanes, but the infrastructural cost of railroads. Even the modelling seems to basically assume that people will treat hyperloops as airplanes.

[1] Yes, making a train network higher speed decreases its total throughput.

[2] A telling sign in itself.

[3] The highest capacity metro systems today can manage to schedule 45 trains per hour, and most systems are typically about 25 trains per hour. I believe the highest capacity HSR line is 6 trains per hour.

Re: Hyperloop: Pipes of Fancy

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a number of metrics where it's clearly better. Scheduling and routing. Not waiting 10-30 minutes for the next train depending on time of day. Not stopping anywhere but your destination. No connections or changeovers. Personal space. Privacy, safety. Regardless of how you personally feel about this factor, it matters enough to some people to significantly impact usage. Those factors may or may not be enough…

Waiting 10-30 minutes for a train isn't a technological consequence of rail transportation, it's a symptom of a catastrophically inept transit agency. What's stopping, say, Caltrain, from running trains at peak frequency all day? Incompetent leadership. They have the trains (which spend all day sitting idle _at_ terminus platforms), the have the crew (who also sit idle during the day), they have the capacity to run m…

Well, they don't run them all day because of the cost of the use of the trains and the cost of the crews. The crews can't be paid all day to do nothing.

Re: Hyperloop: Pipes of Fancy

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if at labour prices at half of the US average China can build high speed trains at a fifth of the price that we can build tunnels, there is more to it than that.

How much does it cost the respective governments for right of way land? Environmental studies?

Right of way of land works in largely the same way in China than in the US. If you have the 99 year lease for urban terrain, or ownership of rural terrain, the government pays you the amount it would cost for you to buy similar land in the case of rural expropriation, or a market rate for your lease. You are also compensated for improvements to your land, such a crops or buildings. In the case of land owned by collectives, the collective is paid for land value but not improvements, which are paid to the farmer.

In practice, laws are not always followed to the letter, but the same can be said in the US. You have the right to appeal to higher court, which is effective as unless it is a hugely major project, expropriations are generally made by the municipal or regional government.

As for environmental studies, they are directly paid for by the government. Environmental standards obviously vary, but have been strongly strengthened in the recent push against pollution.

Re: Hyperloop: Pipes of Fancy

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Won at electric, won at space, won at paypal. Salty comment ? Sounds like a HN comment

Are you asserting the space and electric ventures were not funded by taxpayers?

Those companies were not financed by taxpayers. Taxpayers bought some of their stuff, like flights to the space station from space x. Notice that not only did Boeing charge significantly more for human flights to space than spaceX, almost 50% more than SpaceX but they failed to deliver.

On evs, any company could get those subsidies that were designed to kick off the market. They worked brilliantly to kick off the market, it is just that most legacy car companies failed to produce evs, thus they had to pay other companies (Tesla is far from the only company to get money on top of sales for producing evs).

Re: Hyperloop: Pipes of Fancy

#169
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hatch in the tube, not the car.

Heh, look up "vacuum cannon" on youtube. The tunnel would need to be slowly depressurized, otherwise anything in it would turn into a bullet when the atmosphere rushes in. This also applies to any sort of failure that compromises the vacuum. A dipshit with a rifle could kill anybody in the system in a fraction of a second. Burying the tubes is probably the only way to avoid this, but thankfully the whole thing is vap…

You don't need a full vaccum. Even half an atmosphere would greatly reduce air resistance and allow for 4x the velocity in 1 atm.

Humans can survive (uncomfortably) at .5 atm and you eliminate the vacuum cannon problem simply by putting pressurization valves periodically throughout the tube.

Re: Hyperloop: Pipes of Fancy

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire point of the Hyperloop is to get around right of way and politics. That is it's design. That is exactly what Elon is doing. You might argue it can't do what it's setting out to achieve, but this has never been a technological solution. He's designed a technology to fit with current societal processes rather than the old, get society to accept a technology.

Exactly this. That’s why The Boring Company is focusing on reducing the costs of tunneling dramatically. And they started by just using existing technology. With that (and without the cost inflation that many corrupted projects experience), they were able to achieve about $10 per mile of tunnel. A lane of highway per direction is $1m to $8m depending on if it’s rural or urban. They’ve developed a new machine, Prufroc…

> they were able to achieve about $10 per mile of tunnel

Do you mean $10m per mile?

Post reply on HN