13yo Invents a Better Hyperloop - It's still a STUPID IDEA - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 12:17:08 am
content: The sad state of journalism is on full display, as CNN reports on a 13yo "scientist" who has invented a new version of the Hyperloop that's better than Elon Musk's concept.A vacuum/low pressure based Hyperloop is still fundamentally a stupid concept that will never be practical, and this new magnetic coupling concept is even sillier.Just stick to MagLev, it works.

author: China NewBoy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 02:30:50 am
content: first one!

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 10:04:31 am
content: Here you can see some more details about the idea from the "scientist":My question would be, if it is possible to drive a train with some compressed air. How much pressure do you need and how big needs the tube to be? And how does it work in curves? How strong needs to be the magnet? How does it stop? And right, as you mentioned in the video, it can't be a steel tube if it uses magnets to attach to the inner moving part. Also towing it from the side will create a high shear force, which will result in high friction.But if this would work at all, it would be still a very bad idea. It would need much more energy because of all the losses in the system than just using an overhead contact line and electrical motors. Which would be also cheaper to build than the tube system for existing railroads. I know in the USA there are still many diesel trains, unlike for example here in Germany, where almost all rails have overhead contact lines.

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 10:16:57 am
content: When you see that apparently someone helped her with plumbing and not only, you start to think how much help she received in other areas of "invention".

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 10:50:31 am
content: Future CEO of Ubeam has been born.....

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 11:46:37 am
content: Storgaring renewable enegry as compressed air, because it's the most inefficient method we could think of.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 12:36:46 pm
content: What hyperloop? ? ? ? ? ?I heard no mention of hyper-loop in the video. So where has this come from. Did someone see the tube and draw a conclusion?

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 12:52:05 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on November 04, 2019, 12:36:46 pmI dunno, but yesterday I wrote: "According to this the idea was nothing to do with Hyperloopy, cnn has just made that up."https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/the-hyperloop-busted/msg2768322/#msg2768322

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 12:57:10 pm
content: https://www.youngscientistlab.com/entry/2049I think I may avoid 3M products in the future, no need to fund this bullshit!So let me see her answer to what is her favourite invention in the last 100 years is the 3D printer. Let me guess, it's not, just, that, 3M make 3D printer consumables is it?

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 12:58:52 pm
content: Oh look:https://www.google.com/search?q=3m+3d+printer&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB822GB822&oq=3m+3d+printer&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5980j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8talk about product placement. This teenager has been used and abused!!!!

author: Syntax Error
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 01:20:36 pm
content: What goes around comes around, and in the case of atmospheric locomotion, that's once every 180 years.We mustalwaysencourage young engineers, even if their ideas are a bit 'immature'. Afterall, how many of us on the EEVBlog Forum were aged 10 building 'spaceships' form lego, meccano or fischertechnik, but still thinking big? As grown-ups we have a responsibility to ensure these young learners gain the toolsets to be able to innovate, rather than be set up to fail by everyone else's unrealistic expectations - or CNN's reporting of thealternate facts.As for hyper loop, it's just another rich kids theme park ride. Just like Virgin Galactic.Atmospheric trains really sucked:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_railway

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 02:13:18 pm
content: Quote from: Syntax Error on November 04, 2019, 01:20:36 pmRight. Sad part of this story is existence discouraging video where author openly laughs about clearly uneducated "invention" of kid and calls it STUPID IDEA (emphasis is not even mine)

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 02:32:44 pm
content: The problem here is that no one would have known about this if it were not for CNN lying about it. The idea is stupid and what is shamefull is that a 3M engineer "mentored" her, but then as long as 3M get to sell some 3D printer gear off the back of a 13 year old who cares......

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 02:46:04 pm
content: BTW, you can see the exact same invention here, except the tube is below the tracks, but same magnetic attachment:https://www.wired.com/story/flight-rail-vectorr-atmospheric-railway-train/The video is interesting. At 1:45 you can see the piston as well. This works in curves, too, because it has a torus at each end, and the middle is smaller than the tube. Main advantage compared to normal trains is that it is much lighter, because it doesn't need a heavy motor, so e.g. it can climb steeper grades, as the say and demonstrate in the video. It would be possible to accelerate and break much faster as well, and with less energy. Maybe the whole system needs even less energy than traditional trains. Doesn't look that stupid anymore after seeing the real size prototype.I think the Wikipedia article shows that the main problem of previous inventions was that they used valves in the tube for attaching the piston to train (rats were eating the leather valves etc.), because they didn't have these strong magnets back in the days.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 02:48:50 pm
content: When an idea is a stupid idea... well, it's a stupid idea. Things have to be called by their name.

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 03:03:17 pm
content: I don't think anymore it is a stupid idea. A conventional locomotive weighsmore than 100 tonsand it can't be used for steep grades. And accelerating needs a lot of energy. There are some modern regional trains (e.g. S-Bahn in Germany) which uses themotors as generators when breaking, but I don't think it is widely used for bigger trains, and efficiency wouldn't be good.Also the additional weight for traditional locomotives causes higher friction, so more losses. And you can't make the whole train much lighter, because then it might be difficult to accelerate fast, or break.All this is no problem with the air powered train with the piston in the tube. Of course, there would be other problems, like how to use multiple trains on one track (might need multiple segments) and probably higher maintenance costs. But could be still useful for some routes.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 03:18:17 pm
content: It's a bat shit crazy idea.....

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 03:30:06 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on November 04, 2019, 03:18:17 pmCan you give some reasons? Someone would need to calculate it, maybe based on the Flight Rail prototype, but I think for short routes, overall system cost and energy usage could be lower than with traditional trains. It could be used for grades up to 10% (according to the video), which is impossible for traditional trains (max about 3-4%), at least if you want some decent speed and not special gear wheel trains. And regenerative breaks have only like 20% efficiency. Do the math for a 100 ton locomotive, compared to an air pressure powered lightweight train.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 03:30:23 pm
content: Yeah let's install millions of kilometres of pistons and air pumps everywhere, and then have to maintain them too, what can go wrong? Doesn't sound like very good idea. And out of curiosity, how are they going to install the pistons here?

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 04:21:43 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on November 04, 2019, 02:32:44 pmYou nailed it. Obscure CNN channel started it, yet Dave have to spread the word further so new crowds of trolls can reach little girl with their damaging to immature mind, comments. Non-stupid decision would be to not use (non-EE) clickbait buzzword for extra penny this time and hope that it does not spread and you are not along those in the crowd who throws rocks at little girl.QuoteScience fair projects of "kids inventors" was never expected to be working or feasible. Nobody called their "inventions" as stupid... until now.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 04:26:09 pm
content: The idua is stupid. But the stupid mentor should have "mentored", I don't know, maybe the alternative would have meant less parts printed with 3M kit.Having stupid ideas is not a crime. I had plenty, but anyone I told them too explained why that would not work, they did not encourage me to make a fool of myself or put me on a pedestal and give me a false sense of achievement.

author: Dr. Frank
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 08:25:48 pm
content: The ICE is our German high speed train, Inter City Express, a conventional rail train, but ~300km/h fast (ICE 3).The Transrapid was the German magnetic levitation train, designed and built between 1969..1979 in Northern Germany (Emsland, 40km from where my wife grew up), but had been running on that test circuit only, until it was sold to China, now running in Shanghai since 2004. On that 30km circuit this Transrapid SMT, or Shanghai Maglev Train, achieves up to 430km/h, and to my knowlwedge it's the only commercially operating magnetic levitation train.Frank

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 08:32:02 pm
content: And to call a 13 year old a scientist is crazy when we can't get proper engineers and scientists out of university these days. Yes kids can be gifted but this one is not. She might make a good reporter when she grows up - just saying....

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 10:38:21 pm
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on November 04, 2019, 03:03:17 pmAFAIK all modern electric trains use regenerative braking. With modern electronic motor drives this comes for free.QuoteThese are the kind of problems which make or break a solution.

author: DimitriP
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 11:01:26 pm
content: I stopped watching after "globaly reducing transportation emissions".Then, like every good scientist, I searched and found a reason to justify my behavior:Quotehttps://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/greener-travel-car-or-railSo go ahead..... fix the 1.8% problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2019, 11:28:01 pm
content: Quote from: DimitriP on November 04, 2019, 11:01:26 pmWell... hyperloop isn't about fixing railways but creating a better alternative for transport over road because conventional just trains don't cut it. Especially when it comes to moving freight. In Europe the effective speed of a freight train is around 30km/h. The Dutch hyperloop firm Hardt is going to build a 3km long test track in the next couple of years and their first target is to transport freight quickly and efficiently.

author: DimitriP
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 12:16:25 am
content: QuoteI got the impression the main "target" would be trains hence the railway reference.Attempts to solve "global transportation pollution" issues that depend on "new" mass transit methods and technologies seem to overlook the fact that the problem exists in large part because not enough people use theoldmass transit methods and technologies

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 01:17:59 am
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on November 04, 2019, 02:46:04 pmThe magnets, rather than solving the problem are part of it.The only cheap materials for making a tube which are strong enough are Steel, an Aluminium alloy, or reinforced concrete.Magnets don't work very well through steel, & as has been pointed out, a rapidly moving magnet will introduce eddy currents in the steel, creating large energy losses.Aluminium is non-ferrous, but eddy currents will still occur.Reinforced concrete is, by its nature thicker, so the magnet will need to be stronger.The reinforcement is steel so there will still be eddy currents, albeit reduced.So we are pretty much stuck with using some other material.Maybe non-metallic materials like carbon fibre?Such alternatives require special handling & processing, & are largely unproven in tubes of many kilometres length.

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 01:18:59 am
content: Railroads are less of a problem compared to trucks and airplanes. Source:wiki.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 09:34:05 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 04, 2019, 11:28:01 pmWhy not just use Maglev?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 09:45:37 am
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on November 04, 2019, 03:30:06 pmYes, please, do the math and let us know.BTW, even lightweight cars weigh in at over 20 ton each.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 09:49:38 am
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on November 04, 2019, 10:04:31 amThe ultimate question is how fast can it go?Because if it can't beat fast rail or Maglev then it's not even a starter. We already have trains. Theonlything about Hyperloop that matters is the claim it can go faster than the fastest Maglev.Remember, Hyperloop is nothing more just MagLev inside a low pressure tube to make it go faster than normal MagLev.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 09:53:55 am
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on November 04, 2019, 02:46:04 pmThat is not a real size prototype, it's very neat model train that weighs bugger all and doesn't carry any significant weight or at any substantial speed.Great demonstrator, hats of to the guy, but the question is does it scale, and does it have any useful performance advantage at scale?And by performance advantage I mean speed, because if all it's got to offer is using less energy then that's not solving a real problem.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 09:55:58 am
content: Quote from: Simon on November 04, 2019, 12:36:46 pmIt's in the CNN article. Several quotes from her mention Hyperloop and how this improves on issues it has.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 10:02:07 am
content: Quote from: Syntax Error on November 04, 2019, 01:20:36 pmNope, it's not even going to get that far.If humans ever ride in a several hundred km long low pressure Hyperloop at 1000km/h, I'll eat my hat.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 11:59:25 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 05, 2019, 09:34:05 amBecause Maglev doesn't solve the problem with air friction (which needs exponentially more energy versus speed to overcome) and it is not that much faster compared to the speeds reachable with conventional railroad tracks. Also a Maglev track is quite expensive. The one in Shanghai has cost about 37 million dollars per kilometer. All in all a Maglev is nice but the cost versus gain is not great.Hardt claims to have raised several million euro to build a 3km test track so price-wise a hyperloop doesn't seem that expensive (it basically is just a tube). Hardt also says a hyperloop is (cost wise) on par with an underground railway and much cheaper compared to Maglev. As I wrote before: in the end it comes down to whether the financials make sense.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 12:48:25 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 05, 2019, 11:59:25 amCorrect, but if speed is the primary driver, Maglev still wins.QuoteLOL, it's hardly "just a tube". Hyperloop is areduced pressuretube. The technical hurdles to get this working over hundreds of km areinsane.QuoteNo, it's a technical feasibility problem to do with creating a low pressure inside a massive long and wide tube.If you want to argue "it's just a tube", then it'snotHyperloop, in that case it's just a train/maglev inside a tunnel/tube.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 01:02:14 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 05, 2019, 09:55:58 amBut nowhere does she say she's tried to invent a better version of Hyperloop(assuming the idea of HL is very high speeds), to me she keeps trying to distance herself from HL"Crouchley says, eradicating the potential safety risk posed by propelling passengers in a vacuum."""Hyperloop is very high risk," says Crouchley.""It's also safer than Hyperloop."Her main idea seems to be to get the diesel engines off the trains because of air pollution, which is all she mentions when she gets to speak not through a journalist."Caroline developed a sustainable method of public transportation that eliminates the need for a diesel engine or electric motor in trains."https://www.youngscientistlab.com/entry/2049https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UygzcFNDVAk&feature=youtu.be&t=118In the EEV video I don't think you mention 'air polution', but you've separated out the journalism, HL, and the 13yo fine.Electric motors are the some of the lightest, most powerful and efficient machines we can make, so it's still a useless idea.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 01:16:48 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 05, 2019, 12:48:25 pmBut if nobody can afford the ticket there is no ROI.QuoteSays who? There are lots of pipelines around the globe spanning hundreds of km which are operating at much higher pressures. Don't step into Thunderfoot's FUD.This link says oil pipelines use pressures around 40 bar to 70 bar.https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/energy-sources-distribution/clean-fossil-fuels/pipelines/faqs-federally-regulated-petroleum-pipelines-canada/5893Diameters of pipelines can be up to 150cm:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipeline_transportNow tell me how it is impossible to build a tube which is 1000km long which has an internal pressure near 0 (approx. -1bar relative to atmospheric pressure).QuoteThe thing is that I'm not a mechanical / structural engineer even though I have built lots of stuff from wood / plastic / metal. I'm not even pretending to be one while sitting in an armchair. I have worked on several projects which involve other disciplines. I've learned that the least productive thing I can do is to question the work done by specialists in other disciplines and/or the financial viability of a project. Usually the real mechanical engineering specialists come up with awesome solutions I would have never even dreamed of. Again, I'm not saying that a hyperloop is possible or not. I just look at the money going in a certain company and the companies behind it. Hardt looks pretty serious with some major companies backing it. Now before you are going to say Hardt is yet another government subsidy sponge; AFAIK the Dutch government has not put a single dime into Hardt.

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 03:47:42 pm
content: Ok, I'll try to do some math. A train like theICE 3weighs about 400 tons, is 200 m long, and has a capacity for 460 passengers. According tothis article, the ICE 3, commissioned in 2012, should have regenerative brakes. Usually the efficiency is up to 17%. Fortunately I don't have to calculate this all by myself, as Dave mentioned in his video, the ICE 3 needs59 Wh / seat / km.Hereis a train which runs with a rope. The 3rd generation has a capacity for 100 persons and weighs 12.5 tons. This is just a real world example how light a train can be for a given number of passengers, if it doesn't have motors. So use 5 of it, and you could transport more persons than with the ICE 3, but it would weigh only 62.5 tons, 1/6 of the ICE 3. Could be less with modern materials, but might need more, if it runs faster for more stability, and for more comfort, say 100 tons. The 300 tons weight difference is plausible, because a big locomotive can weigh 200 tons, and the ICE has distributed the motors over the wagons, which I guess increases the weight. 500 passengers might weigh worst case additionally 50 tons. To accelerate 150 tons to 320 km/h, you would need at least 591 MJ for the air train (1/2mv^2). To accelerate the 400 tons ICE to 320 km/h with additional 50 tons passengers, you would need 3 times more energy, at least 1.77 GJ.I guess the loss because of friction is lower as well with the air train, because it is lighter. But let's assume the same as for the ICE, because of the additional friction of the piston mechanism. Breaking could regenerate energy as well, just close a valve at the other side and use the air pressure to power a turbine. And efficiency could be higher because of stationary motors and generators, but assume the same. Then it could be 3 times more efficient than an ICE. But I think this is a very conservative calculation, because the piston mechanism gives it more stability, so the required weight might be reduced even more (they added extra 1.5 tons masses in the floor per wagon for the ICE to increase stability with strong side winds).Of course, I know nothing about mechanics, and it would need some serious new inventions and tests (graphene tube), and maybe it doesn't scale to ICE size like trains, but in theory it could be more energy efficient, just because of less weight, that's basic physics.PS: For a typical distance between two stations of say 50 km, and if the ICE 3 accelerates to 320 km/h, and with the theoretical minimum energy of 1.7 GJ, it would be 74 kJ / seat / km, so 20 Wh / seat / km. About 1/3 of the 59 Wh in the study, so I guess efficiency of the motors and the regenerative brakes might be not that good, and the friction, wind resistance etc. needs energy, too. But still pretty good, and it shows that the numbers are plausible.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 04:45:42 pm
content: How could you control a 100T train from an air valve 2 miles away, how would the train driver control the air valves.

author: excitedbox
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 05:10:29 pm
content: My idea is to put small wings on the side of maglev trains. Once you get up to speed the wings create the lift so the magnets don´t have to. Where is my science award

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 05:14:12 pm
content: Quote from: StillTrying on November 05, 2019, 04:45:42 pmControlling could be wireless. I guess the Flight Rail company has done the math. They claim the compressors can be 80 km apart. Use some relay stations in between, then it is no problem for a wireless connection:http://www.flightrail.com/our-technology.htmlBTW, the model they built weighs 1 ton and it is 1/6 scale. They claim a full size train could accommodate between 240 and 800 passengers. This would mean it would be much lighter than what I assumed. No need to move 100 tons.Of course, the low hanging fruit would be to move half of the car and truck transports to trains with better logistic and routing software, and you could probably extend the railway network multiple times and you would still save lots of energy with the existing conventional technology.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 05:33:34 pm
content: The air in the tubes will weigh tons, too springy, and assuming the pressure changes travel at the speed of sound there'll be 10s of seconds before there's any change at the train.

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 05:54:09 pm
content: I guess they need high pressure. If they use e.g. 100 bar, like used in gas pipelines, then the speed of sound would be 10 times the normal speed. But right, for 80 km/h the delay would be still 23 seconds worst case. They need to plan acceleration very wellBut for emergency brakes, their prototype has an additional brake system for the rails as well. But with the elevated guideway you wouldn't have much emergencies.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 08:18:08 pm
content: At 100 bar, what diameter of piston do you think you'd need to accelerate a train?

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 08:55:34 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on November 05, 2019, 08:18:08 pmA 6 inch piston would have about 19 tons of pressure on it, a 12 inch piston about 75 tons. This piston/magnet would have to have wheels spinning at great speed and very good 100bar seals that work at 100+mph.

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 09:34:20 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on November 05, 2019, 08:18:08 pmPhysics class is long time ago, but I'll try it, too. Assuming the 6 inch piston, this would be an area A = (0.1524m / 2) ^ 2 * pi = 0.018 m^2. And 100 bar is 1e7 Pa. Then we have force F = A * p, with p pressure in Pa, which would be 180e3 N, so 19 tons of pressure is about right. For a 100 ton train, this would result in an acceleration of a = F/m = 180e3 N / 100e3 kg = 1.8 m/s^2 = 0.18 g. Maximum acceleration for the latest ICE 4 is only about 0.06 g, so it would accelerate much faster. Conclusion: you probably need much less pressure, which makes it easier to construct the tubes.edit: corrected the acceleration calculation

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 09:45:13 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on November 05, 2019, 08:18:08 pmGood. Thanks. Let's do some numbers:3 inches radius / 6 inches diameter:pi*((2,54*3)^2)= 182,5 cm2 @ 100bar => 18250 kgf (what you said)I googled "How much does a freight train weigh??" and found this:QuoteLet's say our train weight is 5500 tons, and we want it to go @ 200 km/h:f= m*a => a= 19*9,8/5500 = 0,03385454545 m/s2200km/h= 200e3/3600= 55,55 m/s55,55/0,03385454545 = 1641s => 1641/3600=0,45 hIt takes 0.45 hours to get to speed.Let's see how much air (compressed @100 bar!) do we have to pump into the piston to achieve that:55,5*100*100/182,5= 3041 m3/s of air @100bar => 3041*12,5=38 tons of (compressed) air per second.In total 38*0,45*3600= 61560 tons of compressed air.In total (100*100/182,5)*0,03385454545*(1641^2)/2= 2498 m3of compressed air = 31225 tons.Edit:Fixed force in N not kgf.Edit2:I also goofed up the piston force :-) (fixed)Edit 3:Goofed up the rate and totals of compressed air too. LOL.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 09:46:44 pm
content: I did the pressure in pounds and inches."For a 100 ton train, this would result in an acceleration of a = F/m = 180e3 N / 100e3 kg = 1.8 g."Without working it out I'd say 19T on 100T train would give only 1/5 g acceleration. ...which happens to be about ~1.8m/s^2.

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 09:53:16 pm
content: Quote from: StillTrying on November 05, 2019, 09:46:44 pmYou are right, the result of my calculation was 1.8 m/s^2, which is only 0.18 g. Still 3 times higher than the ICE 3.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 09:56:01 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on November 05, 2019, 09:45:13 pmNo you square the radius not the diameter.The volume of air required would indeed be high. 100 bar is 100 times the weight of air in the same volume of atmosphere. It would require 100 cubic metres for every cubic metre. Quite some volume. I wonder what the local impact would be of pulling so much air out of the atmosphere at such a rate.

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 10:00:09 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on November 05, 2019, 09:45:13 pmYour calculation is wrong. If you push the train with 19 tons, this is a force of 180 kN. Acceleration would be 180e3 N / 5.5e6 kg = 0.033 m/s^2. So it would need about half an hour. Still a lot, but I think a freight train might not be a good application for it, because the motor weight etc. are only a small fraction compared to the freight weight.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 10:05:22 pm
content: I wouldn't want to live near the air valves or pumping station.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 10:07:00 pm
content: FrankBuss my train is 55 times heavier than yours LOL.

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 10:13:41 pm
content: BTW, in the USA, freight trains are allowed only to run with about 78 km/h (55 mph):https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-maximum-speed-of-a-freight-trainI guess there are similar regulations around the world. I guess you really don't want a 5,500 tons train to run with 200 km/h.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 10:17:19 pm
content: How much does a passenger train weigh fully loaded?

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 10:19:24 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on November 05, 2019, 10:17:19 pmSee my previous posting: E.g. the ICE 3 has a capacity of 441 passengers and weighs 409 tons empty. Now it depends on how obese your passengers are

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 10:29:14 pm
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on November 05, 2019, 10:19:24 pmHahaha. I found this:https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,1824865it seems about 600 tons fully loaded, between 57 and 85 tons per car. That's 6x times more than yours, 1/9th mine. They also say the weight of the passengers can be disregarded.

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 10:40:03 pm
content: Right, but my assumption was that it can be built lighter than conventional trains, because of the additional support of the attached piston and no motors. It could be definitely lighter than the ICE, which weighs only 409 tons.A local train, something like the "S-Bahn" for short distances, might be a good application for it, because of the high acceleration. E.g. this one:https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB-Baureihe_420Capacity is 458 passengers (standing and seats added) and empty weight is 129 tons, very close to my estimation, maximum speed 120 km/h. And for the air system you wouldn't need the motors.

author: SparkyFX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 11:02:10 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 05, 2019, 01:16:48 pmPipelines of significant length usually need relief in form of bends, just because the changes in ambient temp (and pressure) will elongate the whole structure. Now it is simple to pump media through such bends, but not people.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 11:24:20 pm
content: Quote from: SparkyFX on November 05, 2019, 11:02:10 pmBends are not the only solution. Another option is to use pieces which can stretch/shrink. These kind of solutions are already used on conventional railroads.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 11:34:39 pm
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on November 05, 2019, 10:40:03 pmYou wouldn't need the motors... in the train. But you still need them outside the train to compress the air, right?For comparison, a normal-ish 2 litres ICE engine at 4000 rpm sucks air in at a rate of 2*4000/60/2= 66 litres per second, in 1/2 hour that's 30*60*66= 118800 litres= 119 m3= 1,25*119= 149kg of air => To pump out 31225 tons of air,you'd have to put 31225/0,149= 209536 engines in parallel. Unless I goofed up again...

author: Connecteur
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2019, 11:59:15 pm
content: I first read about this concept back in the 70s or early 80s as I recall. I suppose if it were a workable idea, it would be a reality by now, or maybe it could have worked, but the development got caught up in red tape. I'm not convinced either way at this point.At any rate, I recall the system being described as a solution to long-distance, express travel in an evacuated tunnel and a maglev train suspended on superconducting magnets. The first part of the trip would expend the energy accelerating the train to outlandish speeds, and then nearly all the energy would be regenerated by decelerating the train at its destination. Theoretically the top speed would only be limited by the straightness of the "track" and the length of time available to accelerate/decelerate. They discussed a transcontinental train that could be faster than an SST, and much more economical to run. The initial construction cost of course would be preposterous.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 03:02:55 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on November 05, 2019, 09:45:13 pmNo point even doing any calculations for 200Kmh.Once again, theentire pointof Hyperloop is that it can go faster than any other land based form of mass transit. Current operational passenger record is 430km/h for MagLev, and there are more than 30 high speed trains that go over 300km/hhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_high-speed_trains

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 09:01:10 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on November 05, 2019, 11:34:39 pmYou'd use high volume compressors with turbines for such an application. The efficiency wouldn't be that great though due to friction losses. Compressed air is an inefficient way of transporting energy. It wouldn't surprise me if the friction losses from compressing the air are on par with just putting the engine inside the train.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 09:07:04 am
content: I think it's fairly clear that the efficiencies of such a system and the impossibility of implementing it make it no match for what we already have.She went on about air pollution and yet I saw no demonstration or calculations as to how this fares against current technology and it's emissions. Again what was that "mentor" doing?basically her video is mostly a rant about air pollution, exhortation of public transport and "I made this thing". May 13 is a bit young to run these schemes. If 3M are serious they should be talking to older teenagers but then this was just a publicity stunt for 3M anyway.

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 10:34:37 am
content: Quote from: Simon on November 06, 2019, 09:07:04 amEverything about 3M is fine here. Why don't you have a little search first before you say something:https://www.youngscientistlab.com/challengeAlso look at the otherfinalists- you will find more as you say "stupid ideas". Seems you guys have no clue what kid's science fair/competition/event actually is

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 10:54:20 am
content: Your pages cannot be loaded. No sorry, why let any kid fantasise about the impractical. How do kids learn? No i am not saying that this one project is bent but clearly this whole 3M science thing is a load of bollocks and is simply about PR and a way to weed their way into schools. Guess what. all companies like to "target" schools. Indoctrinate the future engineer in your products and your future sales are assured. You don't think ANY company really gives a fuck about the kids when they create these bogus programs that are just a really sad excuse for indoctrinating the young with their products to assure future sales?

author: DimitriP
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 10:55:23 am
content: Quote from: ogden on November 06, 2019, 10:34:37 amI'm breathing better already!----------Caroline Crouchley, who got second place, created a sustainable train that she told CBS News correspondent Nikki Battiste is safer and more efficient than Elon Musk's Hyperloop."Four million children develop asthma every year due to air pollution from cars and trucks, and there are 11,000 new cases every day," she said. "So I want to prevent all this from happening.""You want to make the air we breathe safer?" Battiste asked."Yeah … I designed, developed a new train idea that can use renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels, so it would help the environment," Crouchley said.----------(fromhttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/3m-young-scientist-challenge-14-year-old-wins-competition-with-nano-particle-liquid-bandage/)

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 11:03:19 am
content: Yep, I have still not heard the 13 year old say hyperloop......... So in order to use renewable energy (electricity) we have to have a new train system that won't work. Not just run the existing electric trans with renewable electricity....

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 11:05:57 am
content: An eco free chamber is an "adult project" erm, no, it called a test lab..... these reporter are just making shit up

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 11:13:50 am
content: Quote from: Simon on November 06, 2019, 10:54:20 amNo. You think 3M wants to increase sticky note sales?In case of P&G I would agree to you. Here I believe that this is as they say - encourage kidsto pursue academic careers in the sciences.Quote from: Simon on November 06, 2019, 11:03:19 amHyperloop was introduced as clickbait - by news agencies and Dave

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 02:18:56 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 06, 2019, 03:02:55 amYou're right :-) let's see that: n times the speed requires n2times the energy (mv2/2), ergo:400 km/h => 0.45*2*2 hours to get to speed (1.8h).600 km/h => 0.45*3*3 hours to get to speed (4.05h).800 km/h => 0.45*4*4 hours to get to speed (7.2h).1000 km/h => 0.45*5*5 hours to get to speed (11.25h).And 1/nth the mass, 1/nth the time. FrankBuss says ~ 500 tons is a right-ish weight, in that case it would be 1/11th these times. But let's not forget there are alsotens of thousandsof tons of air that have to travel with the piston in a narrow pipe at the same speed of the train, that means I'd guess huge energy losses (that other trains don't have) and that we're not accounting for.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 02:27:23 pm
content: Quote from: ogden on November 06, 2019, 11:13:50 amThey sell more than sticky notes. They are actually a big player in various industries now including 3D printing. And i can't help but note that the 13 year old called it the best invention in the last 100 years because it allows her to turn her designs into reality. i wonder how many times it took saying that to her before it was spontaneously coming out of her.It's a PR stunt for 3M end of. It is the job of schools to encourage children, not multinationals.

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 03:31:17 pm
content: Quote from: DimitriP on November 06, 2019, 10:55:23 amThe problem in the USA is that there are many railways without electrification, and she tried to invent something to solve this. It even declined a lot from 1930 to 1973:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_electrification_in_the_United_States#Overview_of_electrification_in_the_U.S.Currently less than 1% is electrified, according to this article:https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/electrification-of-u.s.-railways-pie-in-the-sky-or-realistic-goalBut I think the right solution to prevent pollution by diesel locomotives would be to electrify all railways instead of inventing new systems. In Germany, 59% are electrified:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_GermanyBut maybe there is a reason, might be more of a problem with the long distances in the USA? Maybe wire losses would even waste more energy, than using modern diesel trains and with biofuel? Usually things are more complicated than they seem to be and there is no 100% right/wrong solution.But I still think for regional trains or if there are steep grades, a modern atmospheric railway system could be a good solution.

author: Connecteur
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 03:32:16 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 06, 2019, 03:02:55 amI'm not saying it would ever be financially feasible, but a purely maglev train running in a near vacuum on superconducting magnetic propulsion with regenerative braking, should have an extremely high theoretical top speed.

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 04:42:13 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on November 06, 2019, 02:27:23 pmThat's my point that 3M consumer products are *only* 15% of their whole business. Anyway all this buzz is hilarious tea-cup storm.

author: Andy75
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 04:44:15 pm
content: Hi, not an EE, but I am surprised that people are comparing Vectorr to ordinary trains and concluding it doesn't work, instead of comparing it to the Aeromovel system that has been in commercial operation since the mid 90's.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 05:47:51 pm
content: https://web.archive.org/web/20190221004147/http://www.aeromovel.com/index.htmLOL. The future of transportation! The only merit if you ask me, is that these crooks managed to find the right person/s to bribe in Jakarta and Brazil. Their web is down. OMG."it takes just 500 kW to run the circuit"... if that's 670 horsepower, it's not exactly a huge train: two cars that even a Fiat Panda Sisley could tow with ease at these amazing (not) speeds. Of course confuses power and energy, that's a given in any TV program.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 05:58:19 pm
content: Quote from: ogden on November 06, 2019, 04:42:13 pmConsumer? so 85% of their products are for who? oh yea, engineers in industry where these child prodigy's are supposed to be soon. And don't think for one minute that all this tea cup storming PR has not made it into the various "industry" magazines of the sort I bin because that is all they contain, storm in a teacup stories that are really just adds surrounded by more adds......

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 05:59:55 pm
content: http://www.aeromovel.com/Works fine for me, it's like going back to 1990, but some of the links are still 'coming soon'.

author: Connecteur
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 06:07:42 pm
content: I'm still trying to educate myself as to why this is a stupid concept.I've watched the debunking videos and I'm not sold that the flaws can't be worked around.But I fully understand why it may be financially infeasible.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 06:11:33 pm
content: It's amazing the crap journalists come up with. It's amazing that in this backward country they have the latest technology. Well I bet it was cheaper to prototype the thing in Indonesia and manufacturing costs that he compared to the US will of course be cheaper - duh, but no it's due to the novel technology.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 06:22:16 pm
content: Quote from: Connecteur on November 06, 2019, 06:07:42 pmPneumatics work, yes. It's not that you can't push a train with air and a piston, you can. It's just that it's a silly idea.

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 06:22:53 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on November 06, 2019, 05:58:19 pmDon't confuse customers with consumers, pleaseFurther reading:https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/mmm/profile/. BTW consumer 15% is coming from yr2018annual report (pdf)Quote"industry" magazines including "engineering" blogsEverybody wants some clicks, views and resulting pennies

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 06:28:29 pm
content: Look they make stuff, people buy the stuff. All this bullshit science contest was about was warm fuzzy feel good advertising that can also take the form of "journalism".Henkel, who the crap is Henkel? You ever heard of them? you use their products? maybe you use superglue made under their "loctite" trading name. But they are massive in all sorts of bonding compounds used in all sorts of industries. The bit the average joe knows about is super glue, but as soon as you work in an industry you may find that they are major supplier to you for stuff you never knew they made.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 10:33:46 pm
content: They seriously underestimate the aviation industry. You know, airplanes work. An Airbus A220-300 uses about 1.85 L/100 km/seat fuel. That is insanely good, compared to cars. Additionally:QuoteThat is a 3-6 times improvement they predict. Probably very optimistic, or it is not cumulative. Anyway, my other point is that we can generate LNG from solar/wind, CO2 and H2O and make air transport renewable. Turboprops are likely to do a comeback. And just look at the construction costs and upkeep of such railway.

author: Connecteur
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 10:58:36 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on November 06, 2019, 10:33:46 pmI've seen a lot of predictions in my time, and it's remarkable when they come close to hitting the mark.Just sayin'.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 06, 2019, 11:49:33 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on November 06, 2019, 06:22:16 pmJust like charging your phone with ultrasound "works", but it's a silly idea. But it took 8 years and $40M for some clueless people to figure out it was silly, but even then they won't admit it.

author: SparkyFX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2019, 02:48:49 am
content: I guess the favorable aspects of such concepts are:- propulsion system externally of the vehicle (lower weight = lower requirements on suspension and such!) (applies to Maglev as well)- air pressure can be accumulated and stored, then released momentarily, although less efficient than other forms of energy transmissionBut well, then you want a pressurized vehicle in there, plus accommodating for the requirements of a low pressure tube will set off many of these advantages. E.g. there is no advantage when servicing all parts of the long distance tube takes more effort as servicing a set of conventional vehicles.There would be plenty of other options, with financial/economic aspects that would achieve the same effect... like telling customers to send most of their freight via train in the first place - where applicable.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 07, 2019, 05:09:49 am
content: Personally, I think there are far too many people taking this far too seriouslyon face value.To me, there is a far,FARmore important side to the exercise.What I see as important is getting youngstersinvolved and engagedwith technology. This is exactly what 3M and CNN are achieving. The fact that the details about any particular idea have problems is not the objective. Those will come in time as the youngsters that do become engaged travel the educational path and the development process.However, once you have a variety of individuals set on a technology based course, you will get some who look at problems in different ways - sometimes unorthodox - and will expend their energies in directions that have never been explored before. Many such efforts will no doubtedly end up delivering nothing significant. Some will not produce a viable concept, but may have created a body of research that could be useful in future endeavours - and if it is research that has no intrinsic or immediately identifiable value, it may have never been done.The other thing is that "conventional wisdom" needs to be challenged, otherwise progress will be slow. The "establishment" does not need to fear this, becoming defensive and obstructionist - but it does, far too often. If there are limits in physics, they will still apply. Where the problem lies is in the limits of the imagination.We need minds that want to explore and think outside the box - but they need to be brought into the situation where they are motivated to try. The details aren't relevant up front, the interest is - and critically so.This is why I can tolerate organisations like 3M and CNN doing what they have done. Even the "embellishment" doesn't cause me distress and the fact that there is a business benefit to them in doing so does not cause me to be offended. In fact, the simple promotion of an idea that has major difficulties might just cause someone with a concept that has exceptional potential to realise they can do better. Once they decide that it would be worth their time to step up, ignore the naysayers around them and have a go, something brilliant could be born. Not everyone inspired to do so will achieve that - in fact there may be very few - butanyincrease in the overall number of people involved can only improve advancement.In finishing, to those who might take me to task on what I've said above, I ask this: How wouldyoustimulate interest in STEM pursuits?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 07, 2019, 05:59:13 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on November 07, 2019, 05:09:49 amI think it's too generous to assume that CNN care that much, they just found a clickbait story and ran with it. Why didn't they publicise the winner as a feature story instead? I'm surprised they even gave the winner a mention, small miracles.They would not have run the story or mentioned the contest at all if it wasn't Hyperloop click bait.Who came third?

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 07, 2019, 06:12:51 am
content: I have no doubt CNN don't really care too much. The job of the Media is getting the attention of the populace - which they can then monetise. Clickbait does that.Yes, it's sad that no other projects were reported - but they just didn't make the cut.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2019, 06:24:43 am
content: a better way of flogging a dead horse

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 07, 2019, 06:36:32 am
content: ... which is a reasonable venture if you are looking at how to improve your flogging technique.

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2019, 06:43:53 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 07, 2019, 05:59:13 amWell.. That would be off-topic reporting forCNN travelchannel which I did not know exist, until now. I can ask you same question: why didn't you publicize video about uSupply instead?

author: Altair8800
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2019, 08:56:07 am
content: I actually like the idea of the pneumatic tube but wonder how they solve the problem getting the piston to pull the train. Magnets through the steel tube? How?If they could do it, I wonder if they could use water instead of air. Water is an incomprehensible fluid and you can just pump water behind the trains piston (would not need a vacuum).If you could use water instead, all you would have to do is have less costly valve controls and 2 water reservoirs up high enough (one at each end of the of the rail line). This way you would be running off of renewable virtually free power. Basically the clouds suck up the water, then rain into your water reservoirs, you use the reservoirs up on a hill to provide the energy to push the trains. A lot of cities do this to provide water to houses/buildings in the city. This is kind of how water towers and reservoirs work. You do not need pumping if you have water high enough.

author: SparkyFX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2019, 09:56:49 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on November 07, 2019, 05:09:49 amTrue, it would not be science if the outcome is known, tried and tested. But that's for science, not presenting a concept and expecting the world (physics) to bend around the problems with it - i mean at the very core of the concept, not a secondary problem. Concepts are a great way to discuss these issues, but in certain venture funded groups there needs to be a prototype and something to present before that effort was even made, because the problem is approached backwards from the point of financing. People that present such concepts and rush the mockups don´t bother, it´s not their money, right? Shrugging shoulders, calling it a high risk investment and closing the thing down is not a moral problem to many. The hyperloop has partial characteristics of a mass hysteria, in the best case with some wishful thinking to achieve knock-on effects, but physics is not the result of a democratic process ("physics" vs. our understanding or witness of it).So i see the criticism misdirected, it might come from the bad habit to live on venture capital, selling unfeasible concepts, while honest members of society would struggle. Probably does not apply to a 13yos model taking part in a youth contest.QuoteThe point is to ask questions and to be able to precisely define where ones knowledge ends (and hopefully extend this horizon then). But if concepts are hyped, it is not even beneficial to the involved people to discuss exactly these physical limits, because their funding, reputation, publicity is put at risk by doing so. Some people voluntarily work their ass off to get there or deliver new ideas for free just because of these values.No establishment needed - it is rather an establishment of its own, distracting from the weakness of the concepts.I think in this case no one can come around the corner and just solve the core of the problem, which is why the concept of hyperloop keeps being watered down more and more as a way to save some of the effort, as it can not scale, or in other words 50% of the vacuum/speed/efficiency/ROI/whatever will not beat the conventional way. Good solutions are usually no brainers, they are more efficient and therefore should be able to beat competition just by sheer existence without any magic ingredient.Maybe i expect too much, but in this case i´d expect a business model that actually brings people from A to B, being backed with a working implementation, just because that is how infrastructure should work in the long run and not a set of moonshots. Think tanks or very niche technocratic requirements don't achieve that.If a travel takes you 5 hours, most think half that would be cool, if it takes 30 minutes, 15 minutes would be cool, psychologically you will never get rid of this and still have to plan a certain duration > attention span. Same applies for freight.Another example: i live in a country with partially unrestricted highway speed, drive a car which can go 210km/h, but my average there still is only 100 km/h, just because everyone else goes at that speed or because more breaks the fuel efficiency and wastes any gain by the need to refuel, would present a problem to get on and off the highway, etc. (i'm not driving a race, i commute)In other words at some point the rest of the process outweighs any advantages out of proportion and/or is not worth additional risk/cost/wear.I think that can be applied to closed system train travel as well.Maybe there is this use case of working in one city and living in a distant other city that is very much overlooked, but how many people would use this form of transport on a regular basis and would a multiple of the usual ride fare really make this more viable? This is why i think the concept itself is dead beyond a possible prestige factor, apart from physical feasibility.QuoteIn a factual way. Teaching kids the "fake it till you make it"/"high risk, high gain" methods will not solve problems, it will waste resources better spent elsewhere. This actually worked with software and areas of big untapped potential, but as shown in the thread plenty of other people scratched their heads about this very problem already. I got no problem with old concepts being evaluated again, i.e. technology did advance significantly, patent protection ended, but there is no guarantee for such things to work, and a hype alone will not do it.Maybe the proper platform to have this kind of conversation is missing, maybe it is just too early for a 13yo to attend uni to learn about this. When i was younger i head plenty of ideas, but with some ball park numbers for efficiency and more knowledge about practical problems many of them were simply unfeasible, some required a lot more effort and some actually work, for some i still need to learn new stuff.Whenever companies can save money or extend their business they usually do it, and they surely do check such concepts. Manufacturers would usually run to make a deal, to build the thing or to sell their wagons, bringing in their expertise, announcing their cooperation. Is that all swallowed under the big brand name or is it too outlandish for them? Sure, local services only buy what the market offers and do what is within their geographic area, but even outside of this circle there are huge networks of infrastructure that might benefit from a high speed, think parcel services, company internal distribution systems that would pay by the pound. They also need to plan for a certain (economic) duration, the benefits of a shorter duration are questionable for them, the premium option does not really work for them.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2019, 10:21:28 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 04, 2019, 11:28:01 pmAs an (ex)member of a Spanish hyperloop team I can confirm that a lot of the talk behind the scenes was about how to avoid container ships having to enter the Mediterranean sea. If they could unload their containers in Spain and blast them onwards through a tube then those ships could turn around three or four days earlier. It would be a massive saving in shipping costs.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 07, 2019, 10:27:39 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on November 07, 2019, 10:21:28 amWhy on earth would that need Hyperloop?Ships are slow as a wet week, any train or even tuck will beat it's pants.What's the point having a container crawl across the ocean for weeks and then worry about a difference between a mythical 1000km/h Hyperloop or an existing reliable 100km/h freight train for the last leg?At least the existing rail can handle bends.Crazy stuff.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 07, 2019, 10:32:44 am
content: Quote from: SparkyFX on November 07, 2019, 09:56:49 amThe main issue is the Hype in Hyperloop.Countless people and companies going nuts over this concept when no one has yet demonstrated any prototype that remotely practically useful. Yet everyone has timelines of completion in 2021, 2023 or whatever, it's sheer lunacy. All of these projects are 100% destined to fail due to practical implementation problems until they run out of cash.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2019, 11:06:11 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 07, 2019, 10:32:44 amThere, minor correction, its new business model and its in.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2019, 01:09:31 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 07, 2019, 10:27:39 amTo make optimum use of a very expensive tunnel. Spain is kind of an island attached to Europe with a big mountain range in between. There is a higway at the east coast and at the west coast avoiding most of the mountains. Any transport in & out of Spain over land into the rest of Europe would have to use one of the these roads. Not saying a hyperloop is the best solution; it is about cost versus benefit.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2019, 01:29:43 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 07, 2019, 10:27:39 amYou have to beat the ships both on speedandbandwidth, not just speed.Hyperloop isn't just fast, it has the bandwidth to match. You can send containers down it as fast as they're coming off the ships (in theory).You also need an awful lot of trucks to take one shipload of containers across Europe and trains have to share lines with passengers. Right now it's not economical to send them across land compared to letting the ship go to the final destination.I'm not saying it'll ever work but that's the story they're telling investors.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2019, 01:42:35 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 07, 2019, 10:32:44 amYep. People are already forming companies based around it.Our team went from a bunch of students dicking around with magnets to a separate company/spin-off at the University. They're now taking job applications for people to go and work there full time.(should I apply...?)

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 08, 2019, 12:22:38 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on November 07, 2019, 01:42:35 pmSure, take their money. it'll look fine on your resume to the next average moron manager hiring at your next job. Just like working for uBeam.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 08, 2019, 12:27:41 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on November 07, 2019, 01:29:43 pmYes.QuoteHow does it differ to a freight train in terms of capacity?QuoteYes, my point was that if you are building a Hyperloop that requires it's own corridor, you could also build a normal (exclusive) rail corridor for much lower cost and vastly more reliable, just slower.The problem with offloading to land is that you introduce two extra handling steps into the chain, and this is not a small thing, in fact it could be a dominate factor in time and throughput.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2019, 05:12:02 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 08, 2019, 12:27:41 amNo argument there, but hyperloop is sexy!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 08, 2019, 05:15:46 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on November 08, 2019, 05:12:02 amSo you just throw the shipping container into the hyperloop tube on it's own and they just pop out the other end?Err, nope.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2019, 05:48:09 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 08, 2019, 05:15:46 amSure, why not?All that can be automated: I designed a gatling-gun style thing for loading containers into the main tube. It rotates around, the containers are loaded into the "barrels" for decompression, it fires them into the tube as they go past it.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2019, 06:03:54 am
content: I'm not trying to convince anybody of current practicality or cost, I'm just saying that nothing about Hyperloop is in the realm of uBeam or Batteroo's "breaking the laws of physics" stupidity. You just have to give it a chance.Have a look at SpaceX, they're advancing the tech at aridiculouspace. Maybe the same could happen with Hyperloop, it certainly has a lot more practical applications.The crazy part of Hyperloop is all the people/companies that are involved in it at the moment. How does that work?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2019, 07:25:15 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on November 08, 2019, 06:03:54 amLiterally!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 08, 2019, 07:49:00 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on November 08, 2019, 06:03:54 amNeither of those were breaking the laws of physics, they were just impractical ideas fill with marketing hype. Hyperloop is very much in that same camp.Any engineer worth with an ounce of common sense can see that a system that relies on a reduced pressure tube hundreds of km long for high speed human transport has impracticality written all over it.Sure, do some preliminary investigation if you want, but right off the bat we got "this thing will revolutionise transport!, and it'll be ready in a few years" marketing BS.QuoteSimple, investment money is real easy to get when you have a lot of hype and the likes of Elon Musk involved. The people behind this money do not not at the engineering details, they just hand over their money because of the marketing hype.

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2019, 10:01:21 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 08, 2019, 07:49:00 amAre you suggesting that Hyperloop is investment fraud similar to Zenneck Power LLC?

author: SparkyFX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2019, 11:30:23 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on November 08, 2019, 06:03:54 amThe principle itself works in the form ofpneumatic postsince ages, but at that small scale (and it did not vanish without reason, things got stuck in there and required hell of maintenance as well).I do not argue moving objects pneumatically, but it is just very questionable if it scales up to the size and distances presented, stays safe and such.Then there are long term problems like dirt and spillages (e.g. from freight or defects, fluids used in the system). Probably not funny to clean the 1000km non-stop tube from inside. Or consider a small piece of debris (things wear out, things break) jammed between vehicle and tube would probably rip long sections of the tube open which will stop the show for a considerable amount of time. There is no redundancy of any sort.If the revolutionary part is to e.g. use energy from renewable sources, well you need to compare apples to apples.

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2019, 11:47:07 am
content: Quote from: SparkyFX on November 08, 2019, 11:30:23 amPneumatic (post) tubes did not vanish. They are still used by hospitals, banks and shopping malls. Yes, it is "small scale", hospital campus at max, yet to say that things stuck and system requires hellova maintenance is BS.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2019, 11:48:48 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on November 08, 2019, 06:03:54 amGood question! A spanish hype-loop-ish company: 32 million losses in 9 months. And they're all happy and smiling in the picture... How can it be?

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2019, 11:51:55 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on November 08, 2019, 11:48:48 amSimple: during development there are no earnings/income so all expenses are accounted as loss.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 08, 2019, 12:35:44 pm
content: Quote from: ogden on November 08, 2019, 10:01:21 amWhat on earth gave you the impression I was suggesting fraud?It's just basic pie-in-the-sky startup idea hype marketing, common as mud.Even the Batteries 800% wasn't fraud because I'm sure you could find one crappy device it gave an 800% increase with.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2019, 01:09:04 pm
content: a moon Hotal by the yr 2000personal flying cars by the yr 2010full human body transplantations by the yr 2010a global flood by 2012 if we did not change our light bulbs.all the cars that would run on water but the technology is somehow hidden in area 51.in 1986 peter brock polariser that made Holden's cars win races.The Multifunction Polis (MFP) in Australia proposed in 1987 and abandoned in 1998they come and they go, so why would Hyperloop be any differenta Multifunction Polis

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2019, 01:28:38 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 08, 2019, 12:35:44 pmOk,okJust wanted to stir conversation. I had feeling you are implying that their aim is to "get investment money" so it can be funneled out into gigantic management salaries and contracts with own "service companies" knowing that chances to achieve goal are very close to zero. BTW I believe that complexity and challenges are so huge than chances indeed are close to zero.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2019, 03:37:55 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 08, 2019, 12:35:44 pmNot to mention all those abdominal exercise gadgets on TV, etc.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 09, 2019, 06:45:55 am
content: Quote from: SparkyFX on November 07, 2019, 09:56:49 amI do not disagree with any of your comments - but you have taken things further than was the scope of my post.My primary observation was to the value of the reporting of this event by CNN as a mechanism to spark interest in youngsters so they getintoSTEM career paths. Any consideration of the crappiness of an idea isn't overly relevant for that objective.The secondary element was to set us "old fogies" back in our box a little. Yes, there are a number of facts about physics that will control the course of development of various ideas - but to claim we know everything about physics is simply arrogant. In truth our "old ways" of thinking are sometimes exactly what stops us from making progress. New blood, new thinking, new attitudes are necessary.If somebody wants to head off into a quest for some pie-in-the-sky objective (especially if they've got a fresh approach) then I'm happy for them to pursue it - and this applies to a whole lot of other "bad ideas" - IMHO. While they may suck inordinate amounts of money chasing impossible goals, I would want them to travel the road of exploration so that the foolishness can be relegated to the lessons of the past once it has been completely explored.Know when to call it is the problem.Besides, one could look at all this Hyperloop hype as an example of brainstorming - one that has escaped the room rather dramatically - but it may give rise to other crazy, impractical ideas that might lead to something truly revolutionary.Yeah ... well ... call me an optimist, a dreamer (just don't call me late for dinner)

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2019, 12:09:34 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on November 08, 2019, 03:37:55 pmMost of those gadgets work, but using them is boring as bat faeces, & they spend most their time sitting in "the spare room" unused!

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2019, 12:10:33 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on November 09, 2019, 06:45:55 amI agree. Musk's hyperloop contest was nothing more than a brainstorming session. Run some numbers on an idea independently. The decission made by some companies to go ahead and develop it for real doesn't even come from Musk. The only thing is that hyperloop will be stuck to Musk forever which -from a 'person as a brand' marketing perspective- is pretty clever given the little amount of money and time he invested into it.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2019, 03:08:11 pm
content: When I look at our Hyperloop team I see a bunch of students (maybe 100) all doing real stuff. There's a marketing department, there's a bunch of them messing around with magnets and microcontrollers, there's a bunch of them making hyperloop sleds out of carbon fiber, others doing CAD/CAM ... we all mucked in one day to pour concrete for the supports for the testing tube, etc., etc.They also got to travel to the USA and take selfies at SpaceX during the competitions.(we placed in the top three a few times)Will Hyperloop ever work as envisioned? Probably not, but a whole lot of people got to design and build a lot of real, working hardware. Some of them also learned to go out visiting companies trying to blag construction materials, engines, electronics, money, etc.It's all good as far as I'm concerned, and a long,longway from things like Batteroo, uBeam, Solar Roadways....

author: RandallMcRee
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2019, 03:44:20 pm
content: Exactly, some of these wild ideas are actually good....https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2018/11/29/this-23-year-old-robotics-prodigy-has-47m-to-build-a-fleet-of-autonomous-trucks/#1df2b4f97c89View any science fair competition and you will see quite a high level of accomplishment, much of it, perhaps, due to help from their mentors. Is that wrong?

author: Connecteur
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2019, 04:34:27 pm
content: Quote from: RandallMcRee on November 09, 2019, 03:44:20 pmNothing wrong with it at all, but most successful endeavors are 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.I've seen thousands of inspired ideas since I started reading Popular Science and other technology news since I was about 13, a lot of years ago, and I've seen maybe one in a thousand inspired ideas come to fruition.It seems to be because most people have trouble with the "99% perspiration" part.It's not lack of money that stopped the great inventors of the past.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 10, 2019, 08:20:54 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on November 09, 2019, 03:08:11 pmThat's all well and good, but did even one of those students question the whole idea?If they did and continued to milk the cash cow, is that a good thing?Do they know or care where that money came from?, and possibly if some investors are unknowingly being duped out of their money?

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2019, 08:28:31 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 10, 2019, 08:20:54 amAll very good questions...My answer would be: Everything done so far has been much more focused on completing each year's challenge competition than the overall picture. The overall feeling around the place is more like a a team building something for"Robot Wars"than anything else. Nobody's questioning whether those robots will take over the world, they're just trying to get one working and beat the other teams.As for sponsorship: Sponsors of sports teams don't get much in return for their sponsorship money. They get their logos on the player's shirts, they get free tickets for the games, etc., but that's about it. Are they being duped or ripped off in any way? No, they do it voluntarily and they have no expectation of ROI beyond getting their company logos on TV.I'd say our investors are at the same level. They get their logos on the side of the sled, their logos are shown on the screen at every presentation, they get to go around telling their friends they're involved in Hyperloop, etc. They're benefiting in exactly the same way as sponsors of sports teams.Where's it all headed? Will it implode? I dunno. I haven't been involved this year because it sucks up a lot of time and I don't get paid, so...

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2019, 10:17:31 pm
content: So the investors didn't got duped out of their money....

author: Altair8800
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2019, 10:52:48 pm
content: Fun Fact. From my "simple" calcs (going from 2011 to 2020 estimated) and using simple linear regression... In China they build about 2416.7 km of high-speed track a year.So in the 6 days since this thread has started they have built about 39.727 km (24.685 miles) of new high speed rail track.Source:https://www.forbes.com/sites/salvatorebabones/2018/02/13/chinas-high-speed-trains-are-taking-on-more-passengers-in-chinese-new-year-massive-migration/And used Excels linear regression... 2416.7 [km/yr] * 1 [yr/360 day] * 6  = 39.72657534

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 12:53:36 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 10, 2019, 10:17:31 pmAFAIK I don't think any of them were under any illusions that they were buying shares in some future business that would make them rich. They were mostly just getting their logos on the sled (more money=bigger logo) and some promo photos for their offices (boss standing next to the latest sled with the logo showing).I also know that some of the students went on to work for those companies after their final year was up so maybe the companies have ulterior motives, too.

author: Connecteur
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 01:28:43 am
content: Quote from: Altair8800 on November 10, 2019, 10:52:48 pmWhat does that have to do with Hyperloop?

author: Connecteur
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 01:34:37 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 10, 2019, 10:17:31 pmIt's a scam that's as old as the hills. My neighbor got a small inheritance and attended an "investment fair" where he gave his money to a company claiming that the next big thing would be "internet kiosks" where people would go to pay for using the internet. Eight months later they got a tiny dividend and a letter assuring them that everything was "right on track." After a year the company had claimed that it went bankrupt and all the investment money was gone.Perfectly legal, but obviously a scam designed to "separate the fool from his gold."

author: Altair8800
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 04:17:52 am
content: Quote from: Connecteur on November 11, 2019, 01:28:43 amWhat got me thinking about it was Dave mentioning the Maglev in Shanghai. That was a one-off project and is only 30.5 km (19 mi) and is completed in 7-8 minutes. I was a bit curious if Dave ever got a chance to ride one of China's regular high-speed trains?After watching thunderf00t's videos it made no sense to do hyperloop:1: Take incredible amount of energy to get near perfect vacuum in such a large cylinder (100's km long) if even possible.2: A catastrophic collapse, by nature, by poor design, by poor construction, or even man-made could cause immediate vacuum collapse.4: If there was an accident, going 650 - 1000 km/h (~400-600 mph), most of the occupants would be casualties. How would you rescue them (have to decompression first). Remember the fire that happened on the Chunnel. At least they have a middle service/rescue tunnel and at 100 000 Pa (~1 Atmosphere).5: If there was even one accident in which multiple casualties, then the hyper-loop system might be abandoned. Remember what happened to the Concord.6: How are you going to have expansion gaps in a vacuum tube? Steel when heated, causes tremendous pressures. You have 11um (11 micron meters) of expansion for every meter per degree C. So let say when they constructed the HYPE-erloop at 20 C (~70 deg F and it went to 38C (~100 deg F) and you have 10km (~6mi) of tubing. You would have 11 µm/(m °C) * 10000(m) * 18(°C) = 1.98m (about 6.5 ft) of expansion that needs to be taken into consideration every 10km. This is why bridges and train tracks have gaps. Gaps are much harder to do when you have to maintain near perfect vacuum. If the temperature goes down then you have to take into effect thermodynamic contraction also. The pressures created by this expansion (if steel is constrained) would be enormous (think Hydraulic Press Channel stuff).7: This is untested tech at this scale. So chances are the 1.5x, 2.0x, 2.5x or even 3.0x than their estimated costs and there is always the possibility of it not being possible in the end (think of like a large military weapon system that got axed xx% of the way through the project). In the end would it be economically feasible compare to air travel (can it really compete).So I kind of agree with Dave and Thunderf00t on this, this just seems like such a boondoggle so why don't you just go regular high-speed rail.Catrostrophic collapse of vacuumhttps://youtu.be/Z48pSwiDLIM?t=564Example of Thermodynamic bending of railroad tracks (likely did not have enough track gap length to account for expansion)https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Rail_buckle.jpg

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 04:47:27 am
content: Quote from: Altair8800 on November 11, 2019, 04:17:52 amNo I haven't.But I wasn't implying that MagLev is better than high speed rail, just that MagLev exists and it does work on a consumer transport level. And MagLevisfaster than commercial high speed rail.Hyperloop is just MagLev in a reduced pressure tube.QuoteYep. If it ever gets far, the concept will not survive a mass accident.QuoteBecause it's not sexy and is hard (imossible?) to sell to institutional investors.

author: Connecteur
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 05:34:49 am
content: Theatmospheric railwaysthat were built in the early 19th century and were a colossos failure, was superficially similar to some of the possible hyperloop variants, but they were quite different from what's being proposed nowadays.The first large-scale test project was a stretch of railway built in a round stonework enclosure like a tunnel, within which an unpowered train ran on conventional railway tracks. The lead car, which substituted for the engine was intended to have an airtight fit in the round tunnel using some sort of gasket as a seal. The power to move the train was to come from a vacuum created in the tunnel by a massive pumping station which was supposed to create the vacuum in the tunnel ahead of the train to draw it forward. The idea was abandoned early in testing for a variety of reasons, but mainly due to the preposterous cost of fuel required to power the steam engines in the vacuum pumping station.A later variant was tried, without the tunnel, on a conventional track with a vacuum tube similar to a pipeline laid parallel to and between the rails. The train was connected to a piston within the tube through a slot along its length which was covered by a flap, which was intended to prevent air leaking in and destroying the vacuum. It was also abandoned when it became obvious that it was far more efficient to put the steam engine on the train, instead of in a vacuum pumping station along the track. It was also noted that rats kept eating the flap-seal because the only suitable materials for it in those days was leather and tallow.A more modern concept I had been following for years before Hyperloop was even a thing, was a train in a tunnel, but not driven by air pressure at all. The air would be kept permanently evacuated in the tunnel, to eliminate air resistance, allowing much higher speeds. The drag from wheels would be eliminated by using maglev technology to keep the train elevated above the track. Maglev has evolved and become more cost-effective since the concept was first proposed because it's no longer necessary to use superconducting magnets for magnetic levitation. The train would be propelled by anelectromagnetic peristaltic enginewhich would accelerate the train to incredible speeds (estimates vary but I have heard beyond supersonic) and nearly all the energy used for acceleration would be reclaimed back using regenerative braking near the destination, making the train, once built, much more efficient than any other form of high speed travel.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 07:55:27 am
content: Quote from: Connecteur on November 11, 2019, 01:34:37 amThat is your opinion but it is not backed by the facts. For starters there are multiple companies working on various hyperloop versions being backed by large companies. These companies have experience with investing their money and do their due diligence (they have engineers to asses projects) before making an investment. Your comparison with your neighbour's investment just doesn't apply. Different world.However your neighbour should have been wiser and done more investigation. If a company needs some kind of kickstarter it means the professional investors already passed on the opportunity. That is a big red flag right there. There are investment firms specialising in investing in startups. These firms have their own experts to asses new companies where it comes to viability and risk. It makes more sense to invest in such an investment firm if it has a good track record and a good spread of risks.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 08:12:34 am
content: Quote from: Altair8800 on November 11, 2019, 04:17:52 amThunderf00t is a fear mongering idiot. All the problems he mentions are not difficult to address. His video is gringeworthy due to the huge amounts of utter nonsense. Thermal expansion & contraction is a well known phenomenon and there are many ways to deal with it besides adding (sharp) bends.Accidents will happen but that hasn't stopped people from using mass transport. Airplanes keep falling down and we don't even count cassualties due to car accidents. The Concorde was taken out of service because it was old, expensive and not environmentally friendly. The sensitivity to loose objects on the runway was just the last drop in the bucket.Whether or not the hyperloop is financially viable is something that can be learned through testing in small steps. That is why the companies involved don't start with a 600km hyperloop where costs could spiral out of control but tens of meters and when that looks good a few km. And tens of km after that. And primarily targeting transport of cargo at first.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 09:51:20 am
content: Here just "off the top of my head", are some examples of large investments which never achieved any return to the investors:-Gas Turbine cars.Nuclear powered merchant ships (only four were ever built, & only one is still in service).Nuclear powered Aircraft.Nuclear powered cars.Modern AirshipsModern SteamcarFlying carNo doubt with a bit of searching, I can find many more!OK, of this seven, two of them were principally government funded, but that leaves five that apparently sane investors poured money into.The interesting thing is that, much like Hyperloop, none of them were unattainable, given enough money & time, but the problems piled up until they became overwhelming.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 10:05:42 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 11, 2019, 07:55:27 amSome of the best and smartest companies invested in uBeam and Solar Roadways. Heck, one of the world's largest road construction companies invested in Solar Roadways. But that didn't make it any more practical or viable. I doubt that Virgin for example had a team of crack engineers thoroughly investigate the feasibility and odds of success before they invested. Nor did the Saudi Arabian government.These sorts of big scale "hype" based investments are very often driven by social factors and not sound engineering vetting.Shall I mention Theranos? Not a single investor stopped to even ask if it was viable, and that was with a simple blood test machine that was apparently easily debunked if you just looked into the detail. The scale of detail required to fully investigate the feasibility of Hyperloop is an order of magnitude harder.I'd put money on that no one did any serious due-diligence, it all happened so fast and was surrounded by so much hype, and people with money were ready to throw it around on cool new ideas.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 10:13:46 am
content: What is the cost of pumping all the air out of a tunnel hundreds or thousands of kms long and the machinery to do it? And the cost of maintaining all that running 24/7? How much does a suitable vacuum resistant tunnel cost? What maintenance does such a tunnel need? Where is the benefit in having a train that goes, say, 2x as fast but costs, say, 10x more to build and run and maintain? How is that better than two normal trains side by side, or a train twice as long, or two one after another?Is the the (air) drag of a normal train such a huge cost to justify the hyperloop?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 10:29:43 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on November 11, 2019, 10:13:46 amMy money says no.But it's nice to dream about such things, and that's what sells it.We'll know next year, because that's when the Dubai one is supposed to be finishedhttps://www.timeoutdubai.com/travel/394954-uae-hyperloop-opening-date-is-revealed

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 10:30:51 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 11, 2019, 10:05:42 amFunny that you avoid to mention SNCF and GE Ventures (subsidiary of General Electrics). Both have loads of knowledgeable people to consult, both invested in Virgin Hyperloop. How's that?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 11:08:08 am
content: And how is it that Obama got aNobelPrize?

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 11:32:35 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on November 11, 2019, 11:08:08 amAnd how is that remotely on topic?A finger slip, meant for another forum, perhaps?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 11:58:13 am
content: My point being that some things are inexplicable.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 12:16:59 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on November 11, 2019, 10:13:46 amNobody's talking about pumpingallthe air out of the tube, just some percentage of it. Enough removed to reduce drag, enough left over for the engines to work.ie. Some amount of air isneededinside the tube. The exact amount needed is still being tested and figured out via all these prototypes that people are building.Your question is impossible to answer right now because the difference in cost/difficulty between removing 90%, 95% ... 99% of the air is orders of magnitude.It may be that maximum efficiency is with only 80% removed, nobody's sure yet. 80% is aloteasier/cheaper than even 99% vacuum.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 12:24:27 pm
content: How are the trains and passengers going to get into and out of the 80% vacuum.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 12:25:51 pm
content: Quote from: ogden on November 11, 2019, 10:30:51 amI'm supposed to be impressed by a rail company investing in Hyperloop?Talk to Colas about how their world leading expertise in roads helped Wattway. I do believe the worlds "total failure" apply.https://www.sciencealert.com/the-world-s-first-solar-road-has-turned-out-to-be-a-disappointing-failure

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 12:27:02 pm
content: Quote from: StillTrying on November 11, 2019, 12:24:27 pmThrough an airlock?PS: You know that people would die of asphyxiation in today's commercial aircraft if they didn't pressurize them, right?

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 12:45:46 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on November 11, 2019, 12:27:02 pmWell that sounds easy enough.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 01:02:39 pm
content: Make that two airlocks. One for the tunnel another one for the capsule.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 01:09:43 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on November 11, 2019, 01:02:39 pmOne would assume that:a) You walk into the capsule normallyb) The capsule closes its doorsc) The capsule goes through an airlockOne airlock, no space suit needed.(If this ever gets as far as carrying people...)

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 01:21:09 pm
content: Sorry but no. One for the tunnel another one for the capsule, that's two. If not, please define airlock.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 01:23:18 pm
content: One airlock will be 2 doors, with enough space between the 2 doors for the train.This one shows the airlock, it has to hold back around 120 tons.https://interestingengineering.com/virgin-hyperloop-one-sets-new-speed-record-at-240mph

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 01:35:57 pm
content: Ok. So if the airlock is (I've had to look it up) "a compartment with controlled pressure and parallel sets of doors, to permit movement between areas at different pressures." it's even worse than I thought yet, because you then need three or more perfectly air tight vacuum proof doors: one (at least) in the capsule and two to seal the compartment in the tunnel. Great!Edit:The opening in the tunnel to access the capsule's door needs yet another door, so => four minimum.

author: Altair8800
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 01:52:38 pm
content: In the Hyper-loop alpha white paper they mention 100 Pa (Pascals) of pressure. Air pressure at Sea Level is 101325 Pa (pascals) or 1 Atm (Atmosphere, depreciated unit).Also in the Hyper-loop alpha white paper they mention "equivalent to flying above 150,000 feet altitude"Which equates 140 Pa (and is close to 100 Pa)https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=air+pressure+at+150%2C000++feet++This is very close to 99.9% vacuumSource: SpaceX Hyperloop Alpha White PaperQuote

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 02:04:21 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 11, 2019, 12:25:51 pmHighly unlikely. You are so preopinionated about just everything related to Hyperloop. Funny that you removed GE Ventures from quote

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 02:27:58 pm
content: Quote from: Altair8800 on November 11, 2019, 01:52:38 pmWhen was that?Goal posts can move.(and already have...)

author: Altair8800
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 02:55:26 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on November 11, 2019, 02:27:58 pmThe Hyperloop Alpha white paper is dated 16 Aug 2013.Also in it is mention of 1/6 atmosphere of Mars which is 1/6*(660 Pa) = 110 Pa (which is again close to the 100 Pa stated).https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=air+pressure+on+marsUnderstand things/goalposts can change. But this is all I have specifics wise...You said goal post can change and have already have... Can you give a source and/or specifics?

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 03:33:32 pm
content: Quote from: Altair8800 on November 11, 2019, 02:55:26 pmTheonlylong-term goal is to get a train through a tube at high speed. Nothing else is fixed.The system used bythe team I was onrequires a bit of air in the tube for propulsion. It sucks air into the front of the train and shoves it out the back to make it move. We estimated a 30% saving in air-removal costs because of this.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 03:37:04 pm
content: Reinventing the turbofans... great!

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 03:39:24 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on November 11, 2019, 03:37:04 pmWhat's the problem?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 04:47:49 pm
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on November 11, 2019, 09:51:20 amThat is something of all times. Leonardo Da Vinci came up with this in 1493 but he didn't had the materials to make it work.It is only since a short period of time we can build stuff like this:

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 05:16:31 pm
content: And... ? Elon invented the drones too?

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 05:34:43 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 11, 2019, 04:47:49 pmSo now you have all the materials. Why dont you build one using Leo's drawings. Is it because it still will not fly?

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 05:39:39 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on November 11, 2019, 05:16:31 pmNo, but think of how long it took drones to go from 'expensive!' to '$19.99'.The only real engineering problem of Hyperloop is "low pressure". If somebody solves that or comes up with a way to not need such low pressures then it's game-on.

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 05:41:31 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on November 11, 2019, 05:34:43 pmElectric vehicles are "reinvented" nowadays. Why do you think they do not look like this?

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 05:58:35 pm
content: What is different in your example? The car shape ( appearance)? That old vehicle *Worked* and used the same principles to propell. Leo' s machine did not fly and will not fly since it was using a different idea about the propellant force. None of the new nanomaterials will make it fly.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 06:05:14 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on November 11, 2019, 05:58:35 pmSo? You can bet he'd have figured out the need for a tail rotor after a single prototype, etc.Also: Most of his drawings haddeliberateflaws in them, eg. this one:Would that have moved anywhere if you built one? No.Do you think he didn't know that...?

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 06:10:57 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on November 11, 2019, 05:58:35 pmMessage. - That not only materials but engineering is different today.QuoteLeo's machine did not fly. Similar machines that are built using modern materials and engineering do fly indeed:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 06:32:26 pm
content: Quote from: ogden on November 11, 2019, 06:10:57 pmYeah, what a dumbass he was...

author: SparkyFX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 06:32:35 pm
content: The need for the vacuum is the tricky part of the concept, as you could have a very low drag of the vehicle as long as the air surrounding the train moves as fast as the train, which would be possible in a closed pipeline. Unfortunately you would need to invest the energy to push the whole mass of air inside the tube and accommodate it's friction on the inner diameter as well.I don't know how much less friction a gas in a solid tube has by reducing it's pressure, as that's some advanced aerodynamics, not solvable by taking the cross sectional area into consideration alone and the length of the tube is undefined so far.Conventional trains go too slow for this to be significant, high speed trains just use a modified frontal section and probably max out by limitations of the chassis. Their length is very limited compared to the inner diameter of a 1000km tube, therefore I guess air resistance itself is not the big factor to conventional trains. So it either needs 1000km/h and magnetic levitation/very advanced chassis to actually matter or it is a lot of effort for very little gain. At the same time the losses for a Hyperloop are hidden in the pneumatic propulsion system (sled as a piston). Which means the longer the tube, the more losses you get in (gas) friction.Then the change in temperature by the expanding propulsion-gas (or even just residual gas moving, or condensed water inside condensing) would be a problem in itself to such a structure. That would need some high-tech materials in the assembly, with stable temperature coefficient, high-strength or at least accommodated for it. A slick (steel-) tube wont cut it.There might be solutions to these problems, the tube would not need to be slick, it could be corrugated or be the bellow frame, the pressure reduction could be a feature within the grooves (like pistons that move outward to reduce the pressure by some amount), it is the unknown length and the additional requirement of reduced internal pressure that increases requirements dramatically. I mean I get into the fallacy of the concept drawing and start using these in my mind before thinking about what they are, just a concept drawing.Anyway, things figured out or not, all these things (and all not-yet-discovered ones) add up and all speak against breaking even to make a business model that works competitively against conventional trains. If there are advantages, they come from shifting from/to another inefficiency or at the cost of safety.It is new, it is a great mind-bender, maybe even a great advertisement to involved parties, but kind of hopeless, it represents the search for a new inspirational pie-in-the-sky project.

author: Connecteur
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 09:40:25 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on November 11, 2019, 06:05:14 pmPretty good imagination for someone with no aeronautical experience, no resources and no science. The average person at the time was glad to have survived another day.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 12, 2019, 10:11:38 am
content: Quote from: StillTrying on November 11, 2019, 01:23:18 pmThat's one heck of a door.And you'll need two of these at each end.The two inner ones hold the main low pressure for the entire length.The two outer doors for a small airlock to allow the pod to enter. You then have the choice of pumping out the air in the airlock and then opening the inner door. Or you can just open the inner door and the high pressure in the airlock mixes with the pressure in the main tube length.The Hyperloop is obviously useless for short trips and frequent stops.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 12, 2019, 11:04:13 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on November 11, 2019, 05:39:39 pmNo, it's not game-on, it's game-over. Because Hyperloop without the low pressure tube is just MagLev, and that already exists.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 12, 2019, 11:15:11 am
content: With Hyperloop what if the low pressure system fails, what's the propulsion backup system? or does the entire 100km or whatever system just shut down?Do they send in the pusher cart?Also, how do you do contraflow on the system? Existing trains (that are much simpler systems) break down all the time and require ways to route the traffic around issues.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 12, 2019, 11:23:02 am
content: So it's been two years since they achieved 387km/h. Have they beaten that after two years?Nothing in press releases it seems?

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2019, 01:44:56 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 12, 2019, 11:15:11 amI assume there'll be enough redundancy built into the system to avoid that.

author: Connecteur
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2019, 07:28:58 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 12, 2019, 11:23:02 amPotential design flaws don't disprove proof of concept.Just to be clear, that doesn't prove it either.I respect the opinions of people with sufficient engineering and scientific knowledge, but we know they don't always agree.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2019, 10:29:14 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 12, 2019, 10:11:38 amI think the door on that test track might be just a 'moving model', not capable of sealing the near vacuum travel part of the tube from the 1atm. station part.

author: Altair8800
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2019, 01:52:32 am
content: Jokingly, you should never "assume"...We are engineers and scientists and the devil is in the details... But the details are very, very important...

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 13, 2019, 04:00:38 am
content: Quote from: StillTrying on November 12, 2019, 10:29:14 pmLooks like an o-ring seal to me.And how did they get the test speed without lower pressure?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 13, 2019, 04:03:23 am
content: Quote from: Connecteur on November 12, 2019, 07:28:58 pmI'm not talking about design flaws, I'm simply asking why they haven't gotten faster speed?Are they limited by the length of the test track?If they got 387km/h and the test was success, why not extend the test track and prove the full speed. That would help shut up all the critics, help get more funding, and help further prove the design concept.They have the space in the desert, they have the money presumably, and it's been two years, so why haven't they gone faster?Also, how is that test pod levitated? Are those electromagnets on the bottom on the single rail? Doesn't like a traditional maglev, looks like it would be unstable?Is it even levitated at all?, or is it just pushed on rollers or something?Also at 1:38 you can see a break in the bottom rail.Looks like they have some form of outside box on every 2nd pillar. Power for the Maglev? and/or vacuum pumps?

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2019, 11:21:09 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 13, 2019, 04:00:38 amBy lowering the pressure inthe whole tube.https://youtu.be/zcikLQZI5wQ?t=250The 'station door' part ?https://youtu.be/zcikLQZI5wQ?t=328There's no visible 'station door' on that one.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2019, 12:32:20 pm
content: Quote from: StillTrying on November 13, 2019, 11:21:09 amafter 5 yrs of research and developmentlooks like the only thing that has improved here, is the quality of the promotional videos.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2019, 01:13:40 pm
content: Quote from: jonovid on November 13, 2019, 12:32:20 pmThis bit shows the station door opening ahead of the train, but the video cuts to a no-door version before the train moves off, perhaps it can't get across the gaps in the track.https://youtu.be/zcikLQZI5wQ?t=358

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2019, 01:42:00 pm
content: Or perhaps it's all fake..."The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts"

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2019, 01:50:39 pm
content: I didn't know that Thunderf00t had done one on the CNNtravel article.