You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
A vacuum tube without sufficient structural integrity, would crush inward killing everyone inside.
I saw the plans for the prototype which has a 2-3 inch walls. The problem for a real tube would need a wall that was about 10 ft thick.
Metal like steel will be very costly. For the thickness needed, at a price of about $400/tonne, I don't see how they can build it for $10billion.
Assuming we take the known values, 383miles to San Fran and LA (20.2million feet). 10 feet by 1 feet thick steel is about 100 lbs. For the hyperloop circumference of about 30 ft diameter is 94ft circumference. or about 9400lbs of steel per foot of the hyperloop. Or about 189.9 billion lbs of steel. Or 95 million tonnes or about $40 billion for the wall of the hyperloop. That doesn't include the build out infrastructure or the hyperloop train. Thats before all the other problems with laws of thermodynamics.
[+]Fibbideh2 points-2 points0 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]Fibbideh2 points
-2 points
0 points
(+0|-2)
ago
(edited ago)
The person lying here is you.
Where did you get 10ft wall thickness? And the hyperloop isn't a vactrain from the 70s. It's a reduced pressure, magnetically driven train riding on "air castor" skis. Public skepticism for safety will probably push it toward freight use than passenger travel, imho.
E: what, no counter argument? Just a downvoat? Can you not defend your own statements when presented with an opposing idea?
The biggest gripe I have is his basic lack of ANY research to the hyperloop beyond the presentation video. I will make this clear: the hyperloop IS NOT A VACTRAIN. Therefore the hyperloop WILL NOT BE A PERFECT VACUUM. It's going to be designed as though it is operating at high altitude, not space, otherwise the conceptual hyperloop pods wouldn't be as aerodynamic in structure. So there goes half (if not, near all) of his major arguments. It will be designed to be more of an air puck on a hockey table driven by magnets than anything else.
And to anything regarding safety, I can see this becoming a faster freight option more than a passenger operation at first, to smooth out major glitches, initially. As for anything catastrophic: the biggest problem will be slowing down, once that is achieved, then the computer onboard will send a distress to the station or elsewhere and at the same time some blow out plugs along the side in joints of the tube or next to the vacuum pumps where the pod is located, for instance, can pressureize the tube allowing rescue and repair.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Fibbideh 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
How? It's a mag-lev rail in a vacuum tube. It's pretty straight forward, if you ask me.
[–] aristotle07 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
A vacuum tube without sufficient structural integrity, would crush inward killing everyone inside.
I saw the plans for the prototype which has a 2-3 inch walls. The problem for a real tube would need a wall that was about 10 ft thick.
Metal like steel will be very costly. For the thickness needed, at a price of about $400/tonne, I don't see how they can build it for $10billion.
Assuming we take the known values, 383miles to San Fran and LA (20.2million feet). 10 feet by 1 feet thick steel is about 100 lbs. For the hyperloop circumference of about 30 ft diameter is 94ft circumference. or about 9400lbs of steel per foot of the hyperloop. Or about 189.9 billion lbs of steel. Or 95 million tonnes or about $40 billion for the wall of the hyperloop. That doesn't include the build out infrastructure or the hyperloop train. Thats before all the other problems with laws of thermodynamics.
So someone is lying.
[–] Fibbideh 2 points -2 points 0 points (+0|-2) ago (edited ago)
The person lying here is you.
Where did you get 10ft wall thickness? And the hyperloop isn't a vactrain from the 70s. It's a reduced pressure, magnetically driven train riding on "air castor" skis. Public skepticism for safety will probably push it toward freight use than passenger travel, imho.
E: what, no counter argument? Just a downvoat? Can you not defend your own statements when presented with an opposing idea?
[–] dottel 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNFesa01llk
Look I want the hyper loop to be real but a lot of people say it just won't happen due to these little annoying thing called laws of science.
[–] Fibbideh 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I had a problem with nearly everything he said.
The biggest gripe I have is his basic lack of ANY research to the hyperloop beyond the presentation video. I will make this clear: the hyperloop IS NOT A VACTRAIN. Therefore the hyperloop WILL NOT BE A PERFECT VACUUM. It's going to be designed as though it is operating at high altitude, not space, otherwise the conceptual hyperloop pods wouldn't be as aerodynamic in structure. So there goes half (if not, near all) of his major arguments. It will be designed to be more of an air puck on a hockey table driven by magnets than anything else.
And to anything regarding safety, I can see this becoming a faster freight option more than a passenger operation at first, to smooth out major glitches, initially. As for anything catastrophic: the biggest problem will be slowing down, once that is achieved, then the computer onboard will send a distress to the station or elsewhere and at the same time some blow out plugs along the side in joints of the tube or next to the vacuum pumps where the pod is located, for instance, can pressureize the tube allowing rescue and repair.