3 ms·

The journalist is wrong/simplifying See wikipedia [0]: "pressurized capsules ride on an air cushion driven by linear induction motors and air compressors" [0]

The journalist is wrong/simplifying See wikipedia [0]: "pressurized capsules ride on an air cushion driven by linear induction motors and air compressors" [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop

Someone1234 10y ago
You cut off that quote: > incorporating reduced-pressure tubes in which pressurized capsules ride on an air cushion driven by linear induction motors and air compressors. So the tubes are low pressure. Perhaps not vacuum, but in reality so called vacuum tube delivery systems aren't actually a vacuum either, that's why a more accurate name for them is Pneumatic Tube Systems. I'm not sure what it is exactly you're trying to argue, above you made it sound like the system isn't low pressure at all.
wibr 10y ago
Same source: "The Hyperloop resembles a vactrain system but operates at approximately one millibar (100 Pa) of pressure." That would be a "medium vacuum" according to Wikipedia.
usrusr 10y ago
Both BBC quotes are in full agreement with the document at http://spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha.pdf http://spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha.pdf . Page 12, "100 Pascals", that's roughly 99.9% of the air removed. The distinction between "very low pressure" and "vacuum" that is implied by the "hyperloop is not a vactrain" camp is a fantasy.
- shkkmo 10y ago
  It is pretty relevant at the speeds being discussed.
  - usrusr 10y ago
    For the design of the vehicle, yes, for the design of the infrastructure, not so much. Those 100 Pa are actually much lower than what previous vactrain proposals suggested. The only difference is that hyperloop is trying to do something useful with the unavoidable trace atmosphere instead of just overcoming it.
Animats 10y ago
The MIT prototype, and some of the other proposals, are really a maglev system. The original Hyperloop proposal called for aerodynamic support, with very tight tolerances, but that turns out to be iffy. A maglev system needs a much more expensive track and/or a lot of energy from the vehicle to power the lift. This is the big problem with maglev - track cost. Maglev works fine; the Transrapid system in Shanghai has been running for 12 years now without serious problems. Top speed 300 MPH. The Hyperloop is only interesting if it's far cheaper than a maglev. The Transrapid maglev system has far more capacity, can corner better, and can climb steeper grades.
- ericd 10y ago
  Ah that explains all the maglev. I could have sworn that the original version rode on air and used its electric turbine for propulsion. Anything good you've read that explains why they've abandoned that route?
  - Animats 10y ago
    The Berkeley team proposed aerodynamic suspension. There's an analysis with ANSYS which indicates that the design can be tweaked so that at no point does the air go supersonic.[1] But nobody seems to have published a stability analysis for the vehicle in the tube. The "flying height" in the original proposal was to be about 1mm, so this thing has to be really well behaved aerodynamically. And the tube has to be really smooth. (Expansion joints, emergency escape hatches, pressure doors, and switches would be problems.) The whole point of the Hyperloop is that it's cheap because the tube is simple and dumb. When you look at the MIT design [2] it's really a maglev monorail that operates in an evacuated tube. (Or outside of one, as they've demonstrated by sending down a rail). It doesn't have any of the fan propulsion or air cushion lift or tight tolerances from the original Hyperloop proposal. [1] http://www.ansys-blog.com/20130925hyperloop/ http://www.ansys-blog.com/20130925hyperloop/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiyPQU48Ef0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiyPQU48Ef0

Someone1234 10y ago

You cut off that quote: > incorporating reduced-pressure tubes in which pressurized capsules ride on an air cushion driven by linear induction motors and air compressors. So the tubes are low pressure. Perhaps not vacuum, but in reality so called vacuum tube delivery systems aren't actually a vacuum either, that's why a more accurate name for them is Pneumatic Tube Systems. I'm not sure what it is exactly you're trying to argue, above you made it sound like the system isn't low pressure at all.

wibr 10y ago

Same source: "The Hyperloop resembles a vactrain system but operates at approximately one millibar (100 Pa) of pressure." That would be a "medium vacuum" according to Wikipedia.

usrusr 10y ago

Both BBC quotes are in full agreement with the document at http://spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha.pdf http://spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha.pdf . Page 12, "100 Pascals", that's roughly 99.9% of the air removed. The distinction between "very low pressure" and "vacuum" that is implied by the "hyperloop is not a vactrain" camp is a fantasy.

shkkmo 10y ago
It is pretty relevant at the speeds being discussed.
- usrusr 10y ago
  For the design of the vehicle, yes, for the design of the infrastructure, not so much. Those 100 Pa are actually much lower than what previous vactrain proposals suggested. The only difference is that hyperloop is trying to do something useful with the unavoidable trace atmosphere instead of just overcoming it.

Animats 10y ago

The MIT prototype, and some of the other proposals, are really a maglev system. The original Hyperloop proposal called for aerodynamic support, with very tight tolerances, but that turns out to be iffy. A maglev system needs a much more expensive track and/or a lot of energy from the vehicle to power the lift. This is the big problem with maglev - track cost. Maglev works fine; the Transrapid system in Shanghai has been running for 12 years now without serious problems. Top speed 300 MPH. The Hyperloop is only interesting if it's far cheaper than a maglev. The Transrapid maglev system has far more capacity, can corner better, and can climb steeper grades.

ericd 10y ago
Ah that explains all the maglev. I could have sworn that the original version rode on air and used its electric turbine for propulsion. Anything good you've read that explains why they've abandoned that route?
- Animats 10y ago
  The Berkeley team proposed aerodynamic suspension. There's an analysis with ANSYS which indicates that the design can be tweaked so that at no point does the air go supersonic.[1] But nobody seems to have published a stability analysis for the vehicle in the tube. The "flying height" in the original proposal was to be about 1mm, so this thing has to be really well behaved aerodynamically. And the tube has to be really smooth. (Expansion joints, emergency escape hatches, pressure doors, and switches would be problems.) The whole point of the Hyperloop is that it's cheap because the tube is simple and dumb. When you look at the MIT design [2] it's really a maglev monorail that operates in an evacuated tube. (Or outside of one, as they've demonstrated by sending down a rail). It doesn't have any of the fan propulsion or air cushion lift or tight tolerances from the original Hyperloop proposal. [1] http://www.ansys-blog.com/20130925hyperloop/ http://www.ansys-blog.com/20130925hyperloop/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiyPQU48Ef0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiyPQU48Ef0