5 ms·

The tech is fine, right? It's the long game you have to play with regulators and state and local officials to get right of way to build the tracks or tubes in t

The tech is fine, right? It's the long game you have to play with regulators and state and local officials to get right of way to build the tracks or tubes in the first place. Under current regulations, it would take a decade of intense focus and politickin' to probably achieve a minimal viable example.

panick21_ 3y ago
The tech is actually not fine. The initial idea was that it would be a near vacume and that the sled would use air cushion to levitate. And that simply doesn't actually work. That is why all of the companies doing it switched to maglev. And we know the issues with maglev.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  Mag lev works just fine in Japan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev A partial vacuum would be trivial to achieve and you could by all means use mag lev + partial vacuum in a tube.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    Oh you mean the project that has been going on for like 40 years costs 100+ billion $ and isn't operational? Yeah works great. I hear they are gone install on in Hoboken soon.
  - _fizz_buzz_ 3y ago
    Nobody doubts maglev works (there is also a maglev in China and Germany also had a test track since the 80s). There are a lot of things that technically work, but are not economical. The math just doesn't add up to build this in any way that is economically reasonable.
    - chrisco255 3y ago
      It's not economics, it's red tape.
_ea1k 3y ago
It doesn't sound like anyone demonstrated the technology as originally described. Trains in tunnels are possible, of course, but probably not the super high speed, air cushioned thing that was envisioned.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  Of course they are: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev The tech already works even without a partial vacuum. But a partial vacuum would be all the better.
JohnFen 3y ago
> The tech is fine, right? No, the tech is not fine. There are really serious, showstopper issues with it. Issues that were known way back in the early 1900s and there is still no feasible way to overcome them.
- tnel77 3y ago
  Such as?
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    How to safely create and maintain a reasonable vacuum in very long tubes is the main unsolved problem, as far as I can tell.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Even if there was we can estimate costs and conclude cost would be too high
  - chrisco255 3y ago
    No, we can't. And yes there is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      That's just maglev, though. Nobody is asserting that maglev isn't feasible.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  Yes they're so obvious that you can comment without mentioning them. Look there are mag lev trains in Japan that run on superconductors. By all means you can put that tech in a tube and call it a hyperloop. Absolutely feasible. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev
tjpnz 3y ago
The white paper at the very least wasn't. It contradicts itself in multiple places and it seems the author has some misunderstandings around basic physics.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  What are those misunderstandings? Keep hearing comments that can't speak to anything in particular but confidently assert how unfeasible it is. Mag lev works: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev Nothing in the idea of a hyperloop precludes the use of a maglev propulsion system. The partial vacuum wouldn't even be necessary but might help with efficiency. Partial vacuums are just air pumps.
  - tjpnz 3y ago
    The author can't seem to make up their mind about the use of a vacuum. In one section where they do propose using one they also suggest sticking a giant turbine on the end of the car. Maglevs are great. Why not build one of those instead?

panick21_ 3y ago

The tech is actually not fine. The initial idea was that it would be a near vacume and that the sled would use air cushion to levitate. And that simply doesn't actually work. That is why all of the companies doing it switched to maglev. And we know the issues with maglev.

chrisco255 3y ago
Mag lev works just fine in Japan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev A partial vacuum would be trivial to achieve and you could by all means use mag lev + partial vacuum in a tube.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Oh you mean the project that has been going on for like 40 years costs 100+ billion $ and isn't operational? Yeah works great. I hear they are gone install on in Hoboken soon.
- _fizz_buzz_ 3y ago
  Nobody doubts maglev works (there is also a maglev in China and Germany also had a test track since the 80s). There are a lot of things that technically work, but are not economical. The math just doesn't add up to build this in any way that is economically reasonable.
  - chrisco255 3y ago
    It's not economics, it's red tape.

_ea1k 3y ago

It doesn't sound like anyone demonstrated the technology as originally described. Trains in tunnels are possible, of course, but probably not the super high speed, air cushioned thing that was envisioned.

chrisco255 3y ago
Of course they are: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev The tech already works even without a partial vacuum. But a partial vacuum would be all the better.

JohnFen 3y ago

> The tech is fine, right? No, the tech is not fine. There are really serious, showstopper issues with it. Issues that were known way back in the early 1900s and there is still no feasible way to overcome them.

tnel77 3y ago
Such as?
- JohnFen 3y ago
  How to safely create and maintain a reasonable vacuum in very long tubes is the main unsolved problem, as far as I can tell.
bluGill 3y ago
Even if there was we can estimate costs and conclude cost would be too high
- chrisco255 3y ago
  No, we can't. And yes there is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    That's just maglev, though. Nobody is asserting that maglev isn't feasible.
chrisco255 3y ago
Yes they're so obvious that you can comment without mentioning them. Look there are mag lev trains in Japan that run on superconductors. By all means you can put that tech in a tube and call it a hyperloop. Absolutely feasible. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev

tjpnz 3y ago

The white paper at the very least wasn't. It contradicts itself in multiple places and it seems the author has some misunderstandings around basic physics.

chrisco255 3y ago
What are those misunderstandings? Keep hearing comments that can't speak to anything in particular but confidently assert how unfeasible it is. Mag lev works: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev Nothing in the idea of a hyperloop precludes the use of a maglev propulsion system. The partial vacuum wouldn't even be necessary but might help with efficiency. Partial vacuums are just air pumps.
- tjpnz 3y ago
  The author can't seem to make up their mind about the use of a vacuum. In one section where they do propose using one they also suggest sticking a giant turbine on the end of the car. Maglevs are great. Why not build one of those instead?