3 ms·

I think you can fit a 7.5ft diameter tube inside an 8ft square box. You are not going to give yourself 6-inches of clearance for a component that weighs (using

I think you can fit a 7.5ft diameter tube inside an 8ft square box. You are not going to give yourself 6-inches of clearance for a component that weighs (using your numbers) 19.2 tons, that pipe is going on a flatbed. You also have to allow room for tie-downs, flanges, support blocks, etc. You also have to account for bridge weight limits. I'm not saying this isn't doable (the Big Dig was able to truck in 100 ft soldier piles, although they had to do it at night), it's just that it often takes extra planning and work which increases costs. The tube joining/welding/grinding jig could be 40ft (or 200 ft or more) long and fit inside the already assembled tube AND the to-be-welded tube. Are you basing this on something that already exists, or is this something you are proposing?

msandford 13y ago
Yes I'm quite aware. You'd actually build a number of semi-trailers that had the proper rigging on them, welded down. My point was to say that it's entirely possible to fit that size of a tube onto a semi trailer with no hardship at all. No wide corners, no permits, no height restrictions, none of that. If it's possible to make two tunnel boring machines meet at the middle of the English channel with the starting points separated by some 20 miles, then it's entirely possible to build a pipe-section-holding jig which can ensure precise alignment. I probably can't write a check for one and have it in a year (partly because I don't have $5mm, also because the plans don't exist yet) but to suggest that it would take more than three years to design, build and verify such a machine is a bit extreme. You could probably do it in a year or less provided that you're willing to pay more. The machine as a whole doesn't exist yet but all the various component pieces of it do and they're all COTS parts. It's part tunnel boring machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_boring_machine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_boring_machine) part orbital welder (http://www.mecomachineandfab.com/public/images/photos/orbital-welder.jpg http://www.mecomachineandfab.com/public/images/photos/orbita...) and the rest is "glue." Make it 300 feet long so that it's always resting on pipe that's already affixed at two separate pylons and so that it doesn't deflect the pipe on either side of the joint it's about to make. An external crane (or if you get clever, one built onto the TBM/welder rig) lifts the pipe up, the jig grabs hold of it, positions it, and then makes the weld. Let the machine advance slightly and x-ray the entire weld for QA/QC and provided it passes, advance the machine to do the next section. If you wanted me to make one of these for you I'd probably quote $500k-$1mm for the initial research including a small prototype (10-20" diameter) and I would guess (+- 50%) $10mm for the big one.
- Anechoic 13y ago
  What is your experience with large capital projects?
  - msandford 13y ago
    Very little. I've made a pretty decent career of doing things that are hard or expensive or both, generally for cheap. I built an semi-automated package dimensioner and barcode reader for about $5k in parts plus my time The NRE was probably around $40k. A fully automated one (including transport) starts at something like $80k. The company I worked for then might have lost money on the first one (only if you look at opportunity cost) but by the time they build three, they've saved at least $150k. Three of them plus the employees to operate them would have a similar throughput, higher dimensional capacity and better exception handling (what do you do with a damaged package? Or one that's leaking?) than the one fully automated system. An $80k system that can do 10x what your needs are is definitely more expensive even if the per-unit costs are the same because you're paying for idle time. Elon Musk isn't going to call me up and ask me to build that system for him. But if he did I wouldn't have too many problems making it happen. The difficulty isn't making the machine, it's finding someone with the constitution to ride out the periods of uncertainty and doubt while all the bugs are being ironed out. EDIT: When I've suggested that I could do the research and build a 10-20" prototype I'm referring just to the pipe positioning jig + orbital welding system. Not a small-scale hyperloop. That would be quite insane. Just a precision alignment jig and associated welding equipment to do the final fit and assembly of the pre-fabricated pieces.
    - Anechoic 13y ago
      I ask because my perception in reading your comments is that theory translates nicely to real-world practice (which is also what I get from reading the Hyperloop white paper), when the reality IME is that it almost never does. For example: If it's possible to make two tunnel boring machines meet at the middle of the English channel with the starting points separated by some 20 miles, then it's entirely possible to build a pipe-section-holding jig which can ensure precise alignment. Of course it's possible, I've never claimed that it wasn't. The issue isn't "is it possible" it's "can it be done at less cost than current proposals." History shows numerous examples of new construction techniques that worked great on paper, but had significant implementation flaws - for example soil freezing was supposed to be a panecea on the Central Artery/Tunnel project, but there were a ton of problems in the implementation and unexpected results that needed to be dealth with. Even your Channel Tunnel example proves this point - it used a lot of innovative technology and it came in late and over 80% over budget. You talk about a welding rig that doesn't exist as a fait accompli. You wrote "My point was to say that it's entirely possible to fit that size of a tube onto a semi trailer with no hardship at all.' - that's bull, I've seen crews have a difficult time moving smaller and lighter pieces off and on semis. "No wide corners, no permits, no height restrictions, none of that" - really? You're familiar with every possible street route along the proposed Hyperlink corridor? Because if a truck gets stuck someplace (it happens: http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/local/hampden/truck-stuck-at-holyoke-underpass http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/local/hampden/truck-stuck-at-ho... ) the project is in for a bad time. And again, we haven't even begun to address NIMBY issues. That said (and I'm being serious here) if you have the chops to make solutions like this work, you need to be working (or consulting) for the big engineering firms like AECOM, PB, CH2M Hill, Jacobs, etc. Your ideas could revolutionize the industry. The difficulty isn't making the machine, it's finding someone with the constitution to ride out the periods of uncertainty and doubt while all the bugs are being ironed out. Exactly. That period is called "final design and construction." It's been the death of many construction and A&E firms.

msandford 13y ago

Yes I'm quite aware. You'd actually build a number of semi-trailers that had the proper rigging on them, welded down. My point was to say that it's entirely possible to fit that size of a tube onto a semi trailer with no hardship at all. No wide corners, no permits, no height restrictions, none of that. If it's possible to make two tunnel boring machines meet at the middle of the English channel with the starting points separated by some 20 miles, then it's entirely possible to build a pipe-section-holding jig which can ensure precise alignment. I probably can't write a check for one and have it in a year (partly because I don't have $5mm, also because the plans don't exist yet) but to suggest that it would take more than three years to design, build and verify such a machine is a bit extreme. You could probably do it in a year or less provided that you're willing to pay more. The machine as a whole doesn't exist yet but all the various component pieces of it do and they're all COTS parts. It's part tunnel boring machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_boring_machine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_boring_machine) part orbital welder (http://www.mecomachineandfab.com/public/images/photos/orbital-welder.jpg http://www.mecomachineandfab.com/public/images/photos/orbita...) and the rest is "glue." Make it 300 feet long so that it's always resting on pipe that's already affixed at two separate pylons and so that it doesn't deflect the pipe on either side of the joint it's about to make. An external crane (or if you get clever, one built onto the TBM/welder rig) lifts the pipe up, the jig grabs hold of it, positions it, and then makes the weld. Let the machine advance slightly and x-ray the entire weld for QA/QC and provided it passes, advance the machine to do the next section. If you wanted me to make one of these for you I'd probably quote $500k-$1mm for the initial research including a small prototype (10-20" diameter) and I would guess (+- 50%) $10mm for the big one.

Anechoic 13y ago
What is your experience with large capital projects?
- msandford 13y ago
  Very little. I've made a pretty decent career of doing things that are hard or expensive or both, generally for cheap. I built an semi-automated package dimensioner and barcode reader for about $5k in parts plus my time The NRE was probably around $40k. A fully automated one (including transport) starts at something like $80k. The company I worked for then might have lost money on the first one (only if you look at opportunity cost) but by the time they build three, they've saved at least $150k. Three of them plus the employees to operate them would have a similar throughput, higher dimensional capacity and better exception handling (what do you do with a damaged package? Or one that's leaking?) than the one fully automated system. An $80k system that can do 10x what your needs are is definitely more expensive even if the per-unit costs are the same because you're paying for idle time. Elon Musk isn't going to call me up and ask me to build that system for him. But if he did I wouldn't have too many problems making it happen. The difficulty isn't making the machine, it's finding someone with the constitution to ride out the periods of uncertainty and doubt while all the bugs are being ironed out. EDIT: When I've suggested that I could do the research and build a 10-20" prototype I'm referring just to the pipe positioning jig + orbital welding system. Not a small-scale hyperloop. That would be quite insane. Just a precision alignment jig and associated welding equipment to do the final fit and assembly of the pre-fabricated pieces.
  - Anechoic 13y ago
    I ask because my perception in reading your comments is that theory translates nicely to real-world practice (which is also what I get from reading the Hyperloop white paper), when the reality IME is that it almost never does. For example: If it's possible to make two tunnel boring machines meet at the middle of the English channel with the starting points separated by some 20 miles, then it's entirely possible to build a pipe-section-holding jig which can ensure precise alignment. Of course it's possible, I've never claimed that it wasn't. The issue isn't "is it possible" it's "can it be done at less cost than current proposals." History shows numerous examples of new construction techniques that worked great on paper, but had significant implementation flaws - for example soil freezing was supposed to be a panecea on the Central Artery/Tunnel project, but there were a ton of problems in the implementation and unexpected results that needed to be dealth with. Even your Channel Tunnel example proves this point - it used a lot of innovative technology and it came in late and over 80% over budget. You talk about a welding rig that doesn't exist as a fait accompli. You wrote "My point was to say that it's entirely possible to fit that size of a tube onto a semi trailer with no hardship at all.' - that's bull, I've seen crews have a difficult time moving smaller and lighter pieces off and on semis. "No wide corners, no permits, no height restrictions, none of that" - really? You're familiar with every possible street route along the proposed Hyperlink corridor? Because if a truck gets stuck someplace (it happens: http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/local/hampden/truck-stuck-at-holyoke-underpass http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/local/hampden/truck-stuck-at-ho... ) the project is in for a bad time. And again, we haven't even begun to address NIMBY issues. That said (and I'm being serious here) if you have the chops to make solutions like this work, you need to be working (or consulting) for the big engineering firms like AECOM, PB, CH2M Hill, Jacobs, etc. Your ideas could revolutionize the industry. The difficulty isn't making the machine, it's finding someone with the constitution to ride out the periods of uncertainty and doubt while all the bugs are being ironed out. Exactly. That period is called "final design and construction." It's been the death of many construction and A&E firms.