[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / bbbb / gdp2083 / girltalk / htg / madchan / notb / russian / startrek ]

/tech/ - Technology

Its been four years! Happy anniversary!
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 3 per post.


File: b29f30e70426719⋯.webm (10.91 MB, 512x288, 16:9, MSI_quality.webm)

 No.803422

There are so many stupid lies flying around for well working systems. So let's have a good exorcism. I've had this hyperloop rant just waiting to be posted. So here we go:

I've seen so much physics-based arguments against hyperloop, so I'm not going to that route. Physics-based problems can mostly be solved, that is what hard-science research is for.

But this hyperloop has more serious issues. It's like making a near 100% efficient hovercraft that's fueled by only water, but it only works in searing hot sand-desert environment - and then we would try to fix the drought problem in desert areas to justify the hovercrafts viability, while completely ignoring the fact, that at night, deserts are extremely cold.

Anyway, the only issue I see in the hyperloop idea is this: there is absolutely no realworld solution to make this both SAFE AND COST-EFFICIENT. I'm going to get in to this in detail, just to be sure, so that the logistical and passenger safety related problems are seen in the right light. Because, for some reason, some people really don't see the full picture on this one.

Enough prologue, here are the facts:

To make the hyperloop work, there needs to be more than just one train running in the tube for it to be cost-efficient, so a connection between stations has to be two tubes, and thus, there needs to be a way of turning the trains. The only two solutions are:

Type 1. Make the tubes an isolated loop, and have the passengers get in and out in vacuum-sealed docking ports at stations. (This is cheap, but very prone to failures)

Type 2. Make every station have de-/pressurisation chambers, so trains can unload/load in normal 1ATM stations. (This is extremely costly, but fairly safe)

Because of the immense power held by the huge near-vacuum tubes, the speed of the trains, and the danger it holds for the people near them, which ever solution of the two is used, we need a 99% reliable safeguard when a problem in any of those trains happen, or in at any point in the tube or stations.

Reliable safety can only be archived by making automatic seals in set intervals in the tube and special fast-reacting seals on stations and near them. Compressed gas+friction-based braking systems will also be needed on the trains, adding to the cost. Slowing speed in near vacuum tube is not as easy as you would think - this also increases the weight and lowers the cost-efficiency of the train-units.

For the passengers to get out of a broken train-unit, or in case of tube failure, we need an emergency hatch to be reachable at any pressure-sealed point of the tube. Passengers can't just get out by opening a door and jump out, no matter the seriousness of the emergency. In hyperloop, hull break is to kill everybody by rupturing their lungs with sudden pressure change. Thus at least 4-12 small automatic and controlled valves to let in the outside air must be installed to instantly stabilize the pressure of a closed part of the tube to 1ATM. The valves have to be in every sealed part of the tube, so that the train-unit can even be exited, and there needs to be emergency hatch on both sides of every emergency vacuum seal in the tube. And the hatches need to be no less than 150 meters away, even by Europeon tunnel standards.

Everytime this hyperloop-system is, by design, and by hardware upkeep secessary, depressurised, for MAINTENANCE or, after an emergency, it stops working. THE WHOLE SYSTEM WILL BE AT 0% WORKING CONDITION WHILE IN MAINTENANCE. Can you think of a modern world mass-transportation track that would stop working for 1-2 weeks, just to do basic maintenance. Let's say that you can somehow save 100% of the energy that you used by making that insanely huge vacuum, working until the tubes are vacuumed again. You would still lose those 1-2 weeks. It's just not worth it.

hyperloop doesn't sound so cheap, fast or reliable now, does it? This is just in the bare minimum by the requirements for safety in mass-transportation by law. Now finally, we get to the juicy part: The "I don't give a shit, what does it cost, I'm willing to pay anything for a dream of "saving 30 minutes on a 2 hour commute"-part:

The juicy part is in part 2. That random law-anon will never do.

TLDR; hyperloop is a dangerous non-cost-efficient non-solution to non-problem. Saving 10-15% hours in transportation between cities, with horribly ignored safety concerns, is not something we should support, no matter how "elonmusked" the idea is. Bad ideas are some times just bad ideas.

-Science Anon #0216

 No.803447

Each and every problem with new kinds of transportation can be eventually solved if it is first only used for one or both of the following:

1) to transport cargo

2) to transport pajeets and/or chinks because they don't even care about their fellow countrymen themselves.


 No.803450

>thinking Elon Musk gives a shit about the safety of the goyim in his cattle tube


 No.803463

File: 058685bc8a260fd⋯.png (299.13 KB, 500x500, 1:1, Syfilis_jokes.png)

>>803447

>>803450

Thanks for not reading any part of my op, and just doing what ever that is, that you did, and do.

Anyhow, I really think that these over-glorified shit-tier-projects should be put in to the focus. This kind of stupid shit is wasting money that could be used in space-x, that has some actual promise in it. (Though landing a used rocket engine(cannot be used again, so scrapmetal) in a platform using fuel that we could have used to launch rockets up, not down, is a bit weird. But media likes it, so I should like it too, right?

-Science Anon #0216


 No.803473

>>803463

>Thanks for not reading any part of my op

You pointed out potential problems with the system, I've given you a long-term solution. Thanks for turning off your brain wile reading my post.


 No.803486

File: 25ece2fb253fc4e⋯.webm (11.95 MB, 711x400, 711:400, Why you should not use Di….webm)

>>803473

>You pointed out potential problems with the system, I've given you a long-term solution. Thanks for turning off your brain wile reading my post.

I really hope you are just shitposting. Is this your post, for the long term solutions:

>1) to transport cargo

>2) to transport pajeets and/or chinks because they don't even..

You really strike the very edge of stupid and retarded, don't you? Good job Jimmy, maybe some day someone will care about you.


 No.803498

>>803422

hyberloob is musks plan to discourage investment in mass transit so his car company gets propped up instead


 No.803518

File: ab50099f39e0013⋯.png (3.73 KB, 675x450, 3:2, rotten bait.png)

>>803463

>implying that the first stage can't be reused, literally the only reason why you would want to land it in the first place


 No.803535

File: be69417367a45d1⋯.jpg (48.76 KB, 350x502, 175:251, Everythings_peaceful.jpg)

>>803518

Can't or won't be used? The answer is: NO, none of the parts will be re-used, they will all be recycled like scrapmetal, reasoning being - they are scrapmetal. Your bait is weak and flaccid. Step up your game or get the fuck out. Space-x is fairly transparent so not recycling any parts directly can be verified easily.

I would really like to talk about the viability of vacuum-tubes as transportation, but I only seem to attract the usual same few shitposters that have nothing to give. I really think that these vacuum tubes are a great way of moving small packages, not people.


 No.803723

>>803535

>The answer is: NO, none of the parts will be re-used, they will all be recycled like scrapmetal, reasoning being - they are scrapmetal

Show me one place where SpaceX or Elon Musk says that is the plan. Otherwise, kindly go suck a bag of dicks.

>>803422

>horribly ignored safety concerns

It's California we're talking about, remember? Dead spics, kikes and faggots a selling point.


 No.803735

>>803422

>Slowing speed in near vacuum tube is not as easy as you would think - this also increases the weight and lowers the cost-efficiency of the train-units.

In an emergency-stop context, just use emergency friction/jamming brakes like in elevators. Not that expensive.

>Reliable safety can only be archived by making automatic seals in set intervals in the tube

This is probably right. Could also work it the other way around where seals in the tube only open when a train is approaching. Either way, this system has a benefit (see below)

>For the passengers to get out of a broken train-unit, or in case of tube failure

Tube failure, I think, is pretty much fail-safe as you will lose vacuum, train will come to a stop in normal atmosphere.

>broken train-unit

You need to specify your failure modes more carefully.

Case 1: train loses power, has to be repaired in-situ. You have probably minutes to hours before any safety issues arise to passengers, plenty of time to isolate the tube section and let off the vacuum.

Case 2: train catches fire, springs a slow pressure leak, or has a medical emergency. You probably have a few minutes at most to evacuate the train. This case probably determines how fast you need to be able to isolate and repressurize the tube to allow escape. But 1-2 minutes is not an unfeasible time.

Case 3: catastrophic failure of the train, e.g. an explosion or complete loss of pressure. Yes in this scenario all passengers are probably screwed. But how likely is it to happen? The tube is a closed system so there aren't going to be any obstructions for the train to crash into/derail. Motive power is presumably provided externally, so the train isn't carrying any fuel or batteries to blow up suddenly.

>THE WHOLE SYSTEM WILL BE AT 0% WORKING CONDITION WHILE IN MAINTENANCE.

As noted above, there might be built-in capacity to isolate sections of tube. Then you still have some options, e.g. alternating traffic two ways along one tube, running shortened routes up to the blockage, building redundant/bypass routes, etc. Basically this is no different from maintenance on an ordinary rail system.

>non-cost-efficient non-solution to non-problem

This tbh. I am just guessing here but I reckon for less than the cost of all this new engineering, design, and construction, you could just build a copy of the French TGV (1970s technology) which would deliver 75% of the performance at much less cost.


 No.803796

>>803422

You are pointing some very good points especially about the cost factors.

I tried to argue about this with a ~friend (suspected reditor) and the only argument that ever came back was that technology would come to solve these problems.

Physics -> New materials, and solutions ....

Safety -> It will be safe, no reason to worry about anything

Costs -> will be solved ... will be more rentable than current systems

Nothing working ever showed -> it will come, these are just prototypes

For any points somehow the fans of Elon Musk keep thinking that out of nowhere a solution for some very complex and important problems will pop out for one solution of a "problem", while some more reliable solution for that one already exists.

I do not know how to handle these kind of conversations.

The safety point still makes me scratch my head how someone can belive that you stand around with the equivalent kilo-tonnes of TNT through half a continent without anything happening or immense security costs. meanwhile about a border wall 10$ ladder will be a correct answer

I do not know how communicate to such a standing contradiction.


 No.804191

>>803535

>I would really like to talk about the viability of vacuum-tubes as transportation, but I only seem to attract the usual same few shitposters that have nothing to give.

If you weren't such a goddamn troll, people wouldn't shitpost.

Oh, look at that, they really do intend to reuse the fucker:

https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/30/spacexs-reused-falcon-9-rocket-nails-the-landing-for-a-second-time/

https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/23/spacex-successfully-launches-reused-falcon-9-rocket-recovers-first-stage/

As for the hyperloop: at some point it is safe enough. At some point, the system is as safe as a bus, or a plane. If you can make the system that safe, then you can gamble with insurance and a train full of wrongful death cases. I don't mean to sound callous, but we live in an unsafe world. Buses crash and planes fucking disappear into fucking nowhere on a regular basis.

People like you are the reason that we don't have cheap nuclear power, the reason that people protest GMOs: you hold new things to a completely different and arbitrary standard of safety that is leagues beyond everything that we have now. You are so accustomed to how dangerous your world is that you ignore it and make up a completely random standard of safety that new developments have to meet. These standards are absolutely disconnected from the safety of the technology that is being replaced.

You are a Luddite and you shouldn't be on /tech/.


 No.804507

Did you read the whitepaper?

http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-20130812.pdf

It has cost break down, and a section on safety, so there's some numbers to crunch on.


 No.804509

>>804507

>reddit spacing


 No.804570

When you travel on rail or by air, you don't really care about travel time, because you have to spend loitering at the stantion for several hours anyway. With packing, local movements and scheduling issues you can pretty much write your whole day off.

Hyperloop plans to use capsules which are sent off not on a rigid schedule but when passengers are ready. It allows reducing boarding time to about 5 minutes, and even though this is just a footnote in the whole project, this is more interesting to me than any other tech they bring to the table.

But why we don't use same system for rail already? i guess we use it for trams inside city, but I'm talking about intercity routes here.


 No.804571

File: e0adbcb27203b9d⋯.jpg (52.45 KB, 647x795, 647:795, space-pepe.jpg)

>>804507

Most on /tech/ are alphabet soup shitposters who don't know what the fuck they are talking about. Just ignore them. But really, learn to not reddit space since it is fucking cancer.

>>804570

Because (((they))) always used cars and planes for inter-city travel. Therefore (((they))) did not care about poor goyim in burgerland. Combine that with the cost of redesigning the system after a govener did a half ass job of making it when he used such a thing to get votes. What could you use to reduce costs enough to justify transporting on demand instead of at a schedule? Where would the boarding locations be? How many people need to board to justify the cost? At what point do they take off anyways?

If you are going to travel from washington (((DC))) to jew york then the passengers are going to be of (((high value))). So not many people would need to board for the ride to take off. The cost could be reduced by something like chinklands magnetic rail. Where the train is pushed foward by electromagnets. Like a giant engine but the wheels for the train are the pistons and the electromagnet pushes the pistons up and down. I forgot how the chinks did it.

For reducing electricity costs you could either ZPO, solar with battey backups, and or using the massive coal refineries to supply electricity along the way like in montana and north dakota. But it has to be something that can supply a large load for a short time. Because otherwise you would need to line the whole train with electrical amplierfiers to boost the electricty traveling through the rail. Unless there is a material that can support a train and carry electricty for thousands of miles.


 No.804595

>>803422

I don't know whats going on ITT, but I came to comment on that webm.

>thermal paste spills over

JUST FUCK MY PC UP FAM


 No.804760

>>803735

>Tube failure, I think, is pretty much fail-safe as you will lose vacuum, train will come to a stop in normal atmosphere

ahh no, it will got off like a bomb. Tube Failure == Everyone is dead.

AIr pressure differential is used to demolish buildings.

> But how likely is it to happen?

Given the pressures involved very likely.

>>803422

Also no still no cure for friction.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / bbbb / gdp2083 / girltalk / htg / madchan / notb / russian / startrek ]