Elon Musk invents the tunnel

[Forogil]

I have seen the links you provided. It is just there was nothing in them to deduce the level of investments. Government of Dubai more likely than not just donates territory for the construction. It will be in the desert for most of the way, as there is basically nothing between the airport and the whatsitsname settlement according to maps. This is Branson's project if I am not mistaken.
The Musk's one is the French track, which is going to be his 3rd. Again, we have no idea about investments into it, but we do know that Musk withdrew 100 million from Space X to fund Hyperloop. I would bet that it is his money only that move the project, judging from the fact that he boasted that the second test track cost him only 10 million (if I remember correctly). And indeed, it is well within expectations to build another overland track for 100 million. The problem - you can not build an underground test track with that amount. And it is vital to do so if you want to create a long vacuum system. Remember, each mile of the track will expand and contract by almost 3 feet due to daily temperature changes alone. You can not fix it to pylons because of that.

But Musk figured that you just let the entire track slide all the way and then deal with the thermal expansion at the end!

Seriously these are quotes from Musk's white-paper called "Hyperloop Alpha":
"A telescoping tube, similar to the boxy ones used to access airplanes at airports would be needed at the end stations to address the cumulative length change of the tube."
"This is an ideal location for the thermal expansion joints as the speed is much lower nearby the stations. It thus allows the tube to be smooth and welded along the high speed gliding middle section"

Hmm.. 3 feet per mile and 340 miles, that's a telescoping tube of about 500 feet (or 150m) in either end - and the idea is that the tube just slowly moves along the pylons.

Surely having the tube move that much on the pylons on daily basis isn't a problem, right?
And surely train tracks do it the same way, and don't have a problem with thermal expansion, right - and there are no "sun kinks".

[cubby]

But Musk figured that you just let the entire track slide all the way and then deal with the thermal expansion at the end!

Seriously these are quotes from Musk's white-paper called "Hyperloop Alpha":
"A telescoping tube, similar to the boxy ones used to access airplanes at airports would be needed at the end stations to address the cumulative length change of the tube."
"This is an ideal location for the thermal expansion joints as the speed is much lower nearby the stations. It thus allows the tube to be smooth and welded along the high speed gliding middle section"

Hmm.. 3 feet per mile and 340 miles, that's a telescoping tube of about 500 feet (or 150m) in either end - and the idea is that the tube just slowly moves along the pylons.

Surely having the tube move that much on the pylons on daily basis isn't a problem, right?
And surely train tracks do it the same way, and don't have a problem with thermal expansion, right - and there are no "sun kinks".

Where are you getting the 3 feet per mile figure? I missed it if it was in Musk's White Paper (which actually doesn't seem like the best source, as it wasn't necessarily a technical document so much as a proposal document).

[Forogil]

I guess you're done with any notion of good faith posting from you.

Empty words.

Let's see the statements:

I listed three above where construction is actually underway. I found them on the first page of a google search. Here: They are currently under construction in at least One (CA) Two (France) Three (Abu Dai).

The first is not a link - and if they actually were building an actual track in California between LA and SF I would imagine people noticing.

The second is a short test-track and capsule for it; not an actual transportation solution.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/15/1...t-track-france
"World’s third hyperloop test track is now under construction."
It also claims that 320m would be completed in 2018 and 1km will be done in 2019.

The third is not yet under construction - since it was scheduled to start in 2019Q3. (and according to another poster not even a hyperloop).

https://www.thedrive.com/tech/24492/...-track-in-2019
"Construction is set to begin in the third quarter of 2019."

When you're ready for the adult conversation, we'll be here waiting.

If your idea of an adult conversation is posting links and then protesting when someone reads the links and contradicts your statement with the contents of the same links, then I prefer to leave that to people more versed in your adult businesses.

- - - Updated - - -

Where are you getting the 3 feet per mile figure?

From another poster, and I verified that it seems consistent with thermal expansion coefficients for metals and reasonable temperature variations (about 11 parts per million and K).

[Fargus]

So the youtube "debunker" is somehow miles ahead of the multiple companies and countries moving forward with this tech and projects? That's the hill you want to die on?

Yes, he most certainly is. Because he's talking about what is essentially a vacuum chamber from city to city. Something which neither of these companies or countries are building.

Are you even listening to yourself. How many companies and countries would I have to list in order to prove your little parents-basement-scientist wrong? I get that maybe you're emotionally involved in this argument now, and admitting you're wrong won't be easy, but if you took a step back and looked at the objective evidence, you'd slap yourself on the forehead.

Why is he wrong? Do you have the numbers and physics concepts to refute the claims made in his debunking video? Saying "but but companies are investing in it" doesn't mean he is specifically wrong about Musk's grand idea of building a tunnel hundreds of kilometers long that isn't feasible not just from an engineering perspective, but economically.

What are the credentials of Thunderbutt anyway? Do you, right now, know his CV? Or will you have to go back and check, because he tells you what you want rather than what is true, and you really don't know his actual credentials as a scientist? Of course he's using some math, but you don't know if the math he's using is correct, and neither do I. What I do know, is that many, many others, with fantastic credentials, have vetted the math on the hyperloop (or figured it out for themselves) and are moving forward

Lol. Are you seriously saying the laws of thermodynamics is wrong? I don't need a phD (which thunderf00t has) to slot in numbers to show if something will not work on a practical level.

Who are these people who "vetted" the math of the Hyperloop? Is it the one thunderf00t was talking about? Because I don't see any big name engineers or scientists giving the green light on his ridiculous tunnel that spans from city to city.

And again - somehow Thunderbutt-the-Youtube-"scientist" has found math that "proves" hyperloop won't work, and somehow no one else has, including all the people putting vast sums of money and resources into ongoing projects on multiple continents.

No one else has? Is that why it's being built in the US from LA to SFC? Or anywhere in the world from major city to major city for that matter... oh wait, that's right. It isn't.

If you have evidence, papers or articles, that show the math or science behind the hyperloop doesn't work or can't work, I'm all ears. But a single youtube video will never, ever suffice. You be laughing your ass off if our roles were reversed.

Thunderf00t's debunking video is as good as any article. He even takes the time to go through the math and physical concepts to show why Musk's idea was flawed. I don't see why I need to show you a 30-page paper on something that can be explained in under half an hour by an actual scientist who uses the laws of physics to actually explain their reasoning. If you want to ignore it because you want to further suck Musk's dick, fine. But you're just wasting time at that point.

Liar.

And he's not. Musk is a proven CEO with multiple successes under his belt. Quite the opposite of what you claim.

How is that a lie? Being a hype merchant and having successes are not mutually exclusive.

Aren't you embarrassed yet by this shitshow argumentation? I would be if I were you. I found three countries moving forward with hyperloop project in a 30 second google search. And now you're making that fucked up argument above. Jesus.

I'd be more embarrassed if I ignored the laws of physics and the numbers demonstrating why a vacuum chamber from city to city at great distances is not feasible, because I had a hard-on for Elon Musk. So far, you have shown a test-of-concept construction and a severely limited, scale down version in the UAE that doesn't even resemble Musk's original idea (so it's essentially a glorified subway system, yay). The fact remains is that there are no countries building these kinds of tunnels at distances of over hundreds of kilometers, in what is essentially large vacuum chamber. You do not seem to grasp the fundamental flaws of such a system because you have no fucking idea how it works, I'd might as well call you scientifically illiterate at this point. Do you know what happens to a vacuum chamber when it is compromised?

Precisely why Elon's idea was dumb in the first place. No competent engineer is going to green-light that.

There are. I linked them. You know what's really odd? You don't have any evidence to back up your claims. Weird, isn't it. Let me know when you want to join the adult conversation, where we use objective proof rather than emotional haters-gonna-hate feels.

You didn't link shit except a test run and an upcoming project in the UAE that isn't even the same thing as Musk was bleating about when he first announced the Hyperloop. As for evidence, well yes I do, it's called thunderf00t's debunking video but I guess that doesn't count because for some reason a YT video done by a professional scientist isn't enough. Maybe the numbers and concepts he talks about hurt your head thinking about it?

Perhaps don't be so obtuse, watch the damn thing then you can actually have a conversation to refute his numbers if you believe he is wrong. "But various companies" isn't an argument. There are many companies in the world who waste a lot of money investing in stupid shit, like solar roadways. I will link it for convenience:

[Burgerberg]

No surprise that's your answer. Your point is so blindingly obvious but only one guy agrees. If it's so obvious that it won't work, why can't you prove your point with more than one citation?

Sorry, but what? I don't see anyone jumping to your defense here. And you don't speak for everyone.

All evidence to the contrary. Remember, I'm linking you articles and cites and facts. You're just posting out of your ass at this point. So far none of you people in the hate-personality-cult have posted a single item backing your claims.

ZERO.

Really? Then show me a link or site that shows countries are building a vacuum chamber that's hundreds of miles long, because the links you've provided this far do not show that at all.

Again - he's attacking something that more than a dozen countries and companies are moving forward with. He somehow, magically, found the Achilles' heel to all hyperloop technology. That's your argument?

More than a dozen countries yet you only showed one that's a test scale, and a smaller-scaled down version in the UAE. Where are the other dozen countries where it's currently under construction? Stop bullshitting, you're clearly lying at this point.

[Forogil]

Sure there are.

Normally I would ask if you read the link, but ...

The key points of that article are: it's a tunnel (so not above-ground on pylons), it's for cars on wheels (not passenger pods), the capacity is only 1000 passengers per day - and there are ventilation shafts clearly indicating that it isn't a sealed vacuum tube.

Finally it's not even called "Hyperloop" but just "Loop".

It also contains the following quote from Kevin DeGood, director of infrastructure policy at the Center for American Progress about the schedule: “Hahahahahahahahahahahahah.”

[Derpules]

I've seen him down play the tunnels during interviews saying something along the lines of "Look, it's just a hole". Seemed more candid than self congratulatory to me.

[Burgerberg]

Normally I would ask if you read the link, but ...

The key points of that article are: it's a tunnel (so not above-ground on pylons), it's for cars on wheels (not passenger pods), the capacity is only 1000 passengers per day - and there are ventilation shafts clearly indicating that it isn't a sealed vacuum tube.

Finally it's not even called "Hyperloop" but just "Loop".

It also contains the following quote from Kevin DeGood, director of infrastructure policy at the Center for American Progress about the schedule: “Hahahahahahahahahahahahah.”

LOL - definitely a cubby BUSTED moment.

Does he not understand that by "Hyperloop", we are meaning the vacuum chamber many, many miles long that was initially envisioned by Musk?

[Gaaz]

-snip-

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/l...on-d_1379.html
Steel expansion formula. You can do calculations yourself. Hint - it is just under 3 feet per mile for a 30 degrees change window. Which is VERY conservative. And not that hard.
300mph is about 135 meters per second. The track is 320m. Acceleration at 1g is 9.8m/s2. 2 seconds acceleration, 2 seconds deceleration to and from 30m/s speed plus 8 seconds travel at 30 m/s (67mph). That is the extent of a 320m track capabilities with a 1g acceleration limit, which is actually on about the same level as acceleration on a Bugatti Veyron. It is not that hard.
The article you linked - Musk built a tunnel... Great! Is it a steel tunnel? Nope. Is it pressurized tunnel? Nope. Is it anything "Hyperloopey" at all? Nope. Just a plain old concrete tunnel that barely has the room to fit a small car. With a pass rate of about 500 cars per day. Also, I just must quote Kevin DeGood, director of infrastructure policy at the Center for American Progress, when he saw the tunneling schedule of a new Musk's tunnel, straight from your article:

“Hahahahahahahahahahahahah.”

Dude, I just linked you 3 physics professors at some of the best US Universities, along with citations.
Thunderf00t, a.k.a. Philip E. Mason, currently has 92 published papers to his name in organic chemistry alone. Here is the list of his papers that are registered with the NCBI:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...r_uid=12684536
He has a doctorate in chemistry and physics with the thesis "Novel Architectures in Polymer Chemistry (1997)"
Some of his other works include:

1: Mason PE, Neilson GW, Price D, Saboungi ML, Brady JW. Simulation and Neutron
Diffraction Studies of Small Biomolecules in Water. Food Biophys. 2011
Jun;6(2):210-216. PubMed PMID: 21921996; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3171504.
2: Tavagnacco L, Schnupf U, Mason PE, Saboungi ML, Cesa`ro A, Brady JW. Molecular
Dynamics Simulation Studies of Caffeine Aggregation in Aqueous Solution. J Phys
Chem B. 2011 Sep 22;115(37):10957-10966. Epub 2011 Aug 30. PubMed PMID: 21812485;
PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3189405.
3: Mason PE, Lerbret A, Saboungi ML, Neilson GW, Dempsey CE, Brady JW. Glucose
interactions with a model peptide. Proteins. 2011 Jul;79(7):2224-32. doi:
10.1002/prot.23047. Epub 2011 May 13. PubMed PMID: 21574187; PubMed Central
PMCID: PMC3171503.
4: Tavagnacco L, Mason PE, Schnupf U, Pitici F, Zhong L, Himmel ME, Crowley M,
Cesàro A, Brady JW. Sugar-binding sites on the surface of the
carbohydrate-binding module of CBH I from Trichoderma reesei. Carbohydr Res. 2011
May 1;346(6):839-46. Epub 2011 Jan 23. PubMed PMID: 21377658.
5: Dempsey CE, Mason PE, Jungwirth P. Complex ion effects on polypeptide
conformational stability: chloride and sulfate salts of guanidinium and
tetrapropylammonium. J Am Chem Soc. 2011 May 18;133(19):7300-3. Epub 2011 Apr 26.
PubMed PMID: 21520945.
6: Mason PE. Molecular dynamics study on the microscopic details of the
evaporation of water. J Phys Chem A. 2011 Jun 16;115(23):6054-8. Epub 2011 Feb
15. PubMed PMID: 21322537.
7: Lerbret A, Lelong G, Mason PE, Saboungi ML, Brady JW. Molecular dynamics and
neutron scattering study of glucose solutions confined in MCM-41. J Phys Chem B.
2011 Feb 10;115(5):910-8. Epub 2011 Jan 10. PubMed PMID: 21214282; PubMed Central
PMCID: PMC3033472.
8: Mason PE, Heyda J, Fischer HE, Jungwirth P. Specific interactions of ammonium
functionalities in amino acids with aqueous fluoride and iodide. J Phys Chem B.
2010 Nov 4;114(43):13853-60. PubMed PMID: 20939557.
9: Mason PE, Neilson GW, Dempsey CE, Price DL, Saboungi ML, Brady JW. Observation
of pyridine aggregation in aqueous solution using neutron scattering experiments
and MD simulations. J Phys Chem B. 2010 Apr 29;114(16):5412-9. PubMed PMID:
20369858; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3168782.
10: Heyda J, Mason PE, Jungwirth P. Attractive interactions between side chains
of histidine-histidine and histidine-arginine-based cationic dipeptides in water.
J Phys Chem B. 2010 Jul 8;114(26):8744-9. PubMed PMID: 20540588.
11: Mason PE, Dempsey CE, Neilson GW, Kline SR, Brady JW. Preferential
interactions of guanidinum ions with aromatic groups over aliphatic groups. J Am
Chem Soc. 2009 Nov 25;131(46):16689-96. PubMed PMID: 19874022; PubMed Central
PMCID: PMC2784182.
12: Lerbret A, Mason PE, Venable RM, Cesàro A, Saboungi ML, Pastor RW, Brady JW.
Molecular dynamics studies of the conformation of sorbitol. Carbohydr Res. 2009
Nov 2;344(16):2229-35. Epub 2009 Aug 8. PubMed PMID: 19744646; PubMed Central
PMCID: PMC2779705.
13: Mason PE, Dempsey CE, Vrbka L, Heyda J, Brady JW, Jungwirth P. Specificity of
ion-protein interactions: complementary and competitive effects of
tetrapropylammonium, guanidinium, sulfate, and chloride ions. J Phys Chem B. 2009
Mar 12;113(10):3227-34. PubMed PMID: 19708168.
14: Vondrásek J, Mason PE, Heyda J, Collins KD, Jungwirth P. The molecular origin
of like-charge arginine-arginine pairing in water. J Phys Chem B. 2009 Jul
9;113(27):9041-5. PubMed PMID: 19354258.
15: Mason PE, Schildt DC, Strein TG. In-capillary determination of creatinine
with electrophoretically mediated microanalysis: characterization of the effects
of reagent zone and buffer conditions. J Chromatogr A. 2009 Jan 2;1216(1):154-8.
Epub 2008 Nov 19. PubMed PMID: 19046749; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2657084.
16: Mason PE, Ansell S, Neilson GW, Brady JW. Be2+ hydration in concentrated
aqueous solutions of BeCl2. J Phys Chem B. 2008 Feb 21;112(7):1935-9. Epub 2008
Jan 25. PubMed PMID: 18217749.
17: Dempsey CE, Mason PE, Brady JW, Neilson GW. The reversal by sulfate of the
denaturant activity of guanidinium. J Am Chem Soc. 2007 Dec 26;129(51):15895-902.
Epub 2007 Dec 4. PubMed PMID: 18052164.
18: Mason PE, Brady JW. "Tetrahedrality" and the relationship between collective
structure and radial distribution functions in liquid water. J Phys Chem B. 2007
May 24;111(20):5669-79. Epub 2007 May 1. PubMed PMID: 17469865.
19: Mason PE, Brady JW, Neilson GW, Dempsey CE. The interaction of guanidinium
ions with a model peptide. Biophys J. 2007 Jul 1;93(1):L04-6. Epub 2007 Apr 20.
PubMed PMID: 17449674; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1914420.
20: Mason PE, Neilson GW, Enderby JE, Saboungi ML, Cuello G, Brady JW. Neutron
diffraction and simulation studies of the exocyclic hydroxymethyl conformation of
glucose. J Chem Phys. 2006 Dec 14;125(22):224505. PubMed PMID: 17176147.
21: Mason PE, Neilson GW, Dempsey CE, Brady JW. Neutron diffraction and
simulation studies of CsNO3 and Cs2CO3 solutions. J Am Chem Soc. 2006 Nov
29;128(47):15136-44. PubMed PMID: 17117865.
22: Mason PE, Ansell S, Neilson GW. Neutron diffraction studies of electrolytes
in null water: a direct determination of the first hydration zone of ions. J Phys
Condens Matter. 2006 Sep 20;18(37):8437-47. Epub 2006 Aug 30. PubMed PMID:
21690899.
23: Mason PE, Neilson GW, Enderby JE, Saboungi ML, Brady JW. Structure of aqueous
glucose solutions as determined by neutron diffraction with isotopic substitution
experiments and molecular dynamics calculations. J Phys Chem B. 2005 Jul
14;109(27):13104-11. PubMed PMID: 16852630.
24: Mason PE, Neilson GW, Kline SR, Dempsey CE, Brady JW. Nanometer-scale ion
aggregates in aqueous electrolyte solutions: guanidinium carbonate. J Phys Chem
B. 2006 Jul 13;110(27):13477-83. PubMed PMID: 16821873.
25: Ansell S, Barnes AC, Mason PE, Neilson GW, Ramos S. X-ray and neutron
scattering studies of the hydration structure of alkali ions in concentrated
aqueous solutions. Biophys Chem. 2006 Dec 1;124(3):171-9. Epub 2006 May 11.
PubMed PMID: 16815625.
26: Dempsey CE, Mason PE. Insight into indole interactions from alkali metal
chloride effects on a tryptophan zipper beta-hairpin peptide. J Am Chem Soc. 2006
Mar 8;128(9):2762-3. PubMed PMID: 16506730.
27: Mason PE, Neilson GW, Enderby JE, Saboungi ML, Brady JW. Determination of a
hydroxyl conformation in aqueous xylose using neutron scattering and molecular
dynamics. J Phys Chem B. 2006 Feb 23;110(7):2981-3. PubMed PMID: 16494297.
28: Mason PE, Dempsey CE, Neilson GW, Brady JW. Nanometer-scale ion aggregates in
aqueous electrolyte solutions: guanidinium sulfate and guanidinium thiocyanate. J
Phys Chem B. 2005 Dec 22;109(50):24185-96. PubMed PMID: 16375411.
29: Matthews JF, Skopec CE, Mason PE, Zuccato P, Torget RW, Sugiyama J, Himmel
ME, Brady JW. Computer simulation studies of microcrystalline cellulose Ibeta.
Carbohydr Res. 2006 Jan 16;341(1):138-52. Epub 2005 Nov 17. PubMed PMID:
16297893.
30: Salmon PS, Martin RA, Mason PE, Cuello GJ. Topological versus chemical
ordering in network glasses at intermediate and extended length scales. Nature.
2005 May 5;435(7038):75-8. PubMed PMID: 15875017.
31: Huang F, Switek KA, Zakharov LN, Fronczek FR, Slebodnick C, Lam M, Golen JA,
Bryant WS, Mason PE, Rheingold AL, Ashraf-Khorassani M, Gibson HW.
Bis(m-phenylene)-32-crown-10-based cryptands, powerful hosts for paraquat
derivatives. J Org Chem. 2005 Apr 15;70(8):3231-41. PubMed PMID: 15822986.
32: Dempsey CE, Piggot TJ, Mason PE. Dissecting contributions to the denaturant
sensitivities of proteins. Biochemistry. 2005 Jan 18;44(2):775-81. PubMed PMID:
15641805.
33: Mason PE, Neilson GW, Enderby JE, Saboungi ML, Dempsey CE, MacKerell AD Jr,
Brady JW. The structure of aqueous guanidinium chloride solutions. J Am Chem Soc.
2004 Sep 22;126(37):11462-70. PubMed PMID: 15366892.
34: Mason PE, Neilson GW, Dempsey CE, Barnes AC, Cruickshank JM. The hydration
structure of guanidinium and thiocyanate ions: implications for protein stability
in aqueous solution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Apr 15;100(8):4557-61. Epub
2003 Apr 8. PubMed PMID: 12684536; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC404697.

Just paste the text into a reader and enlarge. It is too long to post full size. Even though most of his work is done in organic chemistry fields, I would think that this qualifies him as an expert in the use of basic scientific tools to analyze pseudoscience?

[Noradin]

Because someone in a position to fund it thought it was an idea worth investigating. And it was. Yes, it had obvious faults, but you don't know if you can actually overcome them unless you actually fucking try. You know, as opposed to whining on a random outdated gaming forum acting like you're some kind of scientific/business genius. Which you're not, by the way. Just in case that was too hard for you to figure out. (Hint: If you sit around whining and bitching for 13,104 posts on a random outdated gaming forum, you're not anyone worth anything anywhere.)

If you sopposedly read all 13k of them what does that make you? xD

[cubby]

Empty words.

Let's see the statements:

If your idea of an adult conversation is posting links and then protesting when someone reads the links and contradicts your statement with the contents of the same links, then I prefer to leave that to people more versed in your adult businesses.

So those links said nothing was under construction? Really, you want to die on that hill right now? Ok. Those links and others show what I have claimed. You added to my claim and then said those links don't agree with your addition. If you want even more evidence from me, just ask. The link I provided for the entire google search is replete with evidence to back my claims.

You still haven't posted a single thing - NOT ONE THING - backing any of your claims.

Who's the bad faith poster again? You. If you want to disagree with the science, have at it, but don't make these juvenille arguments - they're just silly, and make your other, legitimate arguments, suffer.

Here is the google search I used to find the multiple companies and countries that are currently moving forward with hyperloop projects. Have at it.

From another poster, and I verified that it seems consistent with thermal expansion coefficients for metals and reasonable temperature variations (about 11 parts per million and K).

Interesting. If what you and other posters are claiming is true, they certainly have their work cut out for them. Not to beat a dead horse, but are you seeing any other information out there, link/cites/anything that backs this up - that says hyperloop tech won't work. Someone else besides the Thunder guy.

[Noradin]

You gotta love these hater personality cults that just have to prove somehow Musk isn't right his fourth go around on a major idea. I agree with what you said above completely.

Are we back to this kind of discussion?
Really, you disappoint me.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is the Google search I'm using to bring up the articles I'm posting to back up my claims. Please feel free to either sift through those and find contrary data or do your own search.

Google search links are useless for others, make a snapshot and paste it into some file or use a search engine that does not utilize meta data.

[cubby]

/snip

Are those videos from the same guy? The one I asked you to provide other sources to back up his claim?

Why can't you find a single scientific paper or government study to link saying hyperloop tech won't work? It's beyond ridiculous that you can go on and on for pages in a forum without doing the one thing I've asked you to do this entire time. Find a second source that backs the claim that hyperloop tech won't work.

Why is that so difficult?

[Burgerberg]

Interesting. If what you and other posters are claiming is true, they certainly have their work cut out for them. Not to beat a dead horse, but are you seeing any other information out there, link/cites/anything that backs this up - that says hyperloop tech won't work. Someone else besides the Thunder guy.

You're an idiot. Your links contradict you (like when you claimed that something's under construction in the UAE, but hasn't even started yet), you potshot a chemical scientist and call him a "cellar dweller" because he dismisses Musk's Hyperloop idea and now you're asking for papers to "back up" something scientifically fundamental when "Thunder guy" pretty much nails it verbatim.

Okay next time when I say the sky is blue, I'll be sure to post a scientific paper to "prove" it to you.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Surely having the tube move that much on the pylons on daily basis isn't a problem, right?
And surely train tracks do it the same way, and don't have a problem with thermal expansion, right - and there are no "sun kinks".

That is also under the (completely wrong) assumption that all metal parts heat up at the same rate. In reality the top will heat up first, which is why the whole thing would start to buckle up, unless you use rings as bearings, then you just have to deal with the incredible stress to the material.

The best part is how his apostels come up with worse and worse solutions to fix the basic idea, among them the underground attempt, which after some round-abouts finally lead to this new thing called a tunnel or the idea to use the already failed MagLev tech.

[cubby]

Are we back to this kind of discussion?
Really, you disappoint me.

Yep, same people, not able to link any article or study or anything except one guy who says it won't work. He certainly seems to be well credentialed, finally got that info from them, but otherwise it's nothing but talk. Meanwhile I've linked a dozen articles showing that multiple governments and companies are moving forward with various hyperloop projects.

It's certainly disappointing. Just not in the way you think.

Google search is useless for others, make a snapshot and paste it into some file or use a search engine that does not utilize meta data.

How many article links do I have to provide while others provide ZERO?

[Forogil]

So those links said nothing was under construction?

One was stating that it was 1km test-track (i.e. not a construction of real hyperloop), and the other that construction should start in Q3 in 2019.

Or in summary: no real hyperloop tracks under construction - based on the links you gave.
Similarly your newest link wasn't even about a hyperloop, but just a boring tunnel - and it wasn't even under construction.

Really, you want to die on that hill right now?

I have no desire to die on a hill - or risk my life using a hyperloop transportation system.

Ok. Those links and others show what I have claimed.

They don't by any reasonable imagination.
That's why you protested when I claimed that it was a test-track and that construction hasn't started, since it isn't Q3 yet.

- - - Updated - - -

How many article links do I have to provide while others provide ZERO?

One article that actually supports your claim would be a start.

So far you have provided three articles that contradict your statements.

[cubby]

You're an idiot. Your links contradict you (like when you claimed that something's under construction in the UAE, but hasn't even started yet), you potshot a chemical scientist and call him a "cellar dweller" because he dismisses Musk's Hyperloop idea and now you're asking for papers to "back up" something scientifically fundamental when "Thunder guy" pretty much nails it verbatim.

Okay next time when I say the sky is blue, I'll be sure to post a scientific paper to "prove" it to you.

Ah - excellent, the final stages of losing what should be an easy discussion. Personal attacks. Fabulous. Do you win all your discussions this way?

This has been my claim from the beginning:

1. Youtube video not a good source. Find me something else that agrees. (it's reasonable to ask for more than one source, right?)
2. Countries and companies across the globe are moving forward with hyperloop projects in one form or another, at various stages of construction.

No one as of yet has linked anything that backs up their claims, except for me. How many articles do you want me to link showing 1. is correct? Give me a number.

Now, I just want ONE other source saying hyperloop tech won't work. Just one. And no one here can do that. Isn't that weird? If Thunderbutt is so RIGHT, why can't you guys prove it? So weird.

[Burgerberg]

He certainly seems to be well credentialed, finally got that info from them, but otherwise it's nothing but talk.

Something which you could have easily got yourself if you were that curious. Perhaps you should have thought of that first before dismissing him in such an arrogant and condescending way. Parent's basement, "scientist", etc ... he's definitely made an utter fool of you indirectly here.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah - excellent, the final stages of losing what should be an easy discussion. Personal attacks. Fabulous. Do you win all your discussions this way?

This has been my claim from the beginning:

1. Youtube video not a good source. Find me something else that agrees. (it's reasonable to ask for more than one source, right?)
2. Countries and companies across the globe are moving forward with hyperloop projects in one form or another, at various stages of construction.

No one as of yet has linked anything that backs up their claims, except for me. How many articles do you want me to link showing 1. is correct? Give me a number.

Now, I just want ONE other source saying hyperloop tech won't work. Just one. And no one here can do that. Isn't that weird? If Thunderbutt is so RIGHT, why can't you guys prove it? So weird.

Losing? Hahaha. You are arguing on three fronts, no, four.

1) I don't need another source if the first one is sufficient enough to put this argument to bed. It's not compulsory to give you another in that instance.

2) I am still yet to get anything showing ANY country building a vacuum chamber hundreds of miles long. "Moving forward" - a meaningless buzzword that doesn't answer the question.

Oh, you sure have linked alright, only it backfired on you when it said they haven't started construction yet, when YOU stated numerous times that they did. Yet another lie.

[Noradin]

How many article links do I have to provide while others provide ZERO?

Your own links contradict you, those others can use them against you. No need for extras.