### Recent Blue Posts

14 hours ago

Yesterday

Yesterday

Yesterday

Yesterday

Yesterday

Yesterday

#### FEEDBACK: Mythic Eye of the Jailer - 14 May 2021

Go to Blue Tracker »

### Recent Forum Posts

09:12 AM

09:12 AM

09:10 AM

09:08 AM

09:07 AM

08:58 AM

08:56 AM

#### Sanguine/Grievous nightmare

Go to Forums » Forum Filters

# Thread: Virgin Hyperloop's Historic Pod is Going to the Smithsonian

1. Originally Posted by Magical Mudcrab
Yeah, nevermind that part, I snipped it in my post. For whatever reason I was thinking G force was a function of speed, not acceleration.
It's a goddamn banner day in hell when I'm right about a math or physics issue. I was rather shocked by how fast a vehicle can get up to considerable speed with almost nil effect on normal passengers.

It's not practical now, but it could be down the road (mind you, I wouldn't put my own money on that, of course ).

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Edge-
Huh, seeing flights scheduled for 1H20/30M but having made that flight far too many times over the years I don't remember it ever being over an hour. That's likely including taxying etc I guess?
Yeah, I've done the Portland/Seattle to LA route numerous times, and it's rarely over 2h - so that flight has to be half. Doesn't matter - it's relatively short, I think we can both agree on that.

Theoretically fairly easy*

Last I saw the fastest they got one going is 240mph, so they're still in the realm of current high-speed rail, and below what more recent trains are capable of (300mph+)
I'm just covering the math itself - the acceleration and deceleration. Seems like you can get up to 700mph+ in under 5 minutes with nil effect on passengers (0.09G seems like almost nothing). Even 700mph in 1 minute is just 0.53G force.

I'm not thinkin folks are gonna be blasted back into their seats or anything. Just dealing with the acceleration/deceleration slowing down the travel time since it's not running at its theoretical full speed from start to finish.
Agreed - but looking at the math, they can get up to 700mph in under 5 minutes will nil effect on passengers. That seems to negate that issue almost entirely. I might be missing something of course, math/physics are NOT my specialty).

2. Originally Posted by cubby
It's a goddamn banner day in hell when I'm right about a math or physics issue. I was rather shocked by how fast a vehicle can get up to considerable speed with almost nil effect on normal passengers.
Haha, yeah, I understand that feeling. Immediately after posting I just thought: Wait... commercial air liners go about 600 mph and there are no issues... I've made a fundamental mistake here. But yeah, the acceleration shouldn't be an issue.

3. Originally Posted by cubby
I'm just covering the math itself - the acceleration and deceleration. Seems like you can get up to 700mph+ in under 5 minutes with nil effect on passengers (0.09G seems like almost nothing). Even 700mph in 1 minute is just 0.53G force.
Woah nice, that seemed unrealistic when I first read it but now that I think about it it does make perfect sense. People can accelerate to 70mph in a car in 6 seconds without any harmful G forces so 700mph in a minute sounds about right.

4. Originally Posted by cubby
The larger issue there is people living 2+ hours away from major metropolis' who still have to commute into work. The Hyperloop (and/or other rapid transportation systems) solves the 5+ hour commute (2H each way, plus ancillary transport from the bigger hub - i.e. train to downtown, then bus/Link to office) by making the 4 hour both commute each day down to 30 minutes. I believe that is what @Zuben was suggesting.

- - - Updated - - -

I have to agree with you on that one - even major contracts requiring "wet" signatures are moving to digital. Everything else was there 10 years ago. DocuSign and other similar companies have pretty much put the legal document courier business to bed.
Live closer to work? build buildings? both cheaper and sensible than trying to build out expensive infrastructure to just move around people from far away who don't need to live far away.

5. Originally Posted by Themius
Live closer to work?
Not remotely practical for huge numbers of folks who live in big cities and can't afford to live there.

Originally Posted by Themius
build buildings?
Good getting non-city funded affordable housing built unless it's a handful of units in a luxury apartment so they can get a tax rebate. Oh, and if you live in those units you can't use the main entrance because you're poor lawl.

Originally Posted by Themius
both cheaper and sensible than trying to build out expensive infrastructure to just move around people from far away who don't need to live far away.
Agree on the expensive part, but urban density can only go so far, especially without massive redevelopment in cities that would dislocate tens/hundreds of thousands and erase a lot of history.

Also, not exactly cheap to build massive new housing developments in a city.

Longer commutes are gonna be a thing for quite some time to come, so we should probably plan around it. Has the added benefit of being a general transportation system for things like tourism (as does any rail system).

6. Originally Posted by Edge-
Not remotely practical for huge numbers of folks who live in big cities and can't afford to live there.

Good getting non-city funded affordable housing built unless it's a handful of units in a luxury apartment so they can get a tax rebate. Oh, and if you live in those units you can't use the main entrance because you're poor lawl.

Agree on the expensive part, but urban density can only go so far, especially without massive redevelopment in cities that would dislocate tens/hundreds of thousands and erase a lot of history.

Also, not exactly cheap to build massive new housing developments in a city.

Longer commutes are gonna be a thing for quite some time to come, so we should probably plan around it. Has the added benefit of being a general transportation system for things like tourism (as does any rail system).
It isn't practical because most new constructions are luxury instead of affordable and wages are stagnated compared to income. Building buildings is relatively cheap.

For instance a building to house some 6k people or more can cost about 30m-70m. We spend way more than that on arrest and incarcerating homeless people for petty shit.

7. Originally Posted by Themius
Building buildings is relatively cheap.
No it's bloody not - https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...e-14888205.php

It's still expensive as shit, even when you don't factor in land prices.

Originally Posted by Themius
For instance a building to house some 6k people or more can cost about 30m-70m. We spend way more than that on arrest and incarcerating homeless people for petty shit.
Do you have an example of this in mind? Because that sounds pretty sketchy, though I'm no architect/construction guy so what do I know.

8. Originally Posted by Edge-
No it's bloody not - https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...e-14888205.php

It's still expensive as shit, even when you don't factor in land prices.

Do you have an example of this in mind? Because that sounds pretty sketchy, though I'm no architect/construction guy so what do I know.
I’m going by nj new construction prices. 3-5 story buildings capable of housing roughly 3000 recently sold for 75mn. Was built for 40mn before being sold. Obviously is the government put that “lock homeless people up” money into construction... we could easily solve the problem.

Nj and less than 10 miles away from New York City so very close to the city.

Edit:
Actually 3k

But it was a luxury construction as most new constructions are. I’m sure it could be easily made to accommodate twice as many if not for that.

9. Originally Posted by cubby
I guess it depends on where you live. The math is pretty clear though - especially on Hyperloop station to city, that time would be cut down dramatically. 15-20 minutes max, if it's used that way. Tell me what you're thinking here, I feel like I'm missing something with what you're saying.
Yes, you are missing a lot.

Originally Posted by cubby
Let's assume they can deliver on their speeds, and their top speed is possible. Where are you getting 5 G's of force at 700 mph? Once you achieve the speed, there is no G force - G's come from acceleration, not cruising speed. And accelerating to 700 mph, starting at 0 mph, can be achieved in under 5 minutes at 0.09 G's. What am I missing here?
That many commuter trains stop more often than every 5 minutes to pick up commuters - and thus the top-speed don't matter if there's not enough time to reach it; and you do that because people need to get on and off at different places.

Therefore Hyperloop will not reduce the part about getting to a central hub.
(And technically speed does cause G-forces, when the train turns, which mean that at the hyped speed the curves will have radius of perhaps 8km to have comfortable acceleration.)

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by PC2
Woah nice, that seemed unrealistic when I first read it but now that I think about it it does make perfect sense. People can accelerate to 70mph in a car in 6 seconds without any harmful G forces so 700mph in a minute sounds about right.
There's a difference between "harmful" and unpleasant.
Current trains allow you to work/watch movies/read on the trains and doing that when accelerating (or worse decelerating) too fast doesn't seem pleasant.

10. Originally Posted by cubby
(this is meant in all kindness, without sarcasm - in case it sounds - just fyi)
So help me out here, you seem to be disagreeing with my premise, but he last line in your post seems to be saying the opposite, that you agree with me. I am guessing that english is not your first language, and I'm not criticizing you at all here, but did you mean for your last sentence to end: "...doesn't mean it's not nonsense."? Bolded/underlined added by me.

I'm going on the premise that's what you meant - apologies ahead of time if you did not.
Oops you are right, of course, i forgot the "not" and that totally invalidated my statement.
I've edited the post.

11. Originally Posted by Magical Mudcrab
This sort of transportation problem can be solved with a maglev train (or hell, even simple high speed trains) if there was any real intent to solve it; however, the hyperloop is not meant to actually be a solution to a problem. It's a solution without a reasonable problem statement. Maglev trains are larger (allowing them to accommodate more passengers), faster, and cheaper than the hyperloop, as well as being well understood technologies that do not need to need to undergo the growing pains that new technologies have to (i.e.: missed considerations, such as poorly understood points of failure in the system). The hyperloop is really only designed for technophiles to drool over it while ignoring the problems with the technology.
Maglev's another piece of delicious technology, but it puzzles me that you don't see that many of them around. I think there's one in Germany and that's about it for Europe? Here in Finland there's been decades worth of political intent to make a fast train line from Turku to Helsinki, cutting the 2 hour commute down to 1h 15min (though promoted as "one hour train"). We already have a line that takes the mentioned 2 hours, rounding through some of the coastline towns on the way. Since there's willingness to put millions into a slightly faster connection I wonder why I haven't heard anyone suggest a maglev solution. Do winter conditions cause problems for it?

12. Originally Posted by Zuben
Maglev's another piece of delicious technology, but it puzzles me that you don't see that many of them around. I think there's one in Germany and that's about it for Europe? Here in Finland there's been decades worth of political intent to make a fast train line from Turku to Helsinki, cutting the 2 hour commute down to 1h 15min (though promoted as "one hour train"). We already have a line that takes the mentioned 2 hours, rounding through some of the coastline towns on the way. Since there's willingness to put millions into a slightly faster connection I wonder why I haven't heard anyone suggest a maglev solution. Do winter conditions cause problems for it?
As far as I'm aware the only problem with maglev trains is their cost, which is upwards of hundreds of millions of dollars per mile, though this depends on where it is being built. This means that you could build a maglev, but constructing entirely new highways is just cheaper and may be better at dealing with traffic problems (i.e.: a single maglev rail vs. new 4+lane highways and highway extensions to high traffic areas with money to spare). As it currently stands, the hyperloop looks as though it will cost about the same per mile, regardless of whether it surpasses the maglev's speed, meaning that it will still likely be incredibly uncommon.

13. Originally Posted by cubby
<snip rah rah Musk Haters Club>
Next time if you want to one-up someone with their posting history, at least put up a valid link.

Your replies to s_bushido and Themius prove my point quite clearly; when someone attacks the idea, you wave your hand in dismissal and just call them Musk Haters. That isn't an argument. It's being childish.

You haven't. Not once. You said it wasn't feasible - which is a different word, in case you're still so confused you don't understand simple english. I know it's tough to go back an look at your own posts, but when you figure it out, you'll see how wrong you've always been.
Now you're just nitpicking. You might've noticed the we, professor. Which means, simply put: multiple people have told you why the concept is not going to work given the engineering and economic problems that have been presented to you for the nth time.

14. Originally Posted by Zuben
Maglev's another piece of delicious technology, but it puzzles me that you don't see that many of them around. I think there's one in Germany and that's about it for Europe? Here in Finland there's been decades worth of political intent to make a fast train line from Turku to Helsinki, cutting the 2 hour commute down to 1h 15min (though promoted as "one hour train"). We already have a line that takes the mentioned 2 hours, rounding through some of the coastline towns on the way. Since there's willingness to put millions into a slightly faster connection I wonder why I haven't heard anyone suggest a maglev solution. Do winter conditions cause problems for it?
It seems so, but not that bad as Japan handles it in somewhat wintery conditions - the first link I found was
http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get...FULLTEXT01.pdf (after a confusing first page it is in English).

However, I guess cost is also relevant - the Japanese high speed trains have had billions of passengers and some lines have 400,000 passengers per day; which is double the population of Turku.

It also indicates something important - Maglev is getting faster:
In Japan some will run at least 500km/h in 2027 https://www.railway-technology.com/p...n-maglev-line/
In China some plan to have it 600km/h already in 2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China

15. Originally Posted by Forogil
Yes, you are missing a lot.
So much that you can't tell us?

That many commuter trains stop more often than every 5 minutes to pick up commuters - and thus the top-speed don't matter if there's not enough time to reach it; and you do that because people need to get on and off at different places.

Therefore Hyperloop will not reduce the part about getting to a central hub.
(And technically speed does cause G-forces, when the train turns, which mean that at the hyped speed the curves will have radius of perhaps 8km to have comfortable acceleration.)
It absolutely would reduce the time from home to central hub, because there would be fewest stops and faster travel. I'm talking about the time from being picked up at a station to getting "downtown".

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Forogil
It seems so, but not that bad as Japan handles it in somewhat wintery conditions - the first link I found was
http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get...FULLTEXT01.pdf (after a confusing first page it is in English).

However, I guess cost is also relevant - the Japanese high speed trains have had billions of passengers and some lines have 400,000 passengers per day; which is double the population of Turku.

It also indicates something important - Maglev is getting faster:
In Japan some will run at least 500km/h in 2027 https://www.railway-technology.com/p...n-maglev-line/
In China some plan to have it 600km/h already in 2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China
Maglev would be the obvious choice if Hyperloop doesn't work out. However, Hyperloop has two benefits - more than twice as fast, and it will take up a minimal above ground real estate.

Hyperloop will travel 700+ mph, which is almost twice as fast as the maglev record. The usefulness of that speed is obviously in debate.

Hyperloop won't take up real estate, because 99% of it will be underground, so all the traditional issues of building rail lines (or, in this case, Maglev lines), won't be an issue.

16. Originally Posted by cubby
However, Hyperloop has two benefits - more than twice as fast, and it will take up a minimal above ground real estate.
Theoretically twice as fast*

I know I harp about this, but it's kinda a key sticking point since thus far hyperloop experiments in non-real-world conditions haven't even reached half the theoretical speeds it's capable of.

Being underground isn't something unique to hyperloop though, you can run maglev and other traditional rail underground as well.

17. Originally Posted by Edge-
Theoretically twice as fast*

I know I harp about this, but it's kinda a key sticking point since thus far hyperloop experiments in non-real-world conditions haven't even reached half the theoretical speeds it's capable of.

Being underground isn't something unique to hyperloop though, you can run maglev and other traditional rail underground as well.
I wonder if Musk fanbois ever ride the BART from SFO to The City.

The underground sections must appear as magic from an advanced civilization.

Then if they're really brave. They stay aboard and ride to Oakland .... underneath the Bay!

18. Originally Posted by Milchshake
I wonder if Musk fanbois ever ride the BART from SFO to The City.

The underground sections must appear as magic from an advanced civilization.

Then if they're really brave. They stay aboard and ride to Oakland .... underneath the Bay!
FUN FACT! If you've ever ridden on BART and gone through the trans-bay tube from West Oakland -> SF, remember that horrid screeching sound right as it first enters that also pops up during turns?

That's in Dead Space. The audio team recorded it and used a lot of those sounds in the game - https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment...n-13530076.php

19. Originally Posted by cubby
So much that you can't tell us?
No. I told you in the next sentence. You should get your eyes fixed, rolling them that much cannot be good for you.

Originally Posted by cubby
It absolutely would reduce the time from home to central hub, because there would be fewest stops and faster travel. I'm talking about the time from being picked up at a station to getting "downtown".
And that time will likely not be reduced much since the Hyperloop lines are likely to just go from hub to hub for the reasons explained.
Thus you will have to get downtown the old fashioned way (car, train, tram, walking, or helicopter if you are a high-flyer).

Originally Posted by cubby
Maglev would be the obvious choice if Hyperloop doesn't work out. However, Hyperloop has two benefits - more than twice as fast, and it will take up a minimal above ground real estate.
Non-hyperloop trains can also run both on pylons and underground; so there's no advantage in terms of real estate use - unless hyperloop skips safety margins.
I'm a bit uncertain what makes people think that faster trains in vacuum would need less safety consideration than normal trains.

Originally Posted by cubby
Hyperloop will travel 700+ mph, which is almost twice as fast as the maglev record. The usefulness of that speed is obviously in debate.
You missed that China plans to have maglev running at 600 km/h in a few years (the current maglev record is 603 km/h), that's 372 mph, so Hyperloop if it happens won't be twice as fast. (Yes, here you write 'almost twice as fast' - a few lines above it was 'more than twice as fast'.)

Originally Posted by cubby
Hyperloop won't take up real estate, because 99% of it will be underground, so all the traditional issues of building rail lines (or, in this case, Maglev lines), won't be an issue.
Several Hyperloop projects disagree with your underground ambitions.
Maglev can also work in tunnels, and some well-known cities like London, New York, and Paris have commuter trains that mostly run underground.
You might have heard of them.

20. Originally Posted by Forogil
And that time will likely not be reduced much since the Hyperloop lines are likely to just go from hub to hub for the reasons explained.
Thus you will have to get downtown the old fashioned way (car, train, tram, walking, or helicopter if you are a high-flyer).
But they won't - there can be multiple stops, not just hub to hub, because acceleration and deceleration turns out to be a non factor. You can go from 0 to 700 mph in under 2 minutes with only 0.3G. You mentioned turns affecting the G's, but it would be negligible.

So, big picture - there parts in the commuter experience:
(1) home to suburb station: this will likely be increased, since Hyperloop stops won't be as frequent - possibly.
(2) suburb station to metropolis hub: significantly shorter (see math above). Acceleration and deceleration are a nonfactor in getting up to full [theoretical] speed.
(3) metropolis hub to office: no change.

The Hyperloop, as envisioned, will dramatically decrease the commuting time for people who currently experience 2+ hour one-way commutes.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•