PLAYA VISTA (CBSLA.com) — It takes about six hours to drive from Los Angeles to San Francisco – depending on your speed – and more than an hour to fly.
But in the future, the trip may take a matter of minutes.
Designers of the speed tube called Hyperloop say they are one step closer to making that happen.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/12/17/la-to-san-fran-in-5-minutes-hyperloop-ceo-says-speed-tube-could-become-reality/
Surface, but no mention of flange on rail. Controlled nuclear fusion not mentioned. Solar powered.
It sounds too good to be true.
Victrola1It sounds too good to be true...
"Only" 16 billion to connect LA and SF. And now solar power is the technology supposed to be 'too cheap to meter.' Unless I remember incorrectly, PRT at either end (at higher-yet infrastructure costs?)
Engineered by architecture students.
What could go wrong?
Wizlish Victrola1 It sounds too good to be true... "Only" 16 billion to connect LA and SF. And now solar power is the technology supposed to be 'too cheap to meter.' Unless I remember incorrectly, PRT at either end (at higher-yet infrastructure costs?) Engineered by architecture students. What could go wrong?
Victrola1 It sounds too good to be true...
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
The asthetic trumps the laws of Economics and Physics.
One thing to remember from the article:
"'They look at this like a blank sheet of paper on which they can realize their fantasies,' UCLA professor Craig Hodgetts said."
I thought I remembered a similar discussion some time ago & found it:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/743/t/216301.aspx
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington One thing to remember from the article: "'They look at this like a blank sheet of paper on which they can realize their fantasies,' UCLA professor Craig Hodgetts said." I thought I remembered a similar discussion some time ago & found it: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/743/t/216301.aspx
Johnny
YoHo1975LA to SF in 6 hours? There is no day nor time when that is possible....legally.
383 miles on the 5. 6 hours = average speed of 64 mph. Driving at 70 mph is hardly impossible.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Here's a different link. More explanation.
http://www.wired.com/2014/12/jumpstartfund-hyperloop-elon-musk/
I like ideas like this. It gives me a chance to ponder some of the math. At $60 billion to build, and $30 to ride, the first 533 million or so fares would be enough to just cost the construction cost, plus interest of course. The article says speeds up to 760 m.p.h. Isn't that breaking the sound barrier? To make the 383 mile trip in 30 minutes, you'd have to be going 760 m.p.h. for the entire distance. Or, since the speed would be 0 m.p.h. at each end, I suppose you could go an average of 760 m.p.h., if you hit 1520 m.p.h. at the middle of the trip. You would think that anyone considering investing in this scheme would be better at math than the folks proposing it.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
schlimm YoHo1975 LA to SF in 6 hours? There is no day nor time when that is possible....legally. 383 miles on the 5. 6 hours = average speed of 64 mph. Driving at 70 mph is hardly impossible.
YoHo1975 LA to SF in 6 hours? There is no day nor time when that is possible....legally.
The question you posed in the subject line has me intrigued... if there is no rail then it it "rail". I'd say no. But then if it is a single vehicle... is it a "train". I think maybe they are actually proposing a highspeed "BUS" that uses it own private "road".
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
WizlishEngineered by architecture students. What could go wrong?
That caught my ears, too.
It will look pretty! At best, it won't run. At worst, people die.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Murphy SidingThe article says speeds up to 760 m.p.h. Isn't that breaking the sound barrier?
The tube is going to be mostly evacuated, so the speed of sound will be much higher. (the lower the air density, the higher the speed of sound)
oltmanndMurphy SidingThe article says speeds up to 760 m.p.h. Isn't that breaking the sound barrier? The tube is going to be mostly evacuated, so the speed of sound will be much higher. (the lower the air density, the higher the speed of sound)
The speed of sound in air is virtually independent of pressure. It is much more dependent on temperature and humidity. Look up speed of sound in Wiki.
Murphy SidingTo make the 383 mile trip in 30 minutes, you'd have to be going 760 m.p.h. for the entire distance. Or, since the speed would be 0 m.p.h. at each end, I suppose you could go an average of 760 m.p.h.
Depends on the acceleration rate. Transit and trains count on no more than 0.1g (2-3 mph/sec). If you're all strapped in, maybe you could do a half g or better or so in the tube - lets call it 15 mph/sec - Corvette performance. It would take about a minute and 5 miles to get to 760 mph. So the total trip would be 31.5 minutes.
If you used 3 mph/sec, it would be four minutes and 25 miles to 760 mph. Total trip time would be less than 35 minutes.
As to the 382 mile drive, Google Map says the time would be 5 hr 28 min. to 5 hr 44. The speed limit varies, 65 - 70 mph. The only time I ever drove it, it took 3 hours, 55 minutes, including a 15 minute stop.
The group is still a long way from actually producing a working Hyperloop, but it's already made serious progress on how an eventual system might look. The group envisions three classes — economy, business and freight — with dozens of possible routes across the US. The group is also looking into improvements on the initial design. "In the initial white paper, air has the advantage that it's cheap, but it also has problems with control," says CEO Dirk Ahlborn. If another medium performs better in testing, it will be easy to switch. After initial financial projections, the cost for the trans-California route is expected to fall between $7 and $16 billion — a good deal higher than Musk's initial estimate of $6 billion, but still a bargain compared to existing rail projects. "The biggest thing for me is the price," says Ahlborn. "We know it's not going to cost $50 billion — we know we're in a range that works."
http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/18/7418387/the-slow-humble-return-of-the-hyperloop
schlimm http://www.wired.com/2014/12/jumpstartfund-hyperloop-elon-musk/ As to the 382 mile drive, Google Map says the time would be 5 hr 28 min. to 5 hr 44. The speed limit varies, 65 - 70 mph. The only time I ever drove it, it took 3 hours, 55 minutes, including a 15 minute stop.
LA TIMES, JUNE 11, 1972BEGIN ARTICLE QUOTE""L.A. to N.Y. in Half an Hour?10,000 - M.P.H. Tunnel Train Plan Developed
http://www.reptoids.com/Vault/Underground/LA2NYnHalfnHour.htm
This sounds much faster.
I dunno, I kind of like the idea of a supersonic bus. Really, what could go wrong? But there was a movie where a bus had to keep it's speed above 50, if it's speed dropped below 50 it would explode! I think the movie was called "The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down."
54light15 I dunno, I kind of like the idea of a supersonic bus. Really, what could go wrong? But there was a movie where a bus had to keep it's speed above 50, if it dropped below 50 it would explode! I think the movie was called "The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down."
I dunno, I kind of like the idea of a supersonic bus. Really, what could go wrong? But there was a movie where a bus had to keep it's speed above 50, if it dropped below 50 it would explode! I think the movie was called "The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down."
The movie was "Speed".
And then there's this: HSB
Victrola1 LA TIMES, JUNE 11, 1972BEGIN ARTICLE QUOTE""L.A. to N.Y. in Half an Hour?10,000 - M.P.H. Tunnel Train Plan Developed http://www.reptoids.com/Vault/Underground/LA2NYnHalfnHour.htm This sounds much faster.
There's a section in there "Breaking Generates Power" . Ouch!
Did trolley cars use regenerative breaking?
But how many years and trillions of dollars would it cost to build such a system? Tunneling under the Mississippi and other major waterways, and the Rocky Mountains?
oltmannd Victrola1 LA TIMES, JUNE 11, 1972BEGIN ARTICLE QUOTE""L.A. to N.Y. in Half an Hour?10,000 - M.P.H. Tunnel Train Plan Developed http://www.reptoids.com/Vault/Underground/LA2NYnHalfnHour.htm This sounds much faster. There's a section in there "Breaking Generates Power" . Ouch!
I could almost understand it if it were "regenerative BRAKING", but how to you generate power from "BREAKING" the train? Maybe they are spliting an atom or two in the process of BREAKING the train?
Semper Vaporo oltmannd Victrola1 LA TIMES, JUNE 11, 1972BEGIN ARTICLE QUOTE""L.A. to N.Y. in Half an Hour?10,000 - M.P.H. Tunnel Train Plan Developed http://www.reptoids.com/Vault/Underground/LA2NYnHalfnHour.htm This sounds much faster. There's a section in there "Breaking Generates Power" . Ouch! I could almost understand it if it were "regenerative BRAKING", but how to you generate power from "BREAKING" the train? Maybe they are spliting an atom or two in the process of BREAKING the train?
Murphy Siding382 miles in 220 minutes is 1.737 miles per minute, or 104.22 m.p.h. !That's 104.22 m.p.h. average, not taking into account acceleration, deceleration, and the speed of sound / air density factors
Many trains (hourly, as I recall) run non-stop from Hamburg to the Berlin Spandau station: 178 miles in 90 minutes, 118 mph. No big deal on a modern system.
Murphy Siding382 miles in 220 minutes is 1.737 miles per minute, or 104.22 m.p.h.
That's interesting. But have you noticed that, unless you are using some very unusual conversion factor, your "220 minutes" are not equal to the 5hr 28min to 5hr 44min that schlimm quoted?
The lower time figure works out to just what I'd expect: call it 70mph within the bounds of rounding errors.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.