I don't think that qualifies as 'HyperLoop' even if they keep the name. It's like building an airplane except you use it underwater, sorry that's a sub.
That said, it suggests that the HyperLoop concept is not viable which is not that surprising IMO. However, it might also just be a case of lower R&D costs.
Yeah, you'll note that even Elon Musk hasn't mentioned the Hyperloop (as far as I've heard) since he sent out a press release and a back-of-the-napkin drawing.
A small-scale prototype wouldn't cost that much, surely?
This isn't Elon's Hyperloop for those wondering. The term Hyperloop's been misappropriated and applied to different technology to piggyback on the hype Elon caused.
I know it's a cynical point of view, but IMO these companies working on Hyperloop is akin to Hooli building inside out compression. I don't think it's going to work.
That video doesn't talk about the Hyperloop at all. You're getting the Boring Company's Loop mixed up with the Hyperloop, which despite the similar-sounding names have close to no relation.
Is there a point to this besides pedantry? My actual point is that the Hyperloop is something new, not just a rebranding of previous evacuated tube systems. If you have something to dispute that point, then by all means go ahead, but if you just want to quibble over me being insufficiently specific in my explanations then I'll let it be.
yes, but unfortunately that is an exacting definition of the hyperloop compared to a device which actually was made and used regadless of it's commercial success and failings. The other IS snake oil.
Hyperloop feels a lot like supersonic, vactrain, maglev PRT--which is to say, 4 technologies that have all ended up miserably failing.
It's worth noting that the skepticism involved is not in any way displaced by the recent test. The major problems with Hyperloop boil down to:
1. High-speed switching, necessary to expand more than single-city pairs
2. Ability of the loop to maintain tolerances and structural integrity after weather and seismic considerations (particularly CA!) take their toll
3. Right-of-way feasibility, both in terms of cost-effective land acquisition and in terms of curve radii tolerances (note that even 300 km/h HSR systems in practice often have effective speed limits lower than that on much of the track)
4. The ability to get safety certifications--and the implications that would have on headways and consequently passenger throughput
5. Ability to maintain the necessary pressurization of such a long pneumatic tube
6. The cost/benefit of hyperloop relative to other technologies (like conventional HSR, maglev, even highways and airports).
The way that the company seems to be shrugging off all of these questions is not a good sign.
This article never even mentions the fundamental attributes of the proposed Hyperloop. Hyperloop is not magnetic levitation. Hyperloop is not a vacuum tube.
It's a low pressure air ski. It is meant to be substantially easier to engineer than the tolerances required for something like maglev in a vacuum tube. Whether that will be true hasn't been shown.
But Hyperloop is not maglev, it's not a hard vacuum, and it's not necessarily supposed to be superior to maglev in vacuum tube, except that it is meant to be cheaper.
That said, it suggests that the HyperLoop concept is not viable which is not that surprising IMO. However, it might also just be a case of lower R&D costs.
reply