mhornberger t1_j8edu4w wrote
Since his name will come up, let's clarify that Elon Musk did not invent the idea of a vactrain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain
That being said, I have no idea if the technology is there yet. And I don't think Thunderf00t is the last word on what will and won't work, in the larger scheme of things. Clarke's first law is relevant here:
>>When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
That YouTuber may not be elderly or a distinguished scientist, but someone saying something is impossible should not be taken as a blunt fact. Will we ever get vactrains? No idea. I hope so. Though I'm confident I won't see them deployed at any scale. And The Boring Co's Loop system is not a vactrain.
sonofeark t1_j8f0wki wrote
Really bad take. He doesn't say it's impossible. He just points out it's not as easy and feasible as some people say it is. He outlines some of the issues with the technology and so far he was 100% correct
Reddit-runner t1_j8h3b9w wrote
Remember when he made a video how nonsensical it is to land a rocket? No?
That's because he took the video down. Silently.
His take on Hyperloop only highlights his financially induced hate boner against Musk.
How many times in the video does he point out the rust on the tube? Like 5 times? Light rust. On a non-humanrated test track.
Also he points out again and again the problem of thermal expansion and that omega joints obviously can't work. So Hyperloop can't work.
But he is a nuclear physicist. So the knows that bellow joints exists. He just chose to deliberately mislead his audience.
cronedog t1_j8fcnrt wrote
It's not impossible, just a crap idea. It's like the countless idiots that want to use dehumidifiers to generate water from air for drinking purposes. It's not impossible, just a terrible idea that's way less efficient than all currently used ideas.
Positer t1_j8so3mi wrote
>countless idiots that want to use dehumidifiers to generate water from air for drinking purposes
​
You mean like the idiot professor who is one of the most highly cited professors in the world, and has won the 2020 royal society Chemistry award for exactly that invention?
https://chemistry.berkeley.edu/news/omar-yaghi-receives-2020-royal-society-chemistry-award
Get off youtube and watching thundermoron. It's not a serious source of science.
mhornberger t1_j8fgn8a wrote
> just a terrible idea that's way less efficient than all currently used ideas.
There are multiple metrics of efficiency. It certainly doesn't compete with mains water. But not all areas have available or reliable mains water. And for water being trucked in, some areas are reliant on corrupt 'water mafias.' Multiple militaries have bought products from various companies in this space. Sure, we can just go with the idea that all of these people, even DARPA, are just really stupid. Or maybe it does suit some use cases. For civilian use, it is priced to compete with bottled water, not with mains water.
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2021/04/water-from-fresh-air/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-watergen-helping-arizona-native-americans-make-water-from-air/
>>Watergen has deployed its machines in over 60 countries, both developing countries lacking water infrastructure, such as India and Uzbekistan, and in areas of developed countries suffering from drought, such as California.
cronedog t1_j8fjnsb wrote
> Sure, we can just go with the idea that all of these people, even DARPA, are just really stupid.
You think no funded research initiatives are stupid? Look at how many hundreds of millions were wasted on solar roadways. Pure science research has some benefit in itself, that doesn't mean the projects will be viable.
​
There are reasons these projects keep failing. Just believe hard enough and the self filling water bottle will be a good idea....:S
​
​
​
The first link doesn't paint all that rosy a picture of the idea. 1 liter of fuel for 5 liters of water.
Darpa and Berkely are just research projects. The article ends with the dude wondering if research will ever make them worthwhile.
​
and for the second link
>
The Watergen GEN-M generators produce up to 211 gallons (800 liters) of purified drinking water per day, depending on climate conditions. The Israeli startup will monitor the project’s effectiveness in the Hard Rock Community and evaluate whether it can be replicated elsewhere within the Navajo Nation.
What are the results? How effective is it to track in big machines and hundreds of gallons of fuel? Why can they ship hundreds of gallons of fuel to waste but can't just bring water from surrounding areas?
​
Corrupt water mafias can take control of water convoys but not giant stationary generators or the massive amount of fuel required to run the generators?
mhornberger t1_j8fkfk4 wrote
> Look at how many hundreds of millions were wasted on solar roadways.
Hundreds of millions? Where are you getting that number from? Even $100 million seems like it would be off by a factor of 10-20x.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Roadways
And these articles aren't about R&D projects, but about products already on the market. DARPA is also doing R&D, but that's just to push the industry forward, enable more improvement. These aren't "projects that keep failing," rather they're products that keep getting purchased and installed.
>Why can they ship hundreds of gallons of fuel to waste but can't just bring water from surrounding areas?
Or their electrical grid might be more robust than the water mains system. Or they may be using solar. Any number of reasons. That you personally think there are better options doesn't mean those buying them share your assessment. Is it really so impossible that some of these people are doing their due diligence before making the purchase decision?
cronedog t1_j8fo8dp wrote
>Hundreds of millions? Where are you getting that number from? Even $100 million seems like it would be off by a factor of 10-20x.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Roadways
Sorry. I wasn't clear. I didn't just mean solar roadways inc, the US company. I was referring to all the projects around the world where they try to stick solar panels on roadways.
​
>Or their electrical grid might be more robust than the water mains system. Or they may be using solar. Any number of reasons. That you personally think there are better options doesn't mean those buying them share your assessment. Is it really so impossible that some of these people are doing their due diligence before making the purchase decision?
Yes. If the people in charge had an understanding of physics they wouldn't waste their money. I don't know why people keep falling for theranos levels of con-artistry but they do.
Weltkaiser t1_j8hb43b wrote
As you refuse to use your own brain:
The more arid a region is, the less available free water there is in the air. If you let a dehumidifier run in the desert it will harvest pretty much nothing. Which makes this concept even less viable for the scenarios you are suggesting. And yes, also DARPA has high numbers of morons that buy into every snake oil working for them.
Riccma02 t1_j8g1rz2 wrote
>Since his name will come up, let's clarify that Elon Musk did not invent the idea of a vactrain.
No, some victorian era crackpot kook invented it. 150 years ago, all of these gadget-bahns were invented by some top-hatted jackass. He took all of his profits, from sending children to die in the mills, and put it all on his vision for the future. Then all of those ideas failed spectacularly and were left in the dustbin to die, until now; when the marvelous Mr. Musk comes along and decides to rebrand them as the future. Novelty is a brain poison.
lughnasadh OP t1_j8ehey4 wrote
>> I don't think Thunderf00t is the last word on what will and won't work
My take on Youtube debunkers is that if a person thinks a Youtuber is the last word on every single area of human knowledge & expertise, above and beyond everyone else in the field, perhaps a 101 course in critical thinking might be an idea.
A Chinese company is approaching the hyperloop idea with a partial vacuum and maglev trains. This seems an approach that might work. Total vacuums seem impractical to implement, but partial vacuums are much easier to engineer.
allenout t1_j8ez07g wrote
Maglev trains already exist though. Why do they need an expensive metal cage around them?
[deleted] t1_j8f1po5 wrote
Because maglevs aren't expensive enough. Got to develop the most expensive train possible.
remek t1_j8jvopm wrote
I am no expert on the topic nor do I defend Hyperloop but having a train going over 500km/h not enclosed in a metal tube makes me feel very uncomfortable for some reason. Perhaps if thing is supposed to go this fast I'd rather have it enclosed (or 10km above my head)
allenout t1_j8lw4g0 wrote
The point of the tube isn't protection, it is there to produce a vacuum.
humanitarianWarlord t1_j8ejwjc wrote
Normally I would agree but thunderf00ts video was pretty compelling and focused specifically on musks version of a hyperloop. Musks loop would never have worked and was frankly kind of insane from a safety and engineering point of view.
lughnasadh OP t1_j8em027 wrote
>>Musks loop
RIP to Musk's Hyperloop, its the past & its best to forget about it, and move on.
I'm especially intrigued by the Polish company Nevomo that is one of these 7. Their approach is mag lev trains on existing rail tracks, they say could achieve speeds of 550 kph (340 mph).
diskowmoskow t1_j8fzedz wrote
This could be huge.
mhornberger t1_j8ei4xr wrote
>Total vacuums seem impractical to implement, but partial vacuums are much easier to engineer.
Yes, people were always reading too much into the 'vac' part. It was always reduced air pressure, not hard vacuum on par with intergalactic space. The analysis is only slightly more substantive than the practice of forming fiercely-held opinions of books based just on their title, such as Dawkins' Selfish Gene or Krauss' A Universe From Nothing.
allenout t1_j8ezuc6 wrote
It's worth mentioning that the partial vacuum you are describing is actually 99% vacuum. Getting a true vacuum is impossible.
mhornberger t1_j8f1oif wrote
> actually 99% vacuum
I'm not sure what "99% vacuum" means in technical terms.
https://brilliant.org/wiki/hyperloop/
>>it is instead proposed that the Hyperloop tube operate at very low pressure: 100 Pascals, about 1/6 the pressure of the atmosphere of Mars [1]. This pressure is one thousand times less than atmospheric pressure at sea level and as a result air resistance is drastically decreased. After initial acceleration, Hyperloop pods can therefore mostly glide without applying any thrust until the deceleration at the end of the journey.
But I've read other proposals with higher, or variable, levels of pressure in the tubes.
https://hyperloopconnected.org/2019/02/variable-tube-pressure-a-new-concept/
The point was never to champion Musk's specific proposal. He didn't invent the idea of vactrains, and his white paper is just one paper.
allenout t1_j8g025f wrote
"Let's take expensive maglev and make it more expensive and dangerous by putting a tube around it so we came make a vacuum, but then let's not actually make a vacuum because that's only on 1 white paper".
king5327 t1_j8g3a59 wrote
A tunnel is a terrible place to have a train, on account of needing enough space around it to pass the air, else you enjoy a pressure bubble at the front of the train. But increasing the cross section of a vacuum tube is a non-negligible nerf to the effectiveness of the vacuum pumps, causing similar drag anyway.
This leads me to believe that even if the technology works perfectly, the numbers alone won't allow for the performance that was promised, unless at extraordinary expense in running the pumps.
Edit: Also, if there are any magnets at all on the car, or along the length of the tunnel, induction is going to be a surprise drag.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments