SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the just-wait-until-Apple-supplies-an-iPod dept.
We had submissions from two Soylentils on a recent high-speed demonstration by Hyperloop One.
Hyperloop One's Passenger Pod Takes its First Ride
Just weeks after Hyperloop One demonstrated a working, albeit slow, version of its levitating sled, the company has made another leap forward. This time around, the startup has successfully tested its XP-1 passenger pod, reaching speeds of up to 192 mph and levitating off the track as it accelerated.
XP-1 traveled for just over 300 meters before the brakes kicked in and it rolled to a gradual stop, hitting a top speed of 192 mph. That speed puts Hyperloop One's system a little bit ahead of Category 1 high-speed rail, which has a maximum running speed of 155mph, although it's not yet faster than Japan's bullet train.
Then again, Hyperloop One's plan is to push its pods at speeds closer to 750 mph, but that's clearly going to be tough to test in a tube that's just 500 meters long. But the milestones, slow and steady, are being met, and it's clearly a demonstration of the company's strength that it is developing its prototypes for real.
Source: https://www.engadget.com/2017/08/02/hyperloop-one-first-pod-xp1-test/
Hyperloop One Claims Successful 192mph Test
For the number nuts, such as himself, your humble editor (FP), in a freshly woken daze - and assuming 300 m of acceleration, 50 m of gliding, and 150 m of deceleration - has calculated that the acceleration was at 2.5G, and the deceleration was at 5.0G, which doesn't make breakfast seem such a good idea.
[NB: That contains a factor of 2 error, as pointed out below by a careful reader, my bad -- FP.]
Today Hyperloop One claimed that its demo pod reached 192mph (310 kph) on the 500m (1/3 mile) test track that the startup built outside of Las Vegas. Hyperloop One showed off that demo pod last month—it's basically an 8.7m (28.5 ft) carbon-fiber shell on a magnetically levitating chassis.
This test run follows on a "Phase 1" test that sent a bare-bones sled down the test track at 70mph. At the time, Hyperloop One had said Phase 2 would involve getting to 250mph, but in a recent press release, the startup said that the 192mph test run this month satisfied Phase 2 development goals. Ars has reached out to Hyperloop One for clarification, and we'll update when we receive a response.
Although no media were present, Hyperloop One claims that in this most recent test, its large pod "accelerated for 300 meters and glided above the track using magnetic levitation before braking and coming to a gradual stop."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @10:51AM (1 child)
I was eating a mustard BLT sandwich, hold the mayo, with the one hand while holding a closed can of diet Pepsi with the other.
Btw, I get car sick under a minute riding shotgun or the bus. Even gave up on multiple promising long commute jobs over this. Can't even fall asleep in airplanes and trains or I wake up blowing chunks... Weird, ha?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by inertnet on Thursday August 03 2017, @03:04PM
If you get carsick you should look outside at the horizon. Because the information that your eyes send to your brain should match the information that your equilibrium body sends. If they don't match you'll get sick.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @11:09AM (25 children)
Too bad it will never be built (maybe started but certainly never completed) for actual commercial/public use in the good 'ol US of A.
Not because it doesn't work, because cost of construction, regulatory hurdles, and the inevitable lawsuits will castrate this beast before it ever carries it's first commercial passenger.
Hell, LA could barely manage a functional street car system.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday August 03 2017, @11:54AM (8 children)
Have you ridden the NYC subway lately?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday August 03 2017, @12:04PM (2 children)
No, but I did watch The Warriors (1979) last night.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday August 03 2017, @12:09PM
Yea, It's gotten worse.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 03 2017, @10:08PM
And I dig it!
Brilliant one to turn into a drinking "game" (I hate that use of the term, there's no game involved), so many things to select as triggers.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday August 03 2017, @02:37PM (4 children)
Are you talking about the subway system in NYC that's currently in a "state of emergency" and has enormous delays and is basically falling apart? The NYC is a great example of US infrastructure: many many decades old, built when we could actually get stuff done, and still in use but falling apart due to lack up upkeep and upgrades and barely holding together, just waiting for a disaster to happen. The DC subway is another good example: it's plagued by problems and deadly crashes. I think they've been building (or "building") the extension to Dulles airport for 20 years now...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Thursday August 03 2017, @10:18PM (3 children)
Governments and getting things done are concepts that should not appear in the same sentence unless there is an odd number of negatives.
Bring back on topic - of course, hyperloop is not governmental, and therefore has an unimaginably higher chance of actually going somewhere. (Even if that somewhere is simply going nowhere but advancing a dozen closely related fields of engineering.)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @03:42AM (2 children)
So the Manhattan Project and the Apollo missions were non-Gov projects? Even the Nazi Gov got things done too.
The hyperloop is a big con-job. Do the math. Work out the safe minimum spacing between pods and how many of those pods they can have then you know how many passengers they can safely carry per hour. These has some old numbers, so replace them with the latest numbers as of 2017: https://ggwash.org/view/32078/musks-hyperloop-math-doesnt-add-up [ggwash.org]
Even if it works it'll be a expensive fancy ride for the rich that if you're unlucky ends up partially funded by your taxes. There's no way it's going to be cheaper per passenger than stuff like light rail. It'll be like Concorde vs 747. That vacuum stuff will be super-expensive to maintain especially in earthquake zones.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday August 04 2017, @07:05AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday August 04 2017, @02:27PM
Your argument doesn't make any sense at all. I haven't looked at your numbers, but when you compared Hyperloop to light-rail, that completely invalidated your argument. You can't use light-rail for intercity transport, and certainly not for regional transport; light-rail is for intracity transport only. Even if you did build it between cities, it's slow. Hyperloop is near the speed of sound; it's meant to compete with airplanes, not inexpensive local mass people-movers. It's not meant to be cheaper per passenger than light-rail, only regional airfare. Airplanes don't hold that many people either.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Thursday August 03 2017, @12:36PM (11 children)
I think it will. Musk knows how to pull strings. But only one line as a novelty tourist attraction over a flat bit of desert - how about to Las Vegas? Given its low capacity, the costs will be prohibitely high against building more lines elsewhere, let alone the regulatory problems. And Musk will get bored with it by then anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @01:01PM
how about to Las Vegas?
Not a bad a idea. A line from there to the Chicken Ranch would be very convenient.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday August 03 2017, @02:48PM (9 children)
Low capacity compared to what?
It's unlikely to compete with highways anytime soon, but that was never the goal.
On the other hand if it lives up to it's promise it will be considerably faster, more efficient, and higher-volume than airlines, and quite possibly higher volume than trains as well. Sure, each individual car will have low capacity, but you can move a *lot* more cars per hour than with passenger rail, especially in the US where passengers trains are typically second-class customers on rails dedicated to freight.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @04:08PM (3 children)
It's only faster than planes because of a limited number of people willing and able to pay. The Concorde was able to manage nearly double what the Hyperloop is aiming for and can be routed between arbitrary end points.
This is an idea that should have been killed years ago.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @04:18PM (1 child)
The Concorde has killed people. Hyperloop hasn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @07:07PM
Yet.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday August 03 2017, @05:30PM
The Concorde was also far less efficient, utterly unsuitable for shorter-range hops, and a major public nuisance (which is why it was artificially restricted to too few routes to be profitable). If anything comes of the NASA "quiet supersonic" initiative that aspect may change, but even if the efficiency improves in kind, it will still remain abysmal.
Meanwhile, the efficiency of Hyperloop derivatives may eventually exceed even that of trains (currently the most efficient form of transportation besides sailboats), is far more flexible on effective route length, and may easily outpace supersonic planes over extended straight stretches, such as crossing the great plains or going underground.
It remains to be seen if it can *deliver* on those promises, but the basic concept is over a century old - it's about time we gave it a shot.
Besides, it's not your money being spent, so what do you care? Ther will *always* be something better for other people to spend their money on, and most of the time it's spent on far worse pursuits.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @05:39PM (1 child)
wouldn't you have to have a mechanical arm pluck people from the cars by their heads? how is it going to be fast when these fat asses still have to enter and exit the pods? have you seen people doing anything? i guess you would have to have loading and unloading zones and enough extra pods to compensate for the slugs.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday August 03 2017, @05:47PM
You'll have to troll better than that.
Besides, the fact is that those small cars mean fewer people to deal with - and small groups of people can usually be shepherded more efficiently than large ones - think loading a roller coaster versus a subway. (Also, a lot of that problem seems to be American in nature - Japan for example has radically more efficient loading and unloading behavior.)
And once your car is loaded it doesn't matter how slow anyone else is - they'll be sitting on a siding while you zoom on past.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 03 2017, @10:24PM (2 children)
Illogic. You can't just stick an "are" there - what *can* be done is not necessarily what *is* done.
You *can* move people more efficiently (measured by a balance between person-kilometers per hour and person kilometers per unit cost, including externalities) using rail rather than cars. Were fuel to be free, your argument might be correct, but alas on planet realism that's not the case.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday August 04 2017, @02:03AM
... I'm not sure I understand your objection. To start with, my "are" was simply a comment on the reality of passenger rail in the US hat exacerbates the problem - a reality that's unlikely to change unless the federal government backpedals on some extremely lucrative and well-established railway-usage laws.
And to clarify, when I said "cars" I was intending to refer to "hyperloop cars". Obviously rail blows the socks off traditional cars in terms of efficiency. At this point I think it's premature to comment too extensively on how Hyperloop cars would compare to trains in terms of energy spent per passenger-mile - certainly they would be more responsive to varying demand, and friction losses would be radically lower. If it operates as planned it will in many respects be a fully-electric vacuum-train with offloaded motors and low-loss regenerative braking. The big question would be how much energy overhead is incurred to maintain vacuum and levitation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @10:23AM
english be hard for you
(Score: 1) by crafoo on Thursday August 03 2017, @01:16PM
Over-regulation is kind of a codified expression of our societies risk-aversion and CYA.
More forward-thinking and risk-taking societies will pick up this idea and make it happen, building cities of the future. We will eventually copy them, poorly, and with absurdly conservative operational envelopes and cost.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday August 03 2017, @02:39PM
That's OK; this company can work on perfecting the technology, then they can go build it in other advanced nations that are willing to spend on good infrastructure and can actually get projects done, like Germany/western EU, Australia, Japan, China, and UAE.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @08:01PM (1 child)
LA could barely manage a functional street car system
First, LA is Louisiana.
Los Angeles (abbreviated L.A.) had an electric Red Car system built by Henry Huntington.
He intended it to get folks to the places where he had built houses and was selling them.
For decades, it worked just fine, getting folks as far as San Berdoo.
There was also a Yellow Car system.
After buying that up and destroying it, General Motors, Firestone, Standard Oil, et al. were convicted by a jury of conspiracy and anti-trust violations.
(A corporate-friendly judge grudgingly fined GM a pittance; a company officer was fined $1; nobody went to jail.)
L.A.'s Metro Transit Authority had possession of the Red Cars but decided that buses (built by GM) were "cheaper".
They didn't factor in the externalities of already-dirty air in L.A. and already-crowded streets.
By 1961, the bureaucrats had starved it of resources and killed it off.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday August 04 2017, @07:21PM
First, LA is Louisiana.
Los Angeles (abbreviated L.A.)
The USPS really should have chosen a different abbreviation for Louisiana, perhaps "LO" or "LS".
LO has precedence with MA=MAssachusetts, and LS has precedence with AZ=AriZona. There was no absolute requirement that they use the first and last letters, or else those two would be MS and AA.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @12:39PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 03 2017, @10:34PM (1 child)
However, I would note that I still don't consider -2.66g to be "coming to a gradual stop", which was my perhaps not well-enough expressed point. I'd call that "I hope there's a 5-point harness".
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday August 04 2017, @07:25PM
I would note that I still don't consider -2.66g to be "coming to a gradual stop"
The test track is only 500m long, there's no humans on board, and the goal was to achieve a high top speed (192mph) in that very short space, so of course the braking force will be very high. On a real system, they're not going to do that.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Thursday August 03 2017, @01:22PM (9 children)
They should make the tube out of thick plexiglass. If you're traveling at 750 mph, what could be cooler than the view outside?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @01:28PM (1 child)
Not puking or dying
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @01:45PM
Not having a street preacher/crazy person on board?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday August 03 2017, @02:55PM
That would actually probably be quite terrifying and nauseating - at those speeds shadows will be a continuous variable strobing effect, and everything will be moving far too fast and close to focus on anyway. Plus the whole bit with the world constantly tilting at crazy angles whenever you're turning (which will probably be almost constantly given the minimum turn radius)
Plus, it's sounding more like Musk is leaning toward underground tunnels, which mitigate many of the challenges (straighter paths, much slower vacuum leaks), but really hamper the view.
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Thursday August 03 2017, @03:02PM (4 children)
I see a couple of problems with the current design. If you want to transport passengers, the pod has to be pressurized and this design doesn't look optimal for that. Its shape also doesn't seem optimal for traveling in a tube, it should have a better nose cone shape to prevent unnecessary forces from turbulence and the front point is off center. Same with the rear, drag will create uneven forces on the top and bottom half of the pod.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday August 03 2017, @05:41PM (3 children)
It's a cylinder with a semi-spherical front. Short of being a sphere, how much more optimal do you want for a pressure container? It only needs to contain one atmosphere of pressure, maybe as little as one-half, not exactly a high-engineering challenge, especially with a carbon-fiber structure.
Also remember that it's operating in near vacuum, and planned to concentrate what little air there is into an air cushion to help avoid touching the rails and possibly walls. Far from being unnecessary, controlled unbalanced forces are a major design goal. Honestly, I would almost have expected the flat diagonal end to be the front.
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Thursday August 03 2017, @07:34PM (2 children)
I don't think you can make a pressure chamber with carbon-fiber.
The nose will drag itself down at speed, if you want it off center, it should be upside down instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @12:48AM
> I don't think you can make a pressure chamber with carbon-fiber.
?? https://www.amazon.com/Ninja-Paintball-Carbon-Fiber-Regulator/dp/B00AD77NYQ/ref=pd_sbs_200_6 [amazon.com]
Carbon fiber paintball gun tank, 4500 psi. Also, carbon fiber diving tanks and many larger ones.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday August 04 2017, @01:35AM
Why wouldn't you be able to? The only thing possibly stopping you would be if the air could pass through the walls - in which case it's easy enough to put a thin gas-impermeable layer inside the structural shell.
Now, if we were talking about a *vacuum* chamber, maybe you'd have difficulties. I don't know how rigid carbon fiber is in compression.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @03:53PM
Free beer and extra bacon.