Hyperloop Technologies

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Hyperloop Technologies

Postby GIThruster » Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:12 am

Peter DiamandisInfluencer
Chairman, XPRIZE / Exec. Chairman & Co-Founder, Singularity University / Co-Founder & Co-Chairman, Planetary Resources

Hyperloop is Coming

Have you heard of the Hyperloop? It's the concept described as "a cross between a Concorde, a railgun and a bullet train."

Think: Los Angeles to Vegas in 20 minutes… or LA to San Francisco in 35 minutes…

A new company called Hyperloop Technologies, Inc. was announced on the Cover of FORBES this week, and they are taking on a BOLD new mission.

I'm proud to be a founding director of the company, and very excited about the supercredible team that has come together to make Hyperloop happen.

I sit on the Board of the company along with Shervin Pishevar (major early Investor in Uber, Sherpa Ventures), Joe Lonsdale (Founder Palantir & Formation 8), Jim Messina (Pres. Obama's Reelection Campaign Manager), David Sacks (Paypal, Yammer), and Brogan BamBrogran (Former SpaceX Engineer, and acting CEO).

What is Hyperloop?

In 2013, Elon Musk and a group of engineers from Tesla and SpaceX published a speculative design document for a concept they called "The Hyperloop".

Born out of frustration with California's plan for a bullet train between Los Angeles and San Francisco (the slowest and most expensive per mile bullet train around, with an est. cost of $70 billion), the Hyperloop was to be a high-speed transportation system that could take travelers from San Francisco to LA in 35 minutes for a fraction of the cost.

In other words, it's a "vacuum tube transportation network" that will be able to travel at around 760 mph – on land and under water.

The team led is by Brogan Bambrogan, who did the design work on the second-stage engine of SpaceX's Falcon 1 and was the lead architect for the heat shield of the Dragon capsule.

Hyperloop did a seed round of $8.5 million, and is rapidly lining up an A-Round of $80 million later this year.

This team is going big and bold, and they're doing it the right way.



The Secret of Going Big

Chapter 5 of my most recent book BOLD is called "The Secret of Going Big"…

I'd like to point out three of the lessons from that chapter that Hyperloop is doing perfectly.

1) Launching above the line of Supercredibility

In each of our minds we have a line of credibility.

When you first hear a new idea, you place it above or below this line.

If you place it below, you dismiss it immediately, often as ridiculous.

If you place it above, you're willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, follow it over time, and continue to make serial judgments.

But we also have a line of "supercredibility".

When a new idea shows up above this line, you accept it immediately and say, "Wow, that's fantastic! How can I get involved?"



The idea is so convincing that your mind accepts it as fact and your focus shifts from possibilities to implications.

Supercredibility starts with passion --> Then a BOLD mission --> Then, a tireless effort to assemble the greatest team of experts, backers, and entrepreneurs in the world.

This is how ISU, XPRIZE, Singularity University, Planetary Resources, and Human Longevity Inc. all launched.

And now, Hyperloop Technologies.

It's hard to argue with the combination of the planet's top engineering talent and most respected businessmen and investors, plus, not to mention an announcement on the cover of Forbes.

This is the team that's going to make it happen.

2) Moonshots and Being Bold

Moonshots, by their definition, are goals that live in that gray area between audacious projects and pure science fiction.

Instead of mere 10 percent gains, they aim for 10x (meaning ten times) improvements—that's a 1000 percent increase in performance.

The idea comes from Google and Astro Teller, the director of GoogleX.

While a 10x improvement is gargantuan, Teller has very specific reasons for aiming exactly that high: "You assume that going 10x bigger is going to be ten times harder, but often it's literally easier to go bigger."

Why should that be? It doesn't feel intuitively right. There are three reasons by going 10x bigger is much better than going 10% bigger:

When you try to do something radically hard, you approach the problem differently than when you try to make something incrementally better.
When you attack a problem as though it were solvable, even if you don't know how to solve it, you'll be shocked with what you come up with.
It's 100 times more worth it. It's never 100 times harder.
Hyperloop, is for sure, a 10x improvement over today's transportation system.

3) The Secrets of Skunk

Finally, once you set a BOLD goal, you can attract a team of the best and brightest to commit to seeing it through.

Big goals require absolute commitment and alignment.

As psychologist Garry Latham says, "You have to believe in what you're doing. Big goals work best when there's an alignment between an individual's values and the desired outcome of the goal. When everything lines up, we're totally committed—meaning we're paying even more attention, are even more resilient, and are way more productive as a result."

Kelly Johnson of Lockheed Martin created the original skunkworks in the attempt to create a new warplane in an impossibly short amount of time. He went from a clean sheet of paper to America's first Jet in 143 days and he did it under budget.

But the goal wasn't to build a new plane in record time—that was just one of many things that happened on the way to the main big goal: saving the world from Nazi peril.

This is the kind of big goal everyone can get behind. It's why the engineers agreed to work horrific hours in a foul-smelling circus tent (thus the name "Skunk").

And most important, because this alignment between core values and desired outcomes jacked up performance and productivity and became one of the fundamental reasons that plane was delivered in record time.

What were Johnson's secrets to skunk?

Small teams, authority and autonomy, trust between all players, simple plan with high flexibility to make changes on the fly, isolation from the outside, and early testing.

This pretty much sums up the Hyperloop team.

Next Steps for Hyperloop

While there are many technical and political challenges ahead, the team is working diligently.

They plan to build a test track in downtown Los Angeles, and envision the first Hyperloop track to connect Los Angeles with Las Vegas.

You can check out the website here (they are hiring):http://hyperlooptech.com/

I encourage you to take on your own BOLD missions.

Anyone with passion and a good idea can change the world today.

I've spent years developing my own ventures and interviewing world-changing entrepreneurs.

All of this research is in BOLD. Grab a copy here and tell me about your BOLD idea.

[ Click to Tweet about this (you can edit before sending): http://ctt.ec/PRb2S ]

P.S. Have you purchased a copy of BOLD? I'd love it if you couldshare a review here.

P.P.S. Every weekend I send out a "Tech Blog" like this one. If you want to sign up, go to PeterDiamandis.com and sign up for this and my Abundance blogs.

P.P.P.S. Please forward this to your best clients, colleagues and friends — especially those who could use some encouragement as they pursue big, bold dreams.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hyperloo ... -diamandis
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

AcesHigh
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Re: Hyperloop Technologies

Postby AcesHigh » Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:09 am

Why they mention vacuum tubes in the above confusing article? We all know Hyperloop is not a vacuum tube tech

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Hyperloop Technologies

Postby ladajo » Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:40 am

The idea is the transport tube is at low pressure, thus eliminating (significantly reducing) the number one factor for efficiency loss, wind resistance and drag.

There are several concepts rolling around on how to maintain the low pressure during operations.
This idea is old, and has been thought up many times. Musk did not create it.
Think of a larger scale version of the old pneumatic message tubes found in office buildings.

It is the main principle in why trains are more efficient at moving large cargo loads.
The main resistance is the front engine, everything behind is gravy...

The Aussies extended on this idea with "Road Trains". Look it up, pretty impressive what they have done.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

choff
Posts: 2423
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: Hyperloop Technologies

Postby choff » Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:54 am

How many G's will the passengers be pulling accelerating and decelerating and for what percentage of the trip time.
CHoff

kunkmiester
Posts: 871
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Hyperloop Technologies

Postby kunkmiester » Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:50 am

Whenever I see the title I think "launch loop" not trains.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Hyperloop Technologies

Postby ladajo » Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:20 pm

choff wrote:How many G's will the passengers be pulling accelerating and decelerating and for what percentage of the trip time.


Go question, and depends on the design. It can more than likely be managed at both ends, and does not need to be much to reach high speeds in short order.
One of the more interesting questions on my mind is the high speed friction component for the capsules. I can't see an economical pure physical gap suspension system, and at the proposed speeds any contact is going to mechanically dramatic at the contact points. Many ways to do it, but all cost money, and some cost money and energy.

All in all, this has been a long time coming, and is overdue in my opinion.
I kicked around a few business model ideas with some buddies regarding starting small with smaller scale intra-city cargo movement as a test, and then going to inter-city cargo as the next step. Once proven economical and viable, as well as developing the technology further, I thought that the next logical step would be to start moving inter-city people. The middle and points north East Coast provides a number of metro-link corridors that would be worthy test beds.

Currently, other things are occupying my time and mind, and this one is shelved for now.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Re: Hyperloop Technologies

Postby DeltaV » Wed Feb 18, 2015 2:14 pm

It is the main principle in why trains are more efficient at moving large cargo loads.

The main reason is the low rolling resistance of steel wheels on steel rails under heavy loads.

The inline aerodynamics helps, but it's lower rolling friction, not lower air friction, where the real advantage is.

That's not to say that said advantage could not be defeated by rolling all the cars in parallel at higher speeds, instead of serial. Which reminds me, why is it called "parallel parking"? It should be called "serial parking".

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Hyperloop Technologies

Postby GIThruster » Wed Feb 18, 2015 2:55 pm

choff wrote:How many G's will the passengers be pulling accelerating and decelerating and for what percentage of the trip time.

Reaching 700+mph only takes a few seconds under constant, moderate acceleration. The loop will undoubtably generate far higher gee loading laterally when it is forced to curve sideways, up or down. That is something that will limit design and require very straight lines of transit--far straighter than current trains and even high speed rail allows. This is one reason I am highly skeptical the system can be built for anything like its projected costs. I just can't see it but then again, I have not crunched any numbers.

Likewise too, the interface between the air moving at 700+mph and the tube, is going to be supersonic. That means a shockwave inside the tube. Any point in the tube that makes that wave stand, even for a very short period, is going to generate fantastical energy densities one suspects they have not accounted for. I am unsold. I love the idea, but flying cars seem to me to be a vastly better bet for future transport.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Hyperloop Technologies

Postby ladajo » Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:07 pm

DeltaV wrote:
It is the main principle in why trains are more efficient at moving large cargo loads.

The main reason is the low rolling resistance of steel wheels on steel rails under heavy loads.

The inline aerodynamics helps, but it's lower rolling friction, not lower air friction, where the real advantage is.

That's not to say that said advantage could not be defeated by rolling all the cars in parallel at higher speeds, instead of serial. Which reminds me, why is it called "parallel parking"? It should be called "serial parking".


I agree that rolling resistance is also a large part. So we can say the two primary factors are air resistance and rolling resistance.
Last time I looked, for big trains, I believe air was more an issue than wheels, but I am not sure and need to look again.

I do know that Road Trains capitalize on the air factor, vice rolling factor. Here in the U.S. you see this with tandems (Mini-Road Train).

NASCAR and Formula one take advantage of this as well via drafting. Burn the other guy's gas...
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Hyperloop Technologies

Postby ladajo » Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:19 pm

It is air above about 60mph or so for conventional freight trains, and above 35mph for intermodal.
See slides 24, 25, and on.

Rolling resistance is a function mostly of weight, where air is a function of speed and aerodynamics of train. Currently, trains, like ships, are not really optimized for air resistance efficiency.

http://www.istc.illinois.edu/about/SeminarPresentations/20091118.pdf
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Hyperloop Technologies

Postby GIThruster » Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:10 pm

Another question I forgot to mention: IIUC, the design calls for the exhaust of jet engines to push the cars inside the track. That means even with large bypass, all the exhaust from those engines is going to be breathed by the passengers unless they have self-contained life support inside the tube. How can such a thing compete with other forms of transportation? I am wary.

And just to note folks, rail is very often hailed as an efficient form of transportation especially in comparison to cars. Just to remind, this is not true. This is what many people want us to believe, but it is only true as regards moving heavy freight, and moving extremely high densities of people over short distances such as subways in cities. Even in those circumstances, there are no railways in the US that survive today without huge subsidy. When Nixon nationalized Amtrak, the intention was as with GM, to turn it back over to the private sector in shortest order, but here we are more than 40 years later and it is still a national asset because it cannot turn a profit. No one wants it, and no one wants it because it is not an efficient transport system as compared to automobiles.

Flying cars are a vastly better alternative to Hyperloop and when we have 1N/W METs, this whole scheme is going to go up in smoke.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Maui
Posts: 567
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Hyperloop Technologies

Postby Maui » Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:58 pm

Brogan BamBrogan? I'm nearly as interested in that name as I am the Hyperloop....

paperburn1
Posts: 2425
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Hyperloop Technologies

Postby paperburn1 » Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:28 pm

At low speed in still air on level ground, almost all the resistance is rolling resistance. Aerodynamic drag increases proportional to the square of the velocity so it's not very significant at low speed. It also takes additional force to move a vehicle up a grade or to accelerate its speed but these are neither rolling resistance nor aerodynamic drag.

Rolling resistance may be given as a percentage of the vehicle weight. For example, if an automobile weighs 3000 lb. and has 1% rolling resistance, then it would take 30 lbs. (1% of 3000) to push it slowly on level ground. But rolling resistance is commonly expressed in units of "per thousand" which is ten times the percentage value. In such units, the typical automobile tire has a rolling resistance of about 10 (when properly inflated). Truck tires inflate to much higher pressure (such as 100 pounds) and typically have a rolling resistance of about 7. Railroad steel wheels on a steel rail have a low rolling resistance of between 1 to 2. The 1 value is for a fully loaded railroad freight car, while the 2 value is for an empty car. Rail passenger cars tend to be closer to 2 than 1.

For railroads, rolling resistance (in percentage terms) is lower when the vehicle is heavier. With a heavier load, the total rolling resistance goes up, but not as fast as the load increases. This is due in part to the spreading out of the pressure caused by the heavier wheel load along a longer length of rail. It one doubles the wheel load, the pressure under the rail doesn't double, because the additional force is spread out over a longer length of rail. Of course, there's a trade-off since very heavy loads will cause more damage to the roadbed.

Why is the rolling resistance so much less for a steel wheel than for a pneumatic tire? The reason is that the rubber tires flex a lot and thereby absorb much more energy than the steel wheel which flexes far less. If you look at the tires on parked autos you will notice a big flat spot at the bottom of the tires where the tire is deformed. As the tire rolls, this deformation is applied to the entire tread surface (and sidewalls too) of the tire. The result is much flexing of the rubber which causes the tire to absorb energy and become hot.

In addition to the tire energy loss, there are some other losses that contribute to rolling resistance for both rail and highway vehicles. These are: friction losses in the wheel bearings, shaking and vibration of both the roadbed and the vehicle (including energy absorbed by the vehicle's shock absorbers), and slight sliding of the wheels on the pavement/rail. These losses have been included in the example values shown above. Such losses are relatively more significant for rail since pure rail rolling resistance is so low.

For rail, pure rolling resistance (under ideal conditions) is only about a third of the total rolling resistance with a value of about 0.33 for a fully loaded freight car. An inflated rubber tire is about 30 times higher. Significant amounts of rail energy are used in shaking/vibrating the earth (and the rail cars). The wheels not only roll but they also slide a little from side to side, thus using energy. A pair of rail wheels are rigidly mounted on the same axle so the wheels on each side of the rail car spin at the same angular velocity (rpm). This may result in slipping if the wheel diameters are slightly different or when going around curves. It's actually a lot more complicated than this since wheels are made with the tread slightly tilted so that by moving sideways a little the same wheel will in effect become slightly larger/smaller in diameter. While auto tires make contact with the road over their entire width of the tread, rail wheels only make contact over only small part of their tread width (about the size of a dime). Thus they can vary the part of the wheel that they ride on by shifting sideways. This happens automatically and the wheels tend to move such so that the slipping is reduced. But this reduced loss still contributes to the rolling resistance.

While auto tire rolling resistance increases only slightly with speed, rail rolling resistance increases faster with speed, especially if the track is in poor condition and has dips in it. As an auto tire wears out, its rolling resistance drops since there is less rubber to flex. Tire rolling resistance drops as temperature increases while driving, partly due to the increase in pressure due to the higher temperature. If may take a half-hour of driving before the tire reaches a stable temperature so rolling resistance tests are done only after "warmup". Most all these factors tend to make the auto tire more efficient than one might expect (but still not nearly as efficient as a rail wheel).
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Hyperloop Technologies

Postby ladajo » Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:37 pm

ladajo wrote:It is air above about 60mph or so for conventional freight trains, and above 35mph for intermodal.
See slides 24, 25, and on.

Rolling resistance is a function mostly of weight, where air is a function of speed and aerodynamics of train. Currently, trains, like ships, are not really optimized for air resistance efficiency.

http://www.istc.illinois.edu/about/SeminarPresentations/20091118.pdf



Did you read this post?

I guess I should've added that air resistance is a square function where-as weight to rolling resistance is not.

Did you read the link?
Again, for a "conventional freight train" the rolling + friction to air resistance breakeven is at about 60mph.
For an "intermodal train" the rolling + friction to air resistance breakeven is about 35 mph.
Above these speeds air resistance is dominant as a square function.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

paperburn1
Posts: 2425
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Hyperloop Technologies

Postby paperburn1 » Wed Feb 18, 2015 8:23 pm

yes, my stuff posted after yours and I did not get to see the link until later, decided to leave the post anyway.
In my opinion the only reason cars and trucks are preferred is the age old problem of point to point transport. It convenient and cheap until you leave the area. then it a pain to get yourself or goods to your destination.
This is the reason I prefer to drive than fly if the drives are less than ten hours. It works out to be faster in most cases. two hours early to leave or catch your flight, get a rental car if one is available. shuttle buses.,
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests