Skip to main content

The First Hyperloop

The Hyperloop

Elon Musk (i.e. Mr. Tesla Car) has received “verbal” approval from the government to build the world’s longest tunnel for an ultra-high-speed train line to connect New York to Washington.*  Called a Hyperloop, this tunnel is a mere 204 miles long, as the crow flies. Basically, this means the creation of a tunnel into the earth of a very slight angle and linear, i.e. perfectly straight, to Washington DC. The length of this underground tunnel will be about 203.98 miles.  Not much savings there from the crow’s flight. The interesting point is this tunnel will, at its lowest point be 1.3 miles or about 6866 feet below the earth’s surface.  This is deeper than most oil wells.  

So you take a trip on the new train in this new tunnel, and it gets stuck midway.  Will happen sometime. At this depth, the tunnel temperature has increased by 98 degrees F above the mean surface temperature.  It’s hot down there. All this implies system failure at this depth will be fatal.  Passengers would be toasted to death, if not incinerated.
                                     
The construction costs will range into the multiples of billions.  Passenger risks will be astronomic. This is all for a 29 minute trip to DC or to NY.  Average speed would be about 400 mph.  This implies the solution of many new engineering problems having nothing to do with the tunnel, which has itself a host of new engineering problems.   

What do you say we spend that money on fixing roads, bridges, and airports?   

Elon can work on his cars and spaceships.

BTW, news reports indicate the distance is not 204 miles, but 220 miles.  In this case, the maximal depth is about 8000 feet, with a corresponding temperature increase of about 114 degrees F.  Toastier is this. None of the entrepreneurs (actually, promoters) mention these little facts.

Is it possible for the government to resist this project and get to the hum-drum business of running the country? 


* http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-musk-hyperloop-20170720-story.html
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Please Comment.

Popular posts from this blog

Behavioral Science and Problem-Solving

I.                                       I.                 Introduction.                Concerning our general behavior, it’s high about time we all had some understanding of how we operate on ourselves, and it is just as important how we are operated on by others. This is the wheelhouse of behavioral sciences. It is a vast subject. It touches our lives constantly. It’s influence is pervasive and can be so subtle we never notice it. Behavioral sciences profoundly affect our ability and success at problem-solving, from the elementary level to highly complex wicked problems. This is discussed in Section IV. We begin with the basics of behavioral sciences, Section II, and then through the lens of multiple categories and examples, Section III. II.     ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Principles of Insufficiency and Sufficiency

   The principles we use but don't know it.  1.      Introduction . Every field, scientific or otherwise, rests on foundational principles—think buoyancy, behavior, or democracy. Here, we explore a unique subset: principles modified by "insufficiency" and "sufficiency." While you may never have heard of them, you use them often. These terms frame principles that blend theory, practicality, and aspiration, by offering distinct perspectives. Insufficiency often implies inaction unless justified, while sufficiency suggests something exists or must be done. We’ll examine key examples and introduce a new principle with potential significance. As a principle of principles of these is that something or some action is not done enough while others may be done too much. The first six (§2-6) of our principles are in the literature, and you can easily search them online. The others are relatively new, but fit the concepts in the real world. At times, these pri...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Lemming Instinct

  In certain vital domains, a pervasive mediocrity among practitioners can stifle genuine advancement. When the intellectual output of a field is predominantly average, it inevitably produces research of corresponding quality. Nevertheless, some of these ideas, by sheer chance or perhaps through effective dissemination, will inevitably gain traction. A significant number of scholars and researchers will gravitate towards these trends, contributing to and propagating further work along these established lines. Such a trajectory allows an initially flawed concept to ascend to the status of mainstream orthodoxy. However, over an extended period, these prevailing ideas invariably fail to withstand rigorous scrutiny; they are ultimately and conclusively disproven. The disheartening pattern then reveals itself: rather than genuine progress, an equally unvalidated or incorrect idea often supplants the discredited one, swiftly establishing its own dominance. This cycle perpetuates, ensurin...
Post a Comment
Read more