this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2022
16 points (90.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43810 readers
875 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The top speed recorded is 288 mph and hasn't been beaten in 3 years. This isn't even faster than the fastest train at 374 mph which doesn't need vacuum tubes. Considering that hyperloop is just a fast train in a vacuum to make it go even faster, you'd expect it to at least beat trains after 10 years of work. So you tell me.
I think it's supposed to be more efficient, not just fast. I worked with a guy who helped design Maglev trains for China. With my limited knowledge, I'd think that a train floating above a track with no friction and being propelled by a magnetic wave has more potential that a train in a tube. I'm not familiar with the power and technology it takes to create that magnetic wave, but I still think it has more potential. I should have asked how the wave was created, but I was too amazed that the technology even existed.
Idk, I think any argument that hyperloop is more energy efficient goes out the window when you consider the energy costs of having to keep depressurized a 500 mile long tube.
I agree, and if it's underground, accessibility has to be considered over and above pressurization. It's more suitable for freight transport than it is moving people. It has to be earthquake-proof in some regions. Logistically, I don't think it's a good idea. It's fun in concept because it makes us think we're stepping into the future, but there are better visions for our future than a pressurized tube.