Hyperloop Bankrupt and Busted.

wanderingfool2 · January 25

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

wanderingfool2 I have explained how and why you are so far off for trying to use simple linear models for an extreme engineering question like this. There are equations that you see in the textbook in intro physics. Then there are the ones that consider all the factors one sees in real life. You know the kind that make it necssary to model complex systems with super computers.

Then show the equations that show you are right over the "simple" equations that appear in PhD papers analyzing the facts.

You say that it's quadratic, then show the formula...not some stupid argument that since there is a square in the equation every variable becomes squared.

You are approaching it with the same mentality that the CCNA did when I asked about the security of their implementation saying it didn't look right and being assured I didn't know what I was talking about...until I finally had to do a POC to show that the system wasn't implemented the way their so called claim was. [And yes, they were going to my superiors saying I was wrong before I demonstrated my POC].

Again, if you think that formula is so wrong and that reducing ATM from 1 ATM to 0.5 results in a 4x drag reduction then show the formula; show the reference points.

When it appears on a NASA site, discussion around planes (and guess what planes are definitely in scope of the pressures I am talking about), and on papers discussing aerodynamics and energies involved in a train system, then it's up to you to state why the "basic" formula's don't hold up.

So far you are just doing a "trust me, it's my job"; and using frankly insane estimates; your "education" means squat if you don't provide the justification.

e.g.

Why do you proportional to drag ~ pressure^2, when the "basic" formulas all posted here are stating otherwise....your argument to that was posting a rant where the formula was again pressure changes meant a linear change.

I do recognize that if you accept pressure^2 would be better for hyperloop's viability, but I'm arguing against you because you are wrong or at least having shown any evidence to the contrary. You blather on about "basic" formulas, but so far you are the one who has made faulty assumptions. Like you assumed I based my formula on a "f = -bv" which is commical because

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

The fact that you are so wrong that the above quote applies all while making it about the whole idea that I know what I litterally teach to other people and have a degree in.. It reminds me of when I teach remedial math and theres one student who is CERTAIN they are right and that both I and the computer homework system that graded them are both wrong. Then they get angry when I do the problem again and show them that they are wrong. Thats. you.

In this topic you have needlessly utilized wrong mentalities in trying to defend your arguments.

The fact you seemed to so aggressively pursue that 10m is a realistic pipe size says it all. Again, go back and look at the papers I posted, which are written by people smarter than yourself.

Pipe size is NOT the issue, materials required is NOT the issue, pulling a vacuum is not the issue.

Argue realistic things that are wrong about it, heat transfer, or whether the design will prevent enough air leakage to be beneficial on an energy sense.

Honestly you are acting like the teacher that marked my math answer wrong because while I got the correct answer I didn't use the way they understood so they thought I got lucky (without realizing I just used a different approach they hadn't taught, and were insistent the method I used was incorrect...until I asked them to take my test to the calc teacher who understood the method I used...the teacher still marked me wrong for not using the "correct" method until I took it to the administration). If you are going to call me "so wrong" then you better back it up with actual formulas and actual references...instead of this frankly asinine approach of declaring yourself right without disputing why the basic equation that NASA teaches to pilots in regards to airplane drag.

HenrySalayne · January 25

5 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I have explained how and why you are so far off for trying to use simple linear models for an extreme engineering question like this.

Where?

5 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

[...] I know what I litterally teach to other people and have a degree in.

A degree is neither a weapon of credibility nor does it shield you from criticism.

The people in this forum are mostly faceless, soulless creatures. The people behind the posts are just characters of our imagination. It doesn't matter who they are, where they are from and what social class their in. They set the scene by their interactions and things they say and do. In my mind @wanderingfool2 has a life-sized Elon Musk cuddling pillow on their bed. I'm 99% sure this picture in my head is far from reality, but it's probably funnier nonetheless. Who knows (and cares) if their online persona is just a character they created? And who knows if you are just spoofing the image that you want us to believe. Taking three approaches to calculate the volume of a hollow cylinder relying on some online calculator for the area of an circle and an Excel spreadsheet to subtract the two values doesn't give me the impression you know what you are doing or you should teach people.

And please don't see this as a request to post more "evidence" who you are or what you do. For me personally that doesn't matter and I don't want it. I generally believe most people won't benefit from exposing themselves on the internet. People might just find new ways to hurt or attack them.

As a closing thought, air resistance is generally much higher in enclosed spaces like tubes since the air needs to move around the vehicle and also interacts with the walls. The higher the air pressure is in a tube, the larger the gap between vehicle and wall needs to be.

05032-Mendicant-Bias · January 25

On 1/14/2024 at 8:41 PM, Uttamattamakin said:

It was not "obvious" that this would not work.

I'd argue Hyperloop was a success.

Musk's objective with the Hyperloop was to siphoon foundings for public infrastructure projects he loathes. He is vehemently against public transports.

LAwLz · January 26

11 hours ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

I'd argue Hyperloop was a success.

Musk's objective with the Hyperloop was to siphoon foundings for public infrastructure projects he loathes. He is vehemently against public transports.

No he didn't... He never admitted to that. There is a lot of creative interpretation going on in order to reach that conclusion. It might be right, but to say that he "admitted to it" is total BS.