New York to DC Hyperloop like gets the go-ahead

[RagnarokDel]

On 21/07/2017 at 8:28 AM, Bananasplit_00 said:

Well I guess they are making the world largest vacuum chamber then. Guess a bunch of the material cost might be reduced if they are putting it underground 

it might be the other thing he was talking about. Basically you would park your car on a cart and the cart would move at extremely fast speeds

[Eaglerino]

I hope tickets don't cost as much as Bullet Train tickets. All we need now is one of these from NY to LA

[CoolMarquis97]

I wonder why Boston was left out of the conversation?

[Age of 9394]

The California hyperloop not even finish or start building?

Now they are planing a new one

[laminutederire]

8 hours ago, cj09beira said:

the tesla can be a very fast car, but people love the engine sounds there is no way around that.

i see the future as being one where people commute with there electrical cars and use combustion cars in the night / weekend same as what happened to horses, 

its natural that a new tech is more expensive, it will take time for the tech to get less expensive, as battery production needs to ramp up, more R&D is put into developing newer better batteries.

You do know regular people can only afford one car.. or at least one car per adult.

I'm not sure batteries are the way to go, which is why I think it'll fail in the long run. I'd applaud him if he was to go on to dihydrogen fuels with batteries only as contingencies.

At least the future of cars has been invented by koenigsegg for very high end cars and will eventually trickle down in some way to regular ones, or to buses for public transportation, which is times ahead greener than personal vehicles for mainly anything.

[cj09beira]

1 hour ago, laminutederire said:

You do know regular people can only afford one car.. or at least one car per adult.

I'm not sure batteries are the way to go, which is why I think it'll fail in the long run. I'd applaud him if he was to go on to dihydrogen fuels with batteries only as contingencies.

At least the future of cars has been invented by koenigsegg for very high end cars and will eventually trickle down in some way to regular ones, or to buses for public transportation, which is times ahead greener than personal vehicles for mainly anything.

it takes way to much energy to even make that gas, its more energy efficient to use electrical cars, batteries are the way to go until we can produce capacitors as good in density as batteries (then you can have faster charges, no loss in capacity at all over time)

[You_are_a_cunt]

BREAKING NEWS!

THIS JUST IN!

CONFIRMATION THAT ELON MUSK IS TONY STARK IS IRON MAN!

[laminutederire]

7 hours ago, cj09beira said:

it takes way to much energy to even make that gas, its more energy efficient to use electrical cars, batteries are the way to go until we can produce capacitors as good in density as batteries (then you can have faster charges, no loss in capacity at all over time)

Not necessarily. If you take full advantage of the combustion with chemical looping, we could achieve something which gives more energy to the car than we had to use to produce dihydrogen. At least theoretically you can if you can utilize something else which is free, like solar energy or the likes.

[cj09beira]

22 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Not necessarily. If you take full advantage of the combustion with chemical looping, we could achieve something which gives more energy to the car than we had to use to produce dihydrogen. At least theoretically you can if you can utilize something else which is free, like solar energy or the likes.

after the combustion you are back to water meaning you need to again make it into the gas, so that wouldn't impact energy efficiency at all

[laminutederire]

1 hour ago, cj09beira said:

after the combustion you are back to water meaning you need to again make it into the gas, so that wouldn't impact energy efficiency at all

As an overall process it is alright. It can be more energy efficient to use an electrolysis process to produce h2 then using it in the right engine and so forth. You have to refuel it of course, but that's the same as recharging it either way.

[kasugatei]

In it's current state hyperloop is, to translate to the term which most of the people here will understand, is something which is pre pre-alpha at the best. It is just a concept which doesn't even hold the water in it's current form. They promise cheap and fast way of transportation. In theory it could be really fast but what they've basically demonstrated is <100km/h toy maglev in (supposedly) vacuum tube. So much about the speed. Then again, we have proven technologies like bullet trains which have operational speeds of 300+ km/h (574 km/h is a record speed) and maglevs (Shanghai one which can go up to 430km/h and Japanese L0 which can go up to 500 km/h, 600km/h is a record speed). Speaking about the price, it is being said that when L0 will be fully operational, the price between Tokyo and Nagoya for the stage one will be the same as now with the bullet train (6260円 one way).

 

Let's talk about cheap. Making something under constant vacuum is really expensive. You would need lots of air pulling stations to keep the tube under vacuum. Those stations cost money and their operation costs money. Then maintenance. Since we are talking about a system where a single dent in a tube can cause catastrophic failure of the whole system requires constant monitoring. Also replacing a tube in a case of a wear is also super expensive since we are talking about underground operation. Not to mention that in the case of the replacement you need to re-pressurize the whole system and vent it out again (getting again to the cost of achieving/maintaining constant vacuum). And last but not the least, electricity to power everything. It costs a lot and since we are talking about underground version here, no solar panels can be placed on the top to help (a little) to reduce costs. To be honest, putting the whole system underground is a much better solution than original idea of putting the tubes outside (in terms of security) so at least they did a step forward. 

[Bensemus]

On 7/23/2017 at 1:50 AM, laminutederire said:

Hmmm teslas? They're very expensive and technically everyone could have done so. Other manufacturers haven't because they would have to sell those expensively, and I think they were right in thinking people wouldn't have bought it. People only buy teslas for the image.

Space X is the same. Every space agency has thought of it, the only difference is that governments didn't give them enough money to work on it. If anything this shows that public research is underfunded, since an average company can do it faster than they do.

lol

 

Tesla built an electric car because no one else was. Now that Tesla has proven successful other manufacturers are ramping up EV production. Before everyone was just waiting for them to fail making the roadster, then the Model S, then the Model X except each one did what it was supposed to. Now they have the capital to make the Model 3 which was the main goal. They still might fail but it looks unlikely.

 

Everyone was claiming landing a rocket like how SpaceX did was impossible right up until they did it. Now they have the cheapest launch system out there that is just a tad less reliable (92-3% vs 95% average I think. They may have gone up as they've done some more launches since I last looked up that number) and are pushing ahead to make even more capable rockets. SpaceX didn't spend ridiculous amounts of money making their rockets reliable. A billion dollars is a common number I hear. NASA's contract with SpaceX is worth up to 2.6 Billion. Money wasn't the issue for other companies or agencies. Development of the Falcon 9 and Dragon capsule combined is less than half a billion at only $396 million, most of which was provided by NASA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9

 

Nothing you said makes Elon's companies look "average". If any of this was average it would have been done before.

[zMeul]

20 hours ago, cj09beira said:

it takes way to much energy to even make that gas, its more energy efficient to use electrical cars, batteries are the way to go until we can produce capacitors as good in density as batteries (then you can have faster charges, no loss in capacity at all over time)

except it's a fantasy, smoke and mirrors

batteries themselves depletes the supply of rare earth elements that goes into manufacturing, and EVs need shit tons of batteries

then there's the electricity you need to pump back into these batteries once they discharge - here are the main sources:

 

EVs are green - it's the biggest bullshit ever told and a lot of people bought it

 

---

 

what we need to do to save ourselves is a completely and drastically change on how we build fossil fuel engines, they have to be extremely efficient and as clean as possible

rely more on Ethanol based fuels: E10, E85, E90

car manufacturers that cheat the emission tests should be more drastically punished - asset forfeitures and similar punishments; I would put these mofos on the electric chair as they are no different than any other genocidal maniacs

[cj09beira]

so we need more energy, so what, build a few molten salt reactors and problem solved, 

the amount of rare materials in batteries is small and the new battery tech being worked on will reduce its use further,

but i do agree that more cars should be running ethanol based fuel.

but i also thing we will not go anywhere if we dont really force china and india to get their shit together 

[Jito463]

2 hours ago, cj09beira said:

but i do agree that more cars should be running ethanol based fuel.

I explicitly go out of my way to buy fuel without ethanol.  It gives me less gas mileage for one, and I'm opposed to government subsidies completely, so I dislike supporting anything that's funded by them.  Not to mention that we're taking food and using it to make fuel instead of feeding people.  That's without even addressing some articles I've read, which state ethanol isn't as "clean" as it claims to be.

[zMeul]

7 hours ago, Jito463 said:

I explicitly go out of my way to buy fuel without ethanol.  It gives me less gas mileage for one, and I'm opposed to government subsidies completely, so I dislike supporting anything that's funded by them.  Not to mention that we're taking food and using it to make fuel instead of feeding people.  That's without even addressing some articles I've read, which state ethanol isn't as "clean" as it claims to be.

• ethanol getting worse mileage is known, but ethanol based fuels should be cheaper to offset the "drinking problem"
• subsidies ?!?!?! what do they have to do with anything
• taking food and use it as fuel?! to my knowledge, and depends on who/what/where, ethanol is manufactured from sugarcane, sugar beets; as far as I'm aware, Brasil has jumped with both feet into ethanol fuels
• I doubt ethanol based fuels are "cleaner" than petrol; diesel is still king if exhaust is filtered properly

but what ethanol gives you is a source of renewable fuel

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, zMeul said:

ethanol getting worse mileage is known, but ethanol based fuels should be cheaper to offset the "drinking problem"

It's not cheaper here (at least, it wasn't before they started putting ethanol into almost every blend).  The ethanol added gasoline was about $0.10/gal higher.

1 hour ago, zMeul said:

subsidies ?!?!?! what do they have to do with anything

They have a lot to do with it.  I don't like my tax dollars being used to prop up an industry.  If it is capable of succeeding, it should be able to do so on its own, without money from the gov.

1 hour ago, zMeul said:

taking food and use it as fuel?!

In the US, most ethanol is made from corn.

 

[cj09beira]

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

It's not cheaper here (at least, it wasn't before they started putting ethanol into almost every blend).  The ethanol added gasoline was about $0.10/gal higher.

They have a lot to do with it.  I don't like my tax dollars being used to prop up an industry.  If it is capable of succeeding, it should be able to do so on its own, without money from the gov.

In the US, most ethanol is made from corn.

 

most other places use sugar cane to do it, so i guess it affect on food depends on where you live, 

 

 

ramble

btw even in africa there is lots of food being spoiled, as some times there are old huge plantations that still produce some what that don't have roads to it (there is one of pinaple, and another of mango in mozambique for example), most of it just rots away.

btw africa kind of deserves its fate, if you try to do any business there like making corn, you will be fucked at every step of the way, i saw a company shutting down (it was there first year i think) because the fuckers stole 90% of the production.

they planted in circles to be easy to water it, they just left 40 cm of corn at the end of the circle to hide it all rest was gone.

Fact: most african countries only use democracy as a cover up (same party since independence with always 80% of the votes even when the whole country seems against them ya right )

 

[Bensemus]

On 7/24/2017 at 9:45 PM, zMeul said:

what we need to do to save ourselves is a completely and drastically change on how we build fossil fuel engines, they have to be extremely efficient and as clean as possible

Why burn more fossil fuels when you can also convert the grid to cleaner sources too? And I don't just mean wind and solar. Nuclear is also a cleaner energy. Especially if newer reactor designs are used.

 

A better solution is more public/mass transport. Unfortunately many cities were built around the car and not mass transit.