this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2022
2 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43777 readers
1203 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
Are you sure it's totally dead in the water?
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.