-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
dennis
Model S Plaid
You have failed to factor in growth rate. The other car companies are growing <10% per year in what has been seen as a good automotive market. Tesla has been growing 50%+ per year and could grow revenues 100%+ in 2018. Mr. Market pays for growth.
a use for the Boring Company hyperloop tunnels
Ram Accelerator Direct Space Launch System | Ram Accelerator
Ram Accelerator Direct Space Launch System | Ram Accelerator
3Victoria
Active Member
I disagree. They lost Mobileye, they needed to duplicate its functionality -- which they have mostly done. In addition, they will be developing the much larger and all encompassing AI-model that is FSD. It suspect it is very hard to 'restrict/limit' a FSD-model to (only) EAP -- AI-models don't work that way.
Well EM gave us his best estimate, so you need to triple it, or use pi ....
Very good thought! -- there must be some proof that that is the right value to use, something to do with circular reasoning?
I understand and agree with your point. My problem was with the term climate alarmists. This term was invented by the fossil fuel industry to try and make it seem like climate change is not a very clear and present danger.
Imagine if scientists were predicting an asteroid colliding with the Earth in 6 months. Would the proper course of action be calling them asteroid alarmists, or should we just get Bruce Willis on the phone as soon as possible?
Reciprocity
Active Member
Then I think you should find the busiest street corner and yell at people as they drive by, because not everyone agrees with you.
I think my point was that Musk is, step by step, reinventing something which already exists, due to a failure of research. This is a rather slow and roundabout way of designing a train, and is likely to end up worse than the trains which already exist. (That is, after all, what happened with BART, when a bunch of brilliant aerospace engineers thought they could design a train by ignoring the whole history of railroad engineering. Turns out they couldn't; it's worse and more expensive than standard trains.)
At best, if he finally starts doing his research, he will match the status quo several years from now. *After* that he might start making some progress.
When Musk decided to build rockets, he did *not* start by completely ignoring the entire history of rocket research. He started by researching it intensively.
When Musk decided to build electric cars, he did *not* start by completely ignoring the entire history of electricity and of cars. He started by knowing it backwards and forwards.
He clearly did not do his research this time. At least not yet. The most optimistic assessment of Hyperloop at this time is to call it vaporware. The most pessimistic assessment is that it'll end up like BART, a more expensive and less efficient alternative to something which already exists.
Perhaps this is simply the problem with being stretched too thin. If Musk had the time to sit down for a week and learn the basics of urban planning, transportation economics, railroad engineering, and civil construction -- and I'm pretty sure he could learn all four in a single week, since he's a fast learner -- maybe he'd be coming up with more sensible ideas. But he's clearly too busy to actually do that.
Last edited:
bdy0627
Active Member
Yep, I've noticed that too. His follower count is climbing quickly. Let's see where it is next week after M3 reveal.
In the future, your transportation device takes you to the high speed transit, seemlessly merges with the high speed transit, disembarks, and then takes you to your final destination. There is no ticket made ahead of time and no time ever spent waiting at any point in the process. How can a train do that?
If you are on the edge of a circle with a radius of 1, let's say you look toward the center (where your goal is).
A limited understanding of distance (magnitude of the effort) will cause you to be off by a factor of two. What looks like it is one radius away is actually one diameter away - on the other edge of the circle, not in the center as it looked.
As you proceed, you discover that the direction is wrong, too. So you make corrections. When starting, you don't know that much, so you are moving perpendicular to the objective. As you work toward the goal, you correct direction. The direction gets better and better the closer you get.
When you reach the destination you discover the path looks like you have walked a half circle, or a distance of Pi.
The extra distance over the original estimate of 1 has two parts: misjudging the magnitude turns the r to a d. (A factor of two). Misjudging direction bellows out the path to push the misestimate to a factor of Pi.
There is an attribution... Likely someone in the national lab community (my father told me this story when I was growing up). I'll see if I can get it for you.
So basically you are saying the same thing as me : they focused on EAP and they simply have nothing that's even remotely releasable for FSD. Not sure why you disagreed earlier on that point.
So when do you think the SF->NY trip will happen?
If your loading time is significant you also need a significant number of parallel loading stations with corresponding space requirements. Which basically rules out mid-town locations. But getting out of midtown is basically the problematic part. Also, how close can these pods realistically run without running into all kind of safety issues on merge? 5 seconds? 10 seconds? Means we are looking a at a throughput of at best 500 cars/hour for a tunnel. I-95 is doing up to 20 times that many at peak hours.
Merging has to be smarter than on highways.
Here is one way:
- Run a parallel path long enough for merge to happen at full speed
- Continue the parallel path long enough for 2 attempts
- Have enough run out or loop back to decelerate and try again
Save the escalator/elevator/conveyer, everything else is underground.
The picture is a giant underground laundromat. Full of front loading washers. Built in, so all you see is the 14 ft diameter clear lexan/polycarbonate doors, with labels (digital signage) above each one indicating destination and arrival time.
Instead of the concave lexan door of a front loading washer, the glass in these doors is convex. And double layer. The outer door is hinged to the wall and supports the vacuum as, and after, the pod leaves. The inner glass/polycarbonate door is hinged to the pod itself. That door is the end of the pod or nose cone. It supports positive pressure inside the pod.
One thing that will be the same as on the washer is the door seal. When the pod arrives, it pokes through the seal far enough for the door to hinge open on the laundromat side of the wall. This makes the seal wipe in a way that atmospheric pressure will help it seal against the outside of the pod. Works a lot like a heart valve. The seal wants to act on the constant crossection of the pod - else it artificially limits cargo size.
The outer door could likely bulge outwards 4 or 6 feet. (2 meters) to accommodate the aerodynamic nose cone of the pod.
Does this giant underground laundromat picture help?
Live blog: German automaker stocks fall sharply on collusion accusations
"
The European Commission could be investigating collusion among Germany's top automakers following a report in Der Spiegel that BMW, Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche may have worked together to fix the prices and designs of diesel emissions treatment systems.
Shares in the automakers are falling to multi-month lows, following on from Friday's losses."
"
The European Commission could be investigating collusion among Germany's top automakers following a report in Der Spiegel that BMW, Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche may have worked together to fix the prices and designs of diesel emissions treatment systems.
Shares in the automakers are falling to multi-month lows, following on from Friday's losses."
"Collusion" is quickly shaping up to become the word of the year...Live blog: German automaker stocks fall sharply on collusion accusations
"
The European Commission could be investigating collusion among Germany's top automakers following a report in Der Spiegel that BMW, Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche may have worked together to fix the prices and designs of diesel emissions treatment systems.
Shares in the automakers are falling to multi-month lows, following on from Friday's losses."
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
