Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Hyperloop

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Could you expand on why you think the exiting design wouldn't work?

Not really. Mainly it just boggles my mind.

I think you are right and the expansion joints at each pylon would not be too much of a problem but getting hundreds of miles of tubing to smoothly expand and contract each day with out the slightest bit of buckling is not something I can imagine working in real life.
 
Not really. Mainly it just boggles my mind.

I think you are right and the expansion joints at each pylon would not be too much of a problem but getting hundreds of miles of tubing to smoothly expand and contract each day with out the slightest bit of buckling is not something I can imagine working in real life.

It appears you have not read the alpha design document. The design for thermal expansion/contraction is to take out all of it at the ends of the tube. No expansion joints.
 
Not really. Mainly it just boggles my mind.

I think you are right and the expansion joints at each pylon would not be too much of a problem but getting hundreds of miles of tubing to smoothly expand and contract each day with out the slightest bit of buckling is not something I can imagine working in real life.
Yeah, I know, it does seem pretty extreme. Essentially it's a straight tube bent through the pylons and free to move back and forth like the center cable in a motorcycle brake cable. If you actually do the math though, it's not that unreasonable at all since any individual pylon just makes a very small angular turn, and on the scale of this thing, the tube is pretty much continuously supported which really makes a huge difference in buckling. When a column is just on the edge of buckling, a small sideways force will keep it stable, once it gets seriously out of column however, it's a very different story.
 
I think you are right and the expansion joints at each pylon would not be too much of a problem but getting hundreds of miles of tubing to smoothly expand and contract each day with out the slightest bit of buckling is not something I can imagine working in real life.

The expansion/contraction would have to be actively assisted by small motors on some pylons, particularly when you take into account the added tension/compression due to elevation changes. Friction over 300 miles of pylons is just too severe for the expansion to happen completely passively. You also don't want the tube randomly "caterpillaring" in one direction (northward or southward) over time, and if the tube were somehow severed at the top of the Grapevine, you can't have it sliding down unchecked in both directions! But a distributed solar-powered motor system for this is straightforward enough, and it probably could be set up to act "locally" and autonomously, with occasional recalibration, so no central system would be required to synchronize the action. (and thus there would be no single point of failure.) Such motors would also be required if local sections of the tube need to be disconnected for repair, maintenance, etc.; passive forces would otherwise pull the ends apart rapidly! (and/or slam them back together again!)
 
I'm not so sure that simulation is representative of the actual design. To start with, it seems to show the vehicle just fitting the inside of the tube which is explicitly NOT the design. It also seems to not have the compressor moving most of the air from the front of the vehicle to the back, again a specific major feature of the design.

The article is a bit sketchy as to what was simulated, but looking at the velocity field, it looks pretty wrong to me.