Some will not produce a viable concept, but may have created a body of research that could be useful in future endeavours - and if it is research that has no intrinsic or immediately identifiable value, it may have never been done.
True, it would not be science if the outcome is known, tried and tested. But that's for science, not presenting a concept and expecting the world (physics) to bend around the problems with it - i mean at the very core of the concept, not a secondary problem. Concepts are a great way to discuss these issues, but in certain venture funded groups there needs to be a prototype and something to present before that effort was even made, because the problem is approached backwards from the point of financing. People that present such concepts and rush the mockups don´t bother, it´s not their money, right? Shrugging shoulders, calling it a high risk investment and closing the thing down is not a moral problem to many. The hyperloop has partial characteristics of a mass hysteria, in the best case with some wishful thinking to achieve knock-on effects, but physics is not the result of a democratic process ("physics" vs. our understanding or witness of it).
So i see the criticism misdirected, it might come from the bad habit to live on venture capital, selling unfeasible concepts, while honest members of society would struggle. Probably does not apply to a 13yos model taking part in a youth contest.
The other thing is that "conventional wisdom" needs to be challenged, otherwise progress will be slow. The "establishment" does not need to fear this, becoming defensive and obstructionist - but it does, far too often. If there are limits in physics, they will still apply. Where the problem lies is in the limits of the imagination.
The point is to ask questions and to be able to precisely define where ones knowledge ends (and hopefully extend this horizon then). But if concepts are hyped, it is not even beneficial to the involved people to discuss exactly these physical limits, because their funding, reputation, publicity is put at risk by doing so. Some people voluntarily work their ass off to get there or deliver new ideas for free just because of these values.
No establishment needed - it is rather an establishment of its own, distracting from the weakness of the concepts.
I think in this case no one can come around the corner and just solve the core of the problem, which is why the concept of hyperloop keeps being watered down more and more as a way to save some of the effort, as it can not scale, or in other words 50% of the vacuum/speed/efficiency/ROI/whatever will not beat the conventional way. Good solutions are usually no brainers, they are more efficient and therefore should be able to beat competition just by sheer existence without any magic ingredient.
Maybe i expect too much, but in this case i´d expect a business model that actually brings people from A to B, being backed with a working implementation, just because that is how infrastructure should work in the long run and not a set of moonshots. Think tanks or very niche technocratic requirements don't achieve that.
If a travel takes you 5 hours, most think half that would be cool, if it takes 30 minutes, 15 minutes would be cool, psychologically you will never get rid of this and still have to plan a certain duration > attention span. Same applies for freight.
Another example: i live in a country with partially unrestricted highway speed, drive a car which can go 210km/h, but my average there still is only 100 km/h, just because everyone else goes at that speed or because more breaks the fuel efficiency and wastes any gain by the need to refuel, would present a problem to get on and off the highway, etc. (i'm not driving a race, i commute)
In other words at some point the rest of the process outweighs any advantages out of proportion and/or is not worth additional risk/cost/wear. I think that can be applied to closed system train travel as well.
Maybe there is this use case of working in one city and living in a distant other city that is very much overlooked, but how many people would use this form of transport on a regular basis and would a multiple of the usual ride fare really make this more viable? This is why i think the concept itself is dead beyond a possible prestige factor, apart from physical feasibility.
We need minds that want to explore and think outside the box - but they need to be brought into the situation where they are motivated to try. The details aren't relevant up front, the interest is - and critically so.
In a factual way. Teaching kids the "fake it till you make it"/"high risk, high gain" methods will not solve problems, it will waste resources better spent elsewhere. This actually worked with software and areas of big untapped potential, but as shown in the thread plenty of other people scratched their heads about this very problem already. I got no problem with old concepts being evaluated again, i.e. technology did advance significantly, patent protection ended, but there is no guarantee for such things to work, and a hype alone will not do it.
Maybe the proper platform to have this kind of conversation is missing, maybe it is just too early for a 13yo to attend uni to learn about this. When i was younger i head plenty of ideas, but with some ball park numbers for efficiency and more knowledge about practical problems many of them were simply unfeasible, some required a lot more effort and some actually work, for some i still need to learn new stuff.
Whenever companies can save money or extend their business they usually do it, and they surely do check such concepts. Manufacturers would usually run to make a deal, to build the thing or to sell their wagons, bringing in their expertise, announcing their cooperation. Is that all swallowed under the big brand name or is it too outlandish for them? Sure, local services only buy what the market offers and do what is within their geographic area, but even outside of this circle there are huge networks of infrastructure that might benefit from a high speed, think parcel services, company internal distribution systems that would pay by the pound. They also need to plan for a certain (economic) duration, the benefits of a shorter duration are questionable for them, the premium option does not really work for them.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
