Talk:Hyperloop/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Torii for carriages

  • It's called hyperloop - loop suggests a closed loop.

Hyplooptorus (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Undescriptive

The article does little or nothing to describe what the Hyperloop actually is. 50.195.91.9 (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That's because Musk did little or nothing to describe what the Hyperloop actually is.  Stepho  talk  21:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's because, while the idea has received significant coverage, no one really knows what it is yet. Musk hasn't released much information. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Then you should mention in the article that we know little or nothing about it, make it clear that we are not holding back or forgetting information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.18.194 (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

How would you suggest such a thing be worded neutrally? — Huntster (t @ c) 11:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 Done "but has released no further details".  Stepho  talk  11:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

More articles in the mainstream press, but mostly about the pre-August 12th buzz

There are appearing more articles in the mainstream press, and in the tech press, but mostly about the pre-August 12th buzz as the details released are still few. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Could someone possibly add this image?

It's still speculation (Musk said it was the best guess so far, not that it was right or even close). Also, permission to copy it would be needed. Better to wait a couple more days and find out what it really is.  Stepho  talk  22:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Locations

How were San Fernando Valley and Hayward found as proposed locations? I see nothing about them in the alpha release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.216.153.230 (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Open Source Design

Since this is an open source hardware design, is there a hardware equivalent of an open source software version control system? I.E. at GitHub for hardware, where the design development can be crowd-sourced?

Not sure, but if anyone knows how the open source aspects of this project are being worked, and we have a reliable source that may be cited, then by all means let's add an overview of that to the project section of the article. N2e (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

External links of additional Musk interviews where Hyperloop was discussed

Some external links/interviews that were inappropriately placed in the article. If a use can be found for them, please use them. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Royal Aero Society interview November 23rd, 2012 . Hyperloop mentioned at 14 minute mark.
  • Khan Academy interview Apr 22, 2013 . Hyperloop mentioned at the end.
Since they are both video links to longer interviews, and one of them is YouTube, not sure if they can be used as references.
However, from a historical perspective, it may be relevant to mention that Musk spoke about the Hyperloop concept on multiple occasions between the July 2012 (Pando ...) initial disclosure and the August 2013 alpha design release. Ostensibly, one could do so by including the several interview/statements already cited in the History section, as well as Musk's interviews at the Royal Aeronautical Society on 23 November 2012 and at the Khan Academy on 23 April 2013. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No encyclopedic value whatsoever

I'm not seeing any useful facts whatsoever in this article.

If a less well-known person had made the same empty claims, unsupported by useful facts, such an article would never have made it into Wikipedia. Just because it's Elon Musk making such claims, does that make it a worthwhile Wikipedia article? All of the citations, which ought to be to reliable sources, are simply various publications quoting Elon Musk. I don't see a single reference to any reliable source based on science/technology/engineering.

I think this article deserves to be deleted. If/when real information if found, as opposed to useless speculation, a new Article can be created. Rahul (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You are free to formally propose deletion, but I strongly doubt it stands a chance. There's simply been too much coverage in the media. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed that it is nearly content free. But media coverage and him being famous means that if you got it deleted then someone would create a new article and it would probably be even worse. Better an article that says we know very little than an article that gushes on with speculation and rumour.  Stepho  talk  23:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Approximately three weeks have passed since I added this "No encyclopedic value whatsoever" section, and I have seen no reliable information added to this article, nor any cited by those responding to my comments. The point about media coverage is interesting -- yes, there has been media coverage, but all of it essentially quotes the same vague statements and none of it actually provides any real information. But it's also probably true that if this Article is deleted, people will try to recreate it. I am therefore proposing that we (a) add a Hyperloop section to the Elon Musk entry, and (b) edit the current article to change it into a tiny one that says that no reliable information is available about Hyperloop, but there has been great media coverage quoting Elon Musk, and then refers the user said section. Doing the above will recognize that the only significant thing that anybody knows about Hyperloop is that it comes from Elon Musk. Rahul (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Musk has said that he will give details on 12 August 2013. Since that is only a couple of days away, I propose that we wait a few more days and see if he provides enough information to flesh out this article. If he doesn't provide much information, then I will happily support your proposal to redirect to a section in Elon Musk.  Stepho  talk  22:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
According to the released paper, it's just another variation of the Vactrain. The only difference is the low pressure inside the tube verses a real vacuum. A real vacuum wouldn't have been practical any way so it's as close as it gets to a vactrain. I think the article should be merged with the vactrain article as a realization proposal. Hyperloop is a fancy advertising name not a real technical name appropriate for classification. It's more appropriate as a name for network e.g. Interstate 610 is called the loop in Houston. The preliminary technical details still look too immature than a real solution (compressor pump). Imho it will probably end up being a Maglev. Mightyname (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Vactrain cannot use air cushion. Otherwise it's not a vactrain. So obviosly Hyperloop is _not_ a vactrain.94.28.168.101 (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Just realized, the ground effect is an alternative solution to the compressor pump, see Ground effect train. Mightyname (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The hyperlook actually is a form of vactrain (the definition is loose enough to allow this) and the alpha design discusses the use of aerodynamic ground effect already. -- JTsams (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

First real source: Hyperloop Alpha whitepaper by Elon Musk

Hey guys, It happened! http://www.spacex.com/hyperloop - We can get rid of the speculation now! -- JTsams (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Real criticism, in reliable secondary sources

Conversations regarding critique of hyperloop alpha removed. -- JTsams (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The media sources below, each offer some degree of skepticism/criticism of the project and/or the design. These could be used to start a criticism section in the article, consistent with WP policy. Editor to editor design criticism is not really appropriate for a Wikipedia article Talk page. N2e (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Kantrowitz limit

Musk talks about avoiding the Kantrowitz limit. There's no WP page for this but just in case somebody wants to double check if Musk made up the term or not, here's the literature on it. The first is too complicated for the layman but easy enough for those in the field to decipher. The second is the paper from 1945 that defined the principle but is way to awkward to wade through.

Not sure if it's too complicated for the article itself but I thought it should be mentioned somewhere.  Stepho  talk  04:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey, well Wikipedia is a source for knowledge, so some description of the Kantrowitz limit probably does belong in some article section, somewhere. I, too, am not sure this is the article for it. But it would probably fit to be described in a section of an article on tube transport or some other appropriate WP article, and then could be linked from this article. N2e (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 Done I have created a stub section in the Arthur Kantrowitz article, entitled Kantrowitz limit, and linked it to the See also section of the Hyperloop article, where someone had already added a redlink to the Kantrowitz limit.
I added two sources in the literature where the limit is referred to as the Kantrowitz limit. I did not (yet) use your 1945 source, but that source would likely be a very good source for gleaning a technical summary of the limit, and limit conditions, and adding that to the WP article section which attempts to provide an overview of it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Post-reveal sources, media articles

With the reveal yesterday, there have now been a number of mainstream tech media and ordinary media stories on the hyperloop. All could serve as sources for improving the article.

— N2e (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Add more here:

Theory and operation section

The theory and operation section needs to be expanded (and maybe renamed to Hyperloop alpha design). It should include some sub-headings. Proposals below based on the alpha release whitepaper.

  • Theory
  • Capsule
  • Tube
  • Propulsion
  • Route
    • Route optimization
    • Station locations
  • Safety and Reliability
  • Cost
  • Open source

-- JTsams (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Concur on the big idea, in that I think the alpha-level design technical description warrants its own section. Project characteristics such as "open source" probably fit in another section, as that is not a fundamental part of a particular design. All of the statements writren should be made based on reliable secondary sources and have inline citations, not be merely original research from the primary source of the alpha-design pdf. Go for it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree on open source not belonging. I was a bit unaware of primary sources being frowned upon. I'll have to collect some secondary and tertiary reliable sources :) -- JTsams (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Cool. See above for a list of links I added this morning to a half-dozen media articles on the Hyperloop written after the reveal yesterday. Those should have most of the high-level characteristics to overview the technical description, and then the primary source (Hyperloop pdf) can be used to fill out detail/specs where the media sources don't describe it at all, yet is still publically-released and verifiable knowledge. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I moved the cost and economic stuff out of the Theory of Operation section into the section on Political and Economic Considerations. I think the Theory of Op section is now poised to become a much more thorough section on the technology itself, as you previously proposed. N2e (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Differences from vactrains?

How is this proposal different from a vactrain, except the trains are only running in a partial vacuum instead of a full vacuum? 98.210.60.236 (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It's like the difference between a skyscraper and your house - they're just buildings, aren't they? Being in a partial vacuum has the advantage of low friction but means that the fan at the front can be used to generate an air cushion (no need for wheels or maglev). The air present still has an effect on top speed. But at least it doesn't need huge vacuum pump machinery and eternal vigilance against air leaks. So the presence of air is necessary but has its own problems - problems that are quite different to a vactrain.  Stepho  talk  09:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, vactrain has a broad definition. hyperloop is a subcategory of vactrain. A cheaper and more practical initial version. A total vacuum vactrain could be much more efficient but the cost would apparently be hard to justify economically. -- JTsams (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
From the vactrain page: "It is a maglev line run through evacuated (air-less) or partly evacuated tubes or tunnels." The partly-evacuated part works, but clearly the maglev part does not. Unless the wiki vactrain info is incorrect, hyperloop doesn't belong as a subcategory of vactrain, though it is obviously closely related.Great Skies Above! (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The description of several of you, above, is quite helpful on understanding the distinction between the traditional vactrain concept and hyperloop. However, since this is Wikipedia, it will be good if we can find reliable sources for the distinction. There are no doubt others, but this article:

The future of transport: No loopy idea, published just today (17 Aug 2013) in The Economist, does set the distinction out pretty clearly: "... the Hyperloop is not actually a true vac-train. Instead, Mr Musk plans to remove sufficient air from the tubes to give them a pressure roughly a sixth of that on the surface of his beloved Mars, or a thousandth of that on Earth at sea level. This would keep the air resistance low enough to deal with in other ways. The chief of these would be to suck up the air that did accumulate in front of the tube’s rolling stock (putatively, individual pods that could hold 28 people each) using a fan, and then expel most of it from the pod’s rear end. Some of this air, though, would be diverted out of the sides through special skis, to create a cushion that would stop the pod touching the tunnel walls."

If we find other reliable sources on the distinction, please add them here, or in edits to the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Gizmodo article

Moving from external links section, if someone wants to use it in the article:

  • "Beyond the hype of Hyperloop: An analysis of Elon Musk's proposed transit system". Gizmag.com. Retrieved 2013-08-23.
You don't gave any reason why it shouldn't be a valid EL thus I reverted your so far unfounded removal. If you have a valid reason for removal please make your case here. So far you haven't made it (talking about your strange edit summary which is not based on any policy nor guideline).TMCk (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't the one who removed it, but if I had been this would have been my logic: not every article can have a link from the external links section. Either the article should be used as a source, or it should be removed. Either way it doesn't belong in the external links section. — Gopher65talk 03:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
You didn't provide a valid reason either. You didn't even explain your "logic". So far there is no basis for removal nor even for discussion. Makes me think there are (only) opinions but no policy issues here.TMCk (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If I can chime in, I put it in EL because it didn't specifically support anything in the article and yet provided relevant info. I can see lots of stuff in it that could go in the article. I may add some and would encourage others to do so as they see fit. Lfstevens (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:ELMAYBE implies that external links like that would be better as as sources (ie references) in a 'Reception' section. WP:EL gives more about external links. Personally, I like that link and would like to see it used a reference in an expanded reception/criticism section. We're in danger of having a Musk love-in. Published, well thought out criticisms by professionals to point out possible areas of concern are welcome.  Stepho  talk  13:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely. Agree with Lfstevens, TMCk and Stepho-wrs. Just read the article today. It has much more detailed analysis that is, by definition, from a reliable secondary (technical) source, and should certainly be used to improve the article. In the meantime, there is no reason at all that it should not be left in the ExtLinks section, even though that is not the preferred location once it is, in fact, used as a source in the article. Agree on the criticism as well; we need more reliable source criticism to round out the article. Note, the article also has some beneficial info and claims that would improve the History section of the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I decided to go ahead and use the Gizmag article as a source for a couple of details in the article, and will remove it from the External Links list now, based on that. N2e (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

Best practices for articles generally suggest that topical, thematic approaches to topics that include a balanced perspective are preferable to splitting all the criticism into a separate section. I think the article is more readable when the critical takes are integrated into the individual areas. This also avoids pigeonholing the critical views and possibly leaving arguments unrebutted. Therefore, I undid N2e's edit.

However, I'm not really tied that strongly to this view and am willing to hear out why you think it would be better with a single "Criticism" section, and per WP:BRD, if someone else wants to put it back I won't revert it again. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it to Talk page, NBSW—as that is consistent with WP:BRD. I think I'll disagree with you on this one. The guideline (WP:CRITICISM) does state a slight preference for integration, but only slight. It specifically points out about five different approaches of handling criticism in articles: one of those is to have a separate Criticism section. And that is especially true for political issues, of which a Hyperloop alpha-design concept vs. an established political machine like California High Speed Rail (with strong political, and union, and construction company, etc. vested interests standing to have big revenues for the next many decades in the $100 billion project) definitely is. When a mere technology concept is published, with some first-level engineering behind it but no established organization supporting the actual development/construction, I believe it is WP:UNDUE to fill the article on Hyperloop with extensive criticism in every section.
Moreover, that is merely a Wikipedia Essay; it has not even reached Guideline status; and is even farther from core Policy. There are other reasons, of course, but I'll stop here for my perspective on it and see what other editors think.
So, I'll propose the following.

PROPOSED: Add a Criticism section to the article, to consolidate a good bit of the criticism of Hyperloop, so that the Criticism is not given undue weight in an article on a proposed/conceptual technology architecture. N2e (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"Established political machine" is an unsourced POV. Put that way, I am now actually firmly opposed to the idea of stripping criticism into a separate section.
The fact of the matter is that the hyperloop is entirely conjectural at this point — nothing more than a bunch of artists' conceptions, assumptions and projections. There is no independent evidence to prove that any of Musk's statements are true. We don't even know if the hyperloop is even actually possible. That does not mean we must assume Musk is wrong, but it does mean that we cannot take his claims upon blind faith. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and at this point, he's making extraordinary claims.
A number of reliable sources have published critiques of the idea from transportation writers and professionals. None of them have said that the project is impossible, but they have made a number of very fair points, particularly pointing out that the proposed cost is far out of line with established norms for similar transportation projects - much less projects with such an extensive array of new and unproven technologies. We must balance Musk's claims directly with the responses to those claims, perhaps even more so because Musk's claims are, at this point, entirely unsupported by any independent research. We cannot give Musk undue weight.
You seem to be asserting some sort of conspiracy theory against the hyperloop, a claim that has no support from reliable sources. The fact is that to portray the hyperloop as equivalent or competitive to CAHSR is a non-sequitur. One is a not-yet-even-prototyped set of CAD drawings, napkin-sketches, conjectures and completely-unsupported cost projections. The other is a legislatively-enacted, partially-funded system using existing, proven high-speed rail technologies, in the late stages of design, engineering and environmental review and for which construction is slated to begin within months.
tl;dr: Wikipedia cannot republish Musk's claims uncritically. Pigeonholing criticism into a separate section prevents a fair, even-handed treatment of Musk's claims about the hyperloop concept. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
(EC) While I'm not specifically rejecting a criticism section, I think we need to remember this wasn't just a concept but presented as a concept for an alternative mode of transport compared to existing plans, more importantly with specific claims made about the cost, relative ease of construction etc. So for that reason more criticism is going to come than a more 'pie-in-the sky' concept. And of course, when specific claims are made, if people have criticised or suggested those claims are inaccurate, then the reader has a clear interest in knowing that.
Or to put it a different way, I'm not sure if it's WP:UNDUE if there is a fair amount of criticism if there was really that much specific criticism of the actual proposal, provided we don't let the criticism get to the level where the reader isn't actually able to understand the proposal given the amount of criticism.
If the criticism starts to get out of hand, perhaps it needs to be parred down or the article expanded. I would note one specific concern of criticism sections beyond the possible loss of context is that they can actually make things more undue, becoming a dumping ground for every random criticism you can find on some random source rather then well backed up criticism of specific aspects.
Also a lot of the criticism seems to be one the cost and construction aspect (and as I noted above, even as a non-expert and before hearing the plans this seemed a likely issue of contention and to my limited reading, the plans don't seem to have cleared it up much). So I'm not that sure whether the article is going to be filled with a lot of criticism in every section, more of a lot of criticism in one section where there has been a lot of criticism.
Nil Einne (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Cost?

When I first heard of this thing before the plan was unveiled my immediate thought was the cost seemed unrealistic particularly given the cost comparison for high speed rail (and I was saying that as someone little knowledge of the engineering/cost estimation side of things, simply that I didn't see why the proposal would allegedly be so much cheaper). Now that the details have been revealed, it seems many sources agree. These sources may be useful for anyone intending to expand the article [2] [3] [4].

Some more detail of why Musk believe the project will be so much cheaper would also be helpful, so far all I've read are

1) It'll be lighter.

2) Less right of way. (I haven't actually heard any explaination of what he means by this, I presume he isn't saying the hyperloop is going to have level crossings. Perhaps he means because of it allegedly being easier to elevate and perhaps it also needs less height or side clearances, it's easier to accommodate.)

3) Running it down existing highways on elevated tracks. Most sources seem to agree that this would be difficult given the issues involved and I haven't heard any explaination for why he believes it'll be easier for the Hyperloop as opposed to high speed rail (which can use elevated tracks but often don't because it makes it more expensive), beyond the weight issue which could be a big factor, and whatever he means by 2.

There could be other factors like the potential ability to transport cars, significant speed advantage, alleged lower noise and perhaps being seen as less of an eyesore as making it easier to get permission (although I suspect he's underestimating nimbyism and bureaucracy). I haven't see any discussion of other factors which make high speed rail construction more difficult like turning radii and gradients (although I can't imagine the hyperloop would be a lot better considering the speed).

Of course even if the hyperloop only ends up costing the same as high speed rail, it may still be better given the alleged speeds if it really has equivalent safety, reliability, energy cost and capacity (all of which are a big if). But considering the low cost was one promoted feature it's something that our article will need to address.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding right of way costs, see this section of the hyperloop propsal, which I think plausible.
Hyperloop alpha, pg 5:

Even when the Hyperloop path deviates from the highway, it will cause minimal disruption to farmland roughly comparable to a tree or telephone pole, which farmers deal with all the time. A ground based high speed rail system by comparison needs up to a 100 ft wide swath of dedicated land to build up foundations for both directions, forcing people to travel for several miles just to get to the other side of their property. It is also noisy, with nothing to contain the sound, and needs unsightly protective fencing to prevent animals, people or vehicles from getting on to the track.
I think the cost model of a telephone poll based utility line is valid for exactly the reasons given, and should be included in article discussion of cost.
mheslep 173.79.124.209 (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Well it doesn't really explain why it would cause minimal disruption other than the sound bit.
Sure it does. The main point is visibly true for any ground installed major highway or train: they cut off one side from casual transportation to the otherside. Again:

A ground based high speed rail system by comparison needs up to a 100 ft wide swath of dedicated land to build up foundations for both directions, forcing people to travel for several miles just to get to the other side of their property.

As I said, it's not like you can't elevate a train track. (As I also said, it may be elevating a hyperloop is allegedly easier for some reason, but these reasons would need to be explained.)
Yes, as can highways. The major difference here is that Hyperloop has a greatly reduced mass per unit length by comparison, as presented in the proposal: capsules are limited to a couple dozen people per the proposal with limited amenities (workable for the 30 minute travel time), with a mass a little over three metric tons. By comparison a single Amtrac passenger car has a mass of 50 to 80 tons. Also, a traditional train that is elevated temporarily to enable transverse traffic must also severely restrain the elevation grade two a few percent for mass reasons.
You're forgetting the mass of the steel required for the tube. Which is actually a whole bunch. Also, it's in no way clear that the steel tube would be able to be self-supporting, deal with heat expansion/contraction, seismic issues, etc. and remain within the tolerances required (we're talking millimeter distances from the tube wall here). It's entirely plausible that the steel tube will need its own concrete/steel support structure. Which adds a whole bunch more to the weight and cost.
Also, the hyperloop's gradients are even more restricted than steel-rail gradients because of the speed of travel. Going 700 mph and hitting even a remotely-steep "up" gradient would likely slam the capsule into the tube wall. So the gradient has to be very limited. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
And the telephone pole bit seems funny, telephone poles usually don't have such big tubes on top of them. I suspect there's also a bit of an underestimation about how willing farmers are to have utility poles which aren't benefiting them on their farm land.
Speculation is unnecessary; the cost per mile for elevated transmission lines is commonly available from transmission firms like American Electric Power and others, which provides an upper bound on land and right of way costs per mile. mheslep 173.79.124.209 (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The suggestion in that AEP document that the cost of the right-of-way is about 10-15% of the total cost of a project strikes me as reasonable, but since we don't really know how much the hyperloop is going to cost, 10-15% of an unknown number is itself an unknown number. If you're suggesting that the actual land acquisition cost for a hyperloop will be the exact same as that for a high-voltage power line, I have to disagree. Among other differences, the allowable curve radius and gradient for a hyperloop is far wider and shallower than power lines are capable of being built to, which translates to non-comparable routing issues. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
BTW, both of those earlier points hint at something which seem to be missing from our article, how large are these tubes supposed to be (unless I missed it, our article doesn't mention anything about the diameter or whatever), and if they're a lot smaller than tubes for trains (one source suggested it, why? And how does that relate to the cargo and passenger carrying capacity (including expansion room) and comfort, running cost and breakdown risk? All in all, while I haven't looked at the article that well and other sources even less, it seems there's still a lot of unanswered questions which our article could address (presuming sources have started to do so) or the reader would come to the same conclusion as to the experts now mentioned in our article and me without needing to consider much yet I would hope the proposal isn't quite that bad even if unrealistic. Nil Einne (talk) 04:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Vac tunnel versus vactrain

An earlier version of the Hyperloop article cited a tweet from Musk that said "Not a vac tunnel btw." He did not say "vactrain." Whether the tunnel is under full or partial vacuum (in the case of the Hyperloop, almost a full vacuum with 1‰ sea level pressure as mentioned above), it is still a "vac tunnel," which doesn't have a formal definition like vactrain does (or at least no Wikipedia article), but is rather just short for evacuated tunnel (or vacuum tunnel). The statement that Musk made in his tweet could be seen as misleading. Would it be worth adding to the article to either point out the false statement or explain how the Hyperloop could be truthfully described as "not a vac tunnel"? SkycraftAero (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It could be, if you have a reliable secondary source where this is discussed. The term vactrain had traditionally been used to describe a tube transport method where vacuum is used to facilitate the capsule/pod movement through the tunnel. Low-pressure tunnels and Atmospheric-pressure tunnel concepts have worked differently. Musk's Hyperloop concept is different in that the air pressure wave that builds up at the front of the capsule/pod is necessary as a part of the design approach. Right now, we have at least one source that says Hyperloop is not a true vactrain, which I think is correct. Do we have any sources that definitively call it a vactrain? N2e (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Since Vacuum has no more a precise or universal density boundary than Hard Vacuum has, the question of classifying this notion as "true vactrain" is as much a matter of preference as of fact. Robert M. Salter's notion, we may recall, was to compress the "rarified air" in front of it to as a brake, yet was often called a "vactrain". Jim.henderson (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Organization of the History section

How should we organize the History section?

My take: this is a history of Hyperloop, since the article scope is Hyperloop, and not a history of all tube passenger transport, whether of pressure systems, low-pressure systems or vactrains. So I'm thinking that the main idea here is the History of the Hyperloop, from first proposal to today. Others have added some related proposals, concepts that had some similarity or the other, but were clearly not Hyperloop (very low pressure, with inlet fans compressing the built-up higher-pressure air on the leading edge (nose) of the passenger capsule. Should this stuff stay? Personally, I'm okay with it staying, but would not think that the history section should be reordered to make it all once seemless history, cause it certainly isn't. What do others think? Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. For now it should be the history of the Hyperloop concept. Once (if) something is actually built, the section can be expanded to include the history of the project, limited info on the company that builds it, the historical funding sources, etc. Details of the system are better put in a separate technical section, while details of other similar systems (vactrain) are better left to their respective articles and wikilinked from here. — Gopher65talk 03:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Some mention of historical precedent for the concept is probably warranted, but certainly not an exhaustive "Related proposals" list, as we seem to be attempting now. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I prefer it to be a history of the Hyperloop. If we are not careful then it will turn into a history of tube transportation systems and we should then rename the article to reflect the larger scope. However, it is worthwhile to also have a section which compares how the Hyperloop differs from vactrains, pneumatic tubes and similar.  Stepho  talk  09:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Approximately half the section as it stands now can be replaced by a sentence linking to Atmospheric railway. Details on other precedents can also be trimmed to bring it down to a short paragraph. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Lots of ideas here. It seems there is an emerging consensus on a couple of them. I'll attempt to summarize what I think we're fairly much in agreement on.

  • This is the Hyperloop article, and the History section really ought to be about the History of the Hyperloop, per se.
  • It is acceptable to have some links and some text to mention other related ideas in tube transport, somewhere in the article.
  • Whatever we have about other tube transport systems, whether atmospheric pressure systems, low-pressure systems, or vacuum systems ought to be brief statements of fact with links to the article(s) that would fill out the detail. No extensive detail here in the Hyperloop article. If someone wants to write a History of tube transportation systems, they would be free to do so, but elsewhere (assuming WP:RS, WP:CS, WP:NOTABILITY, etc.)

Does that about sum it up? If so, then edits in accord with the consensus should begin after a few days unless someone has a lot of heartburn over it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

On 16 Sep, I made edits to implement a portion of this consensus, and moved the (much-broader) History of proposed tube transport systems out of the Hyperloop History section, to elsewhere in the article. There may be some other thinning of the material in that section to be done, as it appears the consensus was to have only brief summaries in this Hyperloop article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Alon Levy

Regardless of one's personal views about Alon Levy's criticisms, they were reported and commented upon in an indisputable reliable source - a blog hosted and under the editorial control of the Washington Post. Inserting sourced rebuttals to those criticisms is acceptable. Removing them is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused by The Magnificent Clean-Keeper's edit summary. There is no requirement that a person we quote be "notable," and the claim that he is "not an expert" is unsourced. Levy's criticisms have been noted and commented upon in a variety of reliable sources. Matthew Yglesias of Slate called it "the most forceful and thorough retort I've seen." [5] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but you got it backwards. The claim that he is "not an expert" doesn't have to be sourced if it doesn't appear in the article. The claim that he is an expert in that field on the other hand needs sourcing which is not present.TMCk (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
This article has, correctly, not stated that either Elon Musk or Alon Levy is an "expert" in the field. Elon Musk is not an expert in the field, and has even less experience in mass transportation than Alon Levy. But because his plan has been noted in reliable sources, we report on it. Alon Levy's criticism of the plan has also been noted in reliable sources, so we report on it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Levy's criticism is fine, as long as the article does not get out of balance; after all, this article is about the Hyperloop and Wikipedia guidelines indicate that criticism fits within certain limits. I don't see anything wrong with the edits of MCK that made the descriptive language around the Levy material a bit more accurate.N2e (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
(and by the way, this topic seems to have morphed and no longer is about the removal of Alon Levy material, at least it hasn't been in the last several comments/interactions; so the section title may now be a bit inappropriate as it is not descriptive of the topic being discussed. N2e (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with MCK's edit either, I was more addressing his edit summary, which was confusing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The Hyperloop Foundation

Sometime after the initial alpha-design announcement in August, a Hyperloop Foundation was set up, or became publically visible. I learned about it from an External Link added to the article in the past couple of weeks. I don't know much about it, or if this foundation is really and truly the open-source coordinating organization taking the hyperloop idea forward. But if it is, and if we have reliable sources describing its role, resources and function, then it would be notable and worth adding some info about it to the article.

Anybody have a good source or two with info about this organization? Where is it incorporated? Is it a non-profit? Who formed it? Any funding from Musk who, in a news conference the day after the alpha-design was published, said something about generally putting some amount of his personal money behind his technological ideas, and intended to do so on the Hyperloop small-scale demonstration project? Who are the officers and management? How will the open-source technology ideas of the project be assembled, reviewed, and disseminated to the community? Etc. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any reliably-sourced coverage of the organization and there is no evidence of any activity beyond initially setting up a Web site and Tumblr (which has not been updated in over a month). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

A bit of fun

Obviously we can't put this in the article but I thought we could use a bit of related fun: http://www.dilbert.com/2013-10-02/  Stepho  talk  07:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Dishonest photo/image

So the 2nd image shows glass tubes, but the 58 page alpha document never mentions glass. It is unfortunately designed to be steel tubes. Surely the image should show steel tubes rather than glass tubes. 58.178.141.155 (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The image uses the cut-away technique where some surfaces are shown as semi-translucent in order to allow inner details to be shown. The article never says there is glass involved and in section 'Alpha-level design' of the article it says the tubes would be steel. But I agree that there is potential for confusion. Perhaps the image caption should say something like 'cutaway image of the steel tubes'.  Stepho  talk  15:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 Done, noting that the steel tubes have been rendered transparent in the image. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
There are no inner workings to be shown. And why is it tinted blue. Perhaps there should be another image showing what it actually looks like. 116.240.169.42 (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
My guess is the colour was arbitrary. Showing inside is important because otherwise somebody could equally well argue that the diagram is showing a solid concrete structure. Improvements could be made to it but remember that most work on Wikipedia is by volunteer labour (and in this case, using a skill that I certainly don't have). Sometimes we just have to take what we get, be grateful and put in a caption making it clearer. And overall, it's a good diagram anyway.  Stepho  talk  04:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia photo of actual steel pipes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metal_tubes_stored_in_a_yard.jpg I dont think it is a good diagram. When I first saw Hyperloop in the media, I thought it was glass. Then I read the 58-page alpha document, there was no mention of glass. There needs to be another diagram to show what it will actually look like from the outside. 116.240.169.42 (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Repeating from my first comment: "The article never says there is glass involved and in section 'Alpha-level design' of the article it says the tubes would be steel" (where 'article' means this Wikipedia article). But you are certainly free to try your hand at a diagram and we can all decide which is the better.  Stepho  talk  07:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hyperloop Interior

Should we add proposed ideas for interiors? One idea being covering the interior with this kickstarter technology, the CastAR. CastAR Then being inside a steel tube could be anything and everything. A trip to the moon or watch a movie, play a game, take a tour of Mount Everest, surf the web, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnyhugo (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Capsule interiors is an engineering subject that is already well known by designers of trains, airplanes, etc - not specific to the Hyperloop concept. And that CastAR link, cool as it is, isn't specific to the Hyperloop either.  Stepho  talk  20:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Htt

Another editor wiped my addition of properly cited material on HTT. I think I shd revert, but I don't do edit wars. What say you? Lfstevens (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It was removed due to the rather extraordinarily non-encyclopedic and promotional nature in which it was written. I also question the notability of the program, but that is secondary to the other concerns. Per WP:BRD, you were bold in your addition, I've reverted for those reasons, and I encourage others to comment on the contents. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I have points on which I could agree with each of you. Overall, it wasn't as encyclopedically written as it needs to be. For example: "The Hyperloop is a remarkable concept..." is particularly inappropriate. But I think that this company, HTT, may withstand scrutiny and some brief summary of it stay in the Hyperloop article if a couple of reliable sources are found so it could withstand the WP:GNG criteria. Perhaps you could suggest a new, somewhat more brief, and definitely less promotional paragraph about the HTT, which would allow others to weigh in on it, with changes. Have other reliable sources covered this newly formed company? Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
How about:
HTT is an engineering startup advised by California-based JumpStartFund. It has built organization and operational plans, and key partnerships. The company was organized by Dr. Marco Villa (former director of mission operations for SpaceX) and Dr. Patricia Galloway (past president of the American Society of Civil Engineers). It depends oncrowdsourcing and crowdfunding. HTT works with ANSYS for computing resources, material science development company GloCal Network Corp, and the UCLA Architecture and Urban Design department, which is working on the social interface. CEO Dirk Ahlborn (founder and CEO of JumpStartFund) said, "... the next milestone will be presenting a white paper ... by the beginning of 2015, we want to have a scale model."[1]

Looking for sites for a Hyperloop scale model (likely 1/10 full size) on which to perform engineering tests was planned to commence next spring in the Northern Hemisphere.[1]

Lfstevens (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Open Source Project

Someone has started a fairly good outline of the hyperloop design on openmdao, a NASA open source modeling software. This has been posted as a git repository for anyone to edit. perhaps we can add this to the article?

http://openmdao-plugins.github.io/Hyperloop/index.html

--JTsams  talk 22:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Already mentioned at Hyperloop#Computer simulation.  Stepho  talk  22:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this really notable?

Does this idea really warrant a whole page on Wikipedia? The only thing new here, as far as I can see, is the word Hyperloop. Variations of this 'invention' have been around for many, many years. Just because a charismatic billionaire bands around a few press releases, which are then gleefully gobbled up by the bottom feeders of the 'news' world, does not make it notable. 1000 sources regurgitating the same press releases does not constitute notability. The whole page smacks of promotionalism (if there is such a word), with buzz-phrases like 'alpha-level design' repeated ad nauseum. Just because it's been heavily paraphrased to supposedly bring it up to Wikipedia standards, does not change the fact that this is overtly promotional material, originally put out by Mr Musk as a means of self-promotion. Anyone with an ounce of gumption can see that this is never going to happen, so talking about where it might be built, etc., is moot. He even said as much himself, something about having "too much other shit going on" to actually develop the concept. ("Oooh.. he said 'shit' - Let's include that in our report!", said the pithy young executive in the news studio.)

Look, I've got nothing against Elon Musk or his methods - in fact I quite admire the guy - but Wikipedia deserves better than to be hijacked by proxy in order to aggrandize a commercial entity. If Bill Gates told the world that he's been thinking about the idea of a space elevator called The Mega-pult you can be certain that it would be repeated by news stations all over the world (or at least the Internet) like he'd single-handedly invented the damn thing, making it 'notable' by Wikistandards. That doesn't mean we should make a whole page about it. A footnote on Mr Gates' page, perhaps. Should the wheel that squeeks get the oil? I think not.

My apologies to all the editors who have put in the hard work to make this page, I don't wish to sound disparaging towards them, but perhaps if they took a step back, conquer their excitability and leaf through the pages of history a bit they might realize that they've been unwittingly (or otherwise) co-opted by the Musk Media Machine to propagate a non-idea at the expense of the reputation of this encyclopedia. *Rant over* nagualdesign (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If you can come up with a solid deletion rationale, take it to AfD for discussion. However, I can pretty much guarantee that, with the number and relative quality of the citations, this article won't be leaving. Your efforts would probably be better spent on the talk page here discussing methods to improve the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Musk has two gifts. He does things that other people think are too hard, not practical, not economical, etc. And he can make other people enthusiastic about these things. So while many of the techniques he's outlined in the Hyperloop are not new, he's put them in a package with enough of the initial details worked out so that someeone else can pick it up as a viable project. That makes it more notable than many other projects that failed.
For the moment, this is the article that captures people's imagination and so it serves as a portal to the other forms of atmospheric and full/partial vacuum railways. However, if you can start the ball rolling on an article for atmospheric and full/partial vacuum railways then I'd be more than happy to chip in on that article and to shift big chunks of this article over there as well.  Stepho  talk  08:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I may just take you up on that offer, if I find the time. There are a few articles that could be cherry picked to form an overarching article. Thanks for the positive feedback, Stepho. nagualdesign (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Musk not the inventor!

There is lots of prior proposals of this flavor. I found patents from several years ago that involve a tube and all the main components of the system described in this article (use Google Patents and keywords tube, transport). I think Musk's role in this limits to talking about it and managing to catch the media's imagination. The article should be properly researched and rewritten to make it more objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.179.227 (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

If you have realiable sources for your statements, just add them right in; after all, on Wikipedia, anyone can edit. The article, as it presently stands, merely presents what is verifiable about the alpha-level hyperloop concept, including both its new way of putting together a number of particular design factors, as well as presenting a number of the historical precedents for other sorts of tube-transport technologies. N2e (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Basic ignorance regarding the history of rail exhibited by not even mentioning IKB's similiar idea... Very low standard for a WP article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.209.123 (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

And IKB is...? And what is their relevance here? If you don't like this "low standard" then please provide useful information. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Isambard Kingdom Brunel? *Facepalm* ..I agree 100% with the IP editors above. Whilst it's reasonably well written and edited, this is a very low standard of article. It would be better to simply have an article on the subject of evacuated tube transport concepts and their variations, if there isn't one already, and include a subsection on the Hyperloop idea, detailing whatever supposedly makes it unique. nagualdesign (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
You make it sound like everyone should be familiar with this person. We're not all experts in this field. I'm just a copyeditor, for example. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Apparently, as an American you're not alone in your unfamiliarity. But as an experienced Wikipedia editor you ought to be more than capable performing a basic search before engaging in a discussion about 'basic ignorance regarding the history of rail', right? nagualdesign (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
If you'd said 'Brunel' then I (and hopefully most engineers) would have instantly known who you were talking about. But I've never heard of him being called 'IKB' and nothing came to mind out of the thousands of acronyms I'm bombarded with on a daily basis. Is 'IKB' a common name for him in your part of world ?  Stepho  talk  08:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
No, me neither (I'm not the IP editor above, by the way), but a quick Google and I realized who he/she was talking about. I live in England and I'd never heard Brunel refered to as IKB before this. In fact, I have to Google most acronyms I encounter online. nagualdesign (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, independent of the discussion about whether we editors should, or should not, have known who "IKB" is, or who "Brunel" is, I just went and did a little research on what his idea was. Brunel's "atmospheric caper" isn't remotely related to the Hyperloop concept. In Brunel's concept, the goods moved on train-carriage cars moving on rails, and simply used a much smaller low-pressure tube to apply the motive force to the train. Thus, without some reliable source relating it to Hyperloop, it would be original research to attempt to say it is related to Hyperloop. Brunel was a truly great engineer of the 19th Century, but his idea here doesn't become a predecessor/related idea to Hyperloop just be being that. N2e (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"Technological and economic feasibility"

There are no studies which have shown that the technologies of the hyperloop are feasible to construct and operate, nor are there studies which have supported the claimed price tag of $6 billion. Computer-modeling bits and pieces of the project are interesting, but they do not amount to either a proof or refutation of Musk's claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

For example, the OpenMDAO propulsion model claim is interesting, until you read the list of guesstimated, hand-waved or completely-nonexistent parts of the propulsion model. Which is fine, it's an 0.5 version, I'm sure they'll work on it. But you can't claim that you have a computer model proving the thing works when, by the team's own admission, "the current model does not include any significant weight estimation."

I can make a computer model show a Boeing 747 fly with a Cox model engine if my model of the Boeing 747 was weightless. That doesn't prove anything.

Nor does the model significantly account for the battery size and weight, or the size and weight of the motor required, or any cooling systems that the powertrain would require... there is no accounting for the vacuum pumps required, or the linear accelerators... it's a bunch of hand-waved guesstimates that start from an assumption that Musk's claims are all true. That's not an independent study. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we're talking about different things. The sentence in the article in question is "As of August 2013, the technological and economic feasibility of the idea had not been independently studied." We're not arguing about whether it is feasible, only about whether it has been studied - at least in part. Musk's proposal was released on 13 August 2013. To say that it had not been independently studied by August 2013 is to say that no independent study was formally completed in the next two weeks. A formal study within two weeks is a big ask. However, studies of partial models were published at roughly 1 month, 2 months and 3 months after the initial proposal. These three studies may not be of the complete system but they do constitute independent studies.
I think you misunderstood the weight estimation statement in the OpenMDAO. They didn't state that weight estimates were zero - only that they did modelling for parts that didn't rely on weight values. For example, I could say that a 747 could travel 5000 km in five hours with the majority of the trip being done at 1000 km/h. I haven't specified any weights but that doesn't invalidate the statement or claim that zero was used for weight values. For sure, the model could be improved by adding weight values and then modelling start/end acceleration and G forces. The OpenMDAO team have specified which parts they modelled and which parts they left out - with the implication that adding in those parts would make the model more accurate. It's good science and good engineering to let people know the boundaries of the model so that they can decide if the model is accurate enough for their purposes or not. In the 747 model, the start/end acceleration is affected by the weight but the total time of the trip might only change by 15 minutes - not significant to most passengers over five hours and the first order model is good enough. But engineers would need the weight to calculate total fuel usage and air traffic controllers would want the trip time down to the minute and a better model with weights would be required.
So, it's not a hand wave - it's only saying that the parts they studied are reasonable on a first order analysis.  Stepho  talk  07:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Then it's not really a "propulsion model," is it? It's more like another air-flow model. The model doesn't account for any of the actual things that would suspend and propel the capsule, be they linear accelerators or in-capsule motors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
More to the point, I agree that the wording of "as of August" etc. was awkward (I didn't insert it) and have rewritten the sentence to more directly state the controversy - The technological and economic feasibility of the idea is unproven and a subject of significant debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
That seems like fair wording to me. And let's not forget that there are many detractors who have picked this idea to pieces, like this blog. (Yes, I know blogs are not RS.) The gaping holes in Musk's masterplan have been laid bare, so why is it that we now seem to be pushing a section where every paragraph concludes with it's feasible? In particular, the section title Computer simulation unnecessarily adds credence to the idea. People read that and think, "Well if the computers say it's feasible it must be." Similarly, one of the image captions at one point stated that it was a 3D computer model, when in fact it's nothing more than a SketchUp doodle. Most people don't really understand computer models, but they do understand that they work, therefore we have to be careful not to overstate things, or state them in a way that may cause undue faith in a concept so riddled with holes as to be laughable to anyone with a passing interest in civil engineering. nagualdesign (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Ivey Business Review claims

I have removed the Ivey Business Review source as being insufficiently reliable and not being a notable expert opinion. It is not, as the title suggests, a peer-reviewed journal - rather, it is akin to a student newspaper, by the source's own statements, being written and edited by undergraduate students. There is no evidence of any external professional review of the article's claims, nor any evidence that the opinion holds significant weight in reliable sources. It appears that no other outside sources have noted, much less confirmed, Zawalsky's claims. We should not simply republish publish every random undergraduate student's opinion of the hyperloop's costs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article is of somewhat questionable provenance given that it originates from a source managed by undergraduate business students and as a result we should be cautious. However, with citations from Felix Salmon and with the New York Times sourcing "according to the Ivey Business Review" Ivey Business Review appears to have achieved a certain level of notability. The author's engineering and business degrees would suggest some level of familiarity with the issues at hand, though not necessarily that you would expect from a PhD. The main issue I see is that there is a complete lack of independent cost estimates of the Hyperloop; with current "expert" citations using what appear to be rushed back of the envelop calculations. So while the quality of the source is up for debate, as far as I can tell it is the most rigorous independent cost estimate of the Hyperloop that exists today. Further, it is the only cost estimate from a party that is neither advocating for the project nor an apparent critic of the project.
As such, I would suggest that the citation be left provided that it resides alongside an accurate description of the author's credentials and continued usage of the statement [Author] believes that [...]. The detail provided within the source article allows for a reader to judge the veracity of claims made by Zawalsky when compared to somewhat opaque claims of cost backed up by little evidence or rigour by other sourced opinions. Should a future neutral detailed cost estimate be published from a source with greater reliability I would advocate for replacement with that source. But until then, the inclusion of this source adds value to a reader looking for a neutral view on the potential cost of the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.140.219 (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Neither of the reliable source links you provide have anything to do with the hyperloop. If Zawalsky's claims had been mentioned in NYT or Felix Salmon's column, I would agree that it would belong. They haven't, so it doesn't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Musk returns

Musk is planning a 5-mile test track: http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/elon-musk-plans-to-build-hyperloop-test-track/  Stepho  talk  05:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It's great to see that he's willing to make this investment. Building a working prototype will go a long way toward show just how feasible the concept might be and what technological advances need to be made to make it practical. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Safety Issues

The article is devoid of any sources regarding the inherent safety or lack thereof of the design. It's all economics and feasibility concerns. Any above-ground, full or substantial evacuated, tube transport system with ~ 1 ton passenger+vehicles moving at 300 m/s is going to have momentum problems if said vehicle suddenly decides it's tired. Sometimes trains suck that way.

I can't elaborate on what would happen, since Talk is for improving the article; but the article really demands some treatment in that area. JohndanR (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

So when you find a reliable source that discusses it, come on back and improve the article. N2e (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hypothetical vs notional

Isn't the word "hypothetical" more appropriate than "notional" for an article in Wikipedia? (Except, of course, where it is part of a quote.) I believe the average person would understand it better, but I could be wrong, so I haven't made any changes. Comments, please? Zipzip50 (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Student's build 1:24 scale model

Granted this is not a proper implementation since the tubes are not depressurized and they use roller bearings instead of air bearings. But the idea is for students to build something in a realistic time frame and then expand on it next year. Hopefully a later version of it will be closer to the real thing.  Stepho  talk  04:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies is getting more serious: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/08/elon-musks-hyperloop-is-actually-getting-kind-of-serious/  Stepho  talk  07:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Dubious

I'm inclined to remove the tag, since passenger comfort is a significant point and the reference clearly discusses that criticism. I'd change the position of the reference, to suggest that it supports the entire sentence, not just the first clause.--Wcoole (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Similarity To 'Magnetic Flight'

I was reading about Gerard K. O'Neill and his ideas of what he called "magnetic flight" and it sounded awfully similar in design and execution to this Hyperloop concept. [6][7] Insofar as this idea seems to have some precedent, perhaps it's worth a mention? 73.158.190.173 (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

If a reliable secondary source can be found that makes this connection, then it might be appropriate for this article. If not, then probably not, as Wikipedia does not support synthesis of material in the encyclopedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Making false distinction from what is, in fact, re-introduction of a vactrain

A train that operates at high speeds, due to the reduced air-friction of a provided vacuum enclosure, is a vactrain.

There is no mention of the operating pressure of 1 millibar in the given reference [22]. However, this is irrelevant, because, as explained in the addition, this is a vacuum, of a level required for the exact same purposes outlined in the original vactrain, for reasons perfectly well understood at the time, and which could not have been of any lower pressure, given the technology at the time. Please don't make this a platform for frothy, nontechnical marketing buzz. Wikibearwithme (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps. But I do see one important difference. Vac trains from a century ago wanted a pure vacuum but had to settle for the best their technology could provide. For the Hyperloop we could provide a much better vacuum but actually aim at a less pure vacuum.  Stepho  talk  22:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


Perhaps??? These are not compelling arguments. There is no citation requiring a "pure" vacuum in the cited references, which is a term you just made up (and scientists were perfectly aware of the log nature of pressure then, and statistical mechanics was already mature ). Are you suggesting that ANYBODY (among all of the many) presenting the many vactrain concepts in last 100 years were so dumb that they required an ultra-high vacuum (a more modern acheivement), even though all basic physics proves that the old vacuum levels were perfectly adequate??? What is your suggested line of reasoning that you would like to infer for this unsupported position? Unless you are suggesting this rather absurd claim, what then are you attempting to establish?

The mechanical properties of gases in relation to the subject of air resistance and acoustics were well understood much earlier than even the very first vactrain. You are making claims not supported by the references. Given the absence of any citations backing up your claims, I can only conclude that this post is edited by a paid blogger for the Hyperloop, which is precisely how this article reads. Wikibearwithme (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Secondly, as already noted, the given reference for the entire assertion of this false distinction makes no mention of this issue; whereas, it is itself a secondary source (and a puff piece).Wikibearwithme (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

'Perhaps' was a polite way of neither directly confronting you, nor directly supporting you but just wanting to add a point to consider. We don't have to be polite but I find it easier to discus the points in the article rather than mud slinging each other.
I am not a paid blogger. Your hastily formed conclusion based on practically no data is wrong. Feel free to read about me on my user page.
I'm going to ignore your rants about "pure" vacuum other than to say this is an informal discussion, so I'm not dotting every i and crossing every t and providing references for every utterance. I made a comment for consideration by people who I assumed know at least a modest amount of engineering and physics. Let me know if my assumption is wrong.
Now that the unpleasantries are out of the way, I will try another way of saying what I wanted to say. A Vac train benefits from a better vacuum. The law of diminishing returns says that economics may place an upper limit on how close you will actually get to an absolute vacuum (and the current level of technology has a say too) but physics says the closer to an absolute vacuum you can get, the better the train will perform. Whereas a Hyperloop benefits from reduced air resistance but still requires a certain amount of air to act as air bearing skis at high speed. The air bearing skis are a fundamental difference between a vac train and a Hyperloop.  Stepho  talk  09:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You are not responding on the merits. You claim to be communicating on a "modest amount of engineering and physics." If you are indeed sincere in your aspiration to communicate at that level, why not use the broadly accepted terminology of designating vacuum-levels, rather than this vague hand-waving? I'm not aware of anyone in the field using your terminology, perhaps you would like to propose the numbers and units on what your notion of "pure" or "absolute" vacuum means? As someone who has been in vacuum my entire career, I can inform you that the field of physical vacuum is a far more reliable source of information than some vague reliance on the field of economics, which is the basis of your argument. Any constructive discussion would require the use of technically meaningful terminology that actually has physical meaning. You are conspicuously avoiding the use of physically meaningful terminology, perhaps not on purpose, but because you simply haven't taken the time to acquire some knowledge of this area. The claims you are making on this article's limitation of vactrains to some, as yet, unspecified, higher level of vacuum, are completely unsupported by the article's references, yet this issue is the crux of your argument .

And, pressure differentials, which completely obviate any possibility of a higher vacuum level, were also disclosed in the patents that you chose to eliminate from this article; which were supporting citations. Wikibearwithme (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikibearwithme—On Wikipedia, patents are considered primary sources, while Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to either primary, or tertiary sources. So, no, that (removed) paragraph was not adequately sourced by those patents. Since WP does not allow synthesis or original research, it is necessary to find some other reliable secondary source that makes the connection between those technologies and Hyperloop; else not really materal for this article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I'm not a professional in the vacuum field, so my terminology is not quite right. Feel free to correct me if you like. But you are skirting the issue, preferring ad hominem attacks and nit-picking about terminology instead. In simple terms: Vac trains benefit from as much vacuum as they can get but a Hyperloop requires enough air to act as air bearings underneath the pod. That is a fundamental difference, in-spite of many other shared aspects.  Stepho  talk  22:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikibearwithme—Let's all focus on content, and improving the article, rather than on who has more experience with vacuum technology or what esoteric terms are used in the vacuum technology field. Bottom line: If you have reliable secondary sources that speak to Hyperloop and your particular technical vacuum jargon, and the material is relevant to encyclopedic coverage of Hyperloop, then it can likely go into the article; but not so much if an editor just wants to take vacuum technology and work it into this article as a primer or for background. Of course, even with sourced material about Hyperloop, it is possible that other editors will disagree, and we then might end up discussing it on the Talk page to see if a consensus might be found. N2e (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


My "particular technical vacuum jargon"? You say I am "nit-picking about terminology"? These are rhetorical means of ignoring the technical issues in question (it's also hilarious). Your entire claim, in this article, is based on common understanding of a scientifically accepted means of distinguishing a scalar level of vacuum (pick one!). If Wikipedia is to be regarded as vaguely reliable, then an article such as this, having little scientific integrity and seemingly edited by vested interests, needs to be identified and labeled as compromised. Have fun with your cartoons. I heartily agree with the previous editor: "this article is full of guff". Wikibearwithme (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, putting on the admin hat for this and this alone: Wikibearwithme, unless you can prove "vested interest" or "paid editing" by editors of this article, stop immediately with the name calling and such. This is unacceptable. It feels like you are trying to push others aside to make a point rather than have a meaningful discussion. Admin hat off. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikibearwithme — To my mind, the big difference between a vac train and a Hyperloop is that a vac train works better when the vacuum gets closer to 0 Pa while a Hyperloop requires a minimum pressure to feed the air bearing skis. Can you comment on this please?  Stepho  talk  06:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Stepho. A vactrain does not need a minimum air pressure to operate. Actually, the lower the air pressure the better for a vactrain, while the Hyperloop does have an ideal air pressure which is higher than 0. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, .... I will briefly maintain suspension of disbelief.
The title of this discussion topic is solely directed to the differentiation of this “Hyperloop,” claimed on the basis of a specified vacuum level (1 millibar), which is claimed in this article as the defining difference over what would be considered a vactrain.
Presumably, if one elects to weigh in on this subject, under this topic line, one would need to address this issue of differentiating from earlier vactrain examples by proving some measurable difference in required vacuum levels (using the same units of millibar; or Torr, or Pascal, or atmospheres, or anything you like to use, providing that it is an accepted unit of pressure measurement). The article presently relies on the claim that earlier vactrain concepts required (or were thought to require) lower than one millibar operating pressure. This is a central claim that should not be made unless it is actually supported by cited references. Does this make sense? Does anyone disagree? Wikibearwithme (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey folks, Wikipedia Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for arguments about the technology in general, or one's particular theories of how to make Hyperloops better, or what previous tech (in one's opinion) is a predecessor technology, etc. See here: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

Only some of the above section is specifically about improving the article—most is not—and it is difficult to isolate those parts with so much unrelated banter, ad hominem about other editors, etc.

I recommend taking specific points about article improvement (say, for example, what is or is not claimed in the article about one milibar of pressure, etc. and whether such is adequately sourced in the article, etc.) to a different/new section below, where a discussion could (then) be perhaps just a single topic, with an eye to improving the article given Wikipedia WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:CS policies. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikibearwithme has made a concrete claim. I will try my best to research it and make an informed answer. My focus will be on what pressure was aimed at in each case and whether that pressure was aimed at due to limits in technology (better vacuum was desired by not reachable on an industrial scale), limitations in cost (better vacuum was desired but too expensive) or if the system needed pressure to not be lower (eg, in the case of Hyperloops). I'll try my best to research at least a few of them over the next week.  Stepho  talk  23:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Does the article need a correction as to a claim on historical vactrain concepts and 1 millibar operating pressure?

In the earlier section on whether Hyperloop is/is-not a vactrain, and whether we have reliable sources that discuss the question rather than editor OR, the following assertion was made by Wikibearwithme:

The article presently relies on the claim that earlier vactrain concepts required (or were thought to require) lower than one millibar operating pressure. This is a central claim that should not be made unless it is actually supported by cited references. Does this make sense? Does anyone disagree? Wikibearwithme (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC) (emphasis added

Starting a new section to discuss this narrow question: does the article make a claim that is not supported by verifiable reliable sources? In my view, if so, the claim should, of course, be removed from the article. If not, well then, copyedit if necessary and move on to the next item of the myriad potential ways this article might be improved. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Capacity / Vehicle Spacing / Emergency Deceleration

The article does not appear to address the question of what the capacity of such a system would be, which is closely linked to the safe spacing between vehicles -- which isn't addressed either (which in turn is related to the maximum safe deceleration). I remember seeing a criticism of the concept that was based around this, and it certianly seems an important aspect of the feasibility & ultimate economic calculus Krobison13 (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Several sites have discussed this problem, so there would even be sources available to discuss this issue at length... Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Article scope

This article (Hyperloop) would seem to take in the entire scope of what is happening with Hyperloop.

While the early gloss of this article, fall 2013 and 2014, was very alpha-design doc centric, it would appear through multiple notably-sourced statements now, that the Hyperloop has moved well beyond the alpha-level design doc first put forward by SpaceX and Tesla engineers and Musk. Many companies and many organizations at universities, in many countries, are now involved. By early 2016, it is certainly the case that the article should not be overly focused on that narrow first conceptual design.

I have begun to copyedit the article to reflect this, but much more work remains to be done. If you want to edit, join in. Or if you think that a separate SpaceX/Tesla-centric article is needed for just the alpha-level design is needed (I don't, but ...), then go for it, or feel free to express your thoughts here. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Why shouldn't this be an overarching topic article? The work of individual groups should be notable enough to warrant individual articles where their work can be discussed. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I may have written unclearly. I think this article should be the overarching topic article on hyperloop, and have begun edits to make it so, or moreso. But I wanted to allow for, on this Talk page, others to take whatever view they want on the matter, which is why I've only done a bit of the editing this article needs to this point. Hope that clarifies. N2e (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
For the record, the Hyperloop-related articles that exist in Wikipedia today are:
  • Hyperloop Technologies — a company article, mentions a fund raise of USD37 million, and a build of a short test track in the Nevada dessert that is underway now.
  • Hyperloop Transportation Technologies — a company article, plans to raise money in an IPO (but unclear if successful or how much raised); plans to build a 5-mile test track.
  • Hyperloop pod competition — a funded/sponsored competition already underway in its first year (2015-2016), with plans for followon competition in a future year. Student and non-student teams raise their own funding for their particular pod designs.
  • SpaceX Hypertube test track — a redirect, to the specific section of another article that describes in some detail the particular 1-mile test track that SpaceX is funding and building in the Los Angeles area for the Hyperloop pod competition.
  • Hyperloop — this article, the one that consensus (above) would seem to indicate is the overarching article.
  1. ^ a b "Development company for Hyperloop emerges from stealth mode". Gizmag.com. 2013-11-01. Retrieved 2013-11-05.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hyperloop/Archive_1&oldid=1136808919"