Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 04:41:45 UTC No. 16273706

nobody cares, trains are already fast enough, and you've never learned how to calculate sound speeds.
imagine fantasizing about building some sort of high speed rail system while being that completely lacking intellectually, only some suffering from severe grandiose delusions could manage that.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 04:46:42 UTC No. 16273711

>>16273694
Because the drag is a minor problem, moving at high speed requires of a perfectly straight pipe/rail. Min radius of curvature is another limitation. Even current HSR are terrible in terms of ROI, the infrastructure for a pipe-train would be at leas an order of magnitude more expensive.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 04:54:08 UTC No. 16273717

>>16273706
I never said I fantasized about building fast trains, this could make trains more efficient, fast or not. I never said anything about it going sound speeds and if I did what is wrong with having a dream? I am not claiming to be some kind of expert, that's why I am asking the questions. Why do you have to be so rude?

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 04:55:58 UTC No. 16273719

>>16273711
what the fuck is an order of magnitude

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 04:56:46 UTC No. 16273721

>>16273711
Thanks for the reply

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 04:59:51 UTC No. 16273725

>>16273719
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude

PS. current /sci/...

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 04:59:51 UTC No. 16273726

>>16273706
>trains are already fast enough
I'm sure they said the same thing in 1850.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 05:02:33 UTC No. 16273730

>>16273725
I hate it, just talk about costs changing in terms of percent or 1.5x etc, it seems like one of those terms finance retards use to sound smart that only comes up in actual math on occasion.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 05:12:07 UTC No. 16273735

>>16273726
true

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 07:22:48 UTC No. 16273829

>>16273694
I think people are reacting negatively because improving train speed yields marginal benefits compared to improving train routing, scheduling and frequency. First sounds cooler, second is more practical

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 07:45:05 UTC No. 16273860

>>16273829
Thanks for the reply

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 07:58:43 UTC No. 16273874

>>16273829
Vacuums are actually cheaper to some extent. Hydrogen is pretty expensive.

Fast trains should be used for transporting goods because that is the most likely to have optimized times, so you can run more trains on a track than you would with people.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:24:03 UTC No. 16273884

>>16273829
The actual reason is like always in the first post. Faster trains are good but there's already a huge difference between what we could build realistically today (e.g. proper high speed rail) and what is actually out there in the wild. The difference between those two isn't magical lack of technology but money and the issue isn't fixed by imagining some sci fi nonsense that costs even more.
OP is almost certainly either underage or mentally ill and rightfully deserves a hostile reaction to either leave or grow up so he can actually become productive member of the society.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:42:10 UTC No. 16273893

>>16273884
Actually, faster things always generate a greater rate of return especially if they can move more goods with less general energy expenditure or capital over time.

It is mainly the government is retarded and too many people own land that interferes with building fast railroads

It is kind of like solar or wind energy, it is free money but all the rich retards invest in stupid shit because they are just stupid people who happened to get rich. I am stupid too so it isn't too big of a deal but dear lord...

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:47:55 UTC No. 16273895

>>16273874
I couldn't imagine it costing more. With a vactrain, you need a very strong, expensive tube to withstand the external pressure and every train needs thick walls and be pressurized, sort of like a plane fuselage, that adds weight. I can't imagine the hydrogen costing more than all that, I haven't done any calculations though. With hydrogen, all you need to do is leak proof everything to prevent any hydrogen from leaking out or any air from getting in for both the tunnel and trains. You also don't need the tunnel or trains to be shaped like a cylinder, you can have oval, rectangle, or stadium shaped cross sections since withstanding pressure isn't a concern. Thanks for the reply.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:55:14 UTC No. 16273903

>>16273895
Ya, actually who knows regarding costs. Trains that operate at 240 mph is pretty good tho. Other modifications is an interesting idea but idk.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:55:37 UTC No. 16273904

>>16273884
>calls it sci fi nonsense
>doesn't explain why it's sci fi nonsense

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:02:59 UTC No. 16273909

>>16273904
mr. underage I presume?

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:06:14 UTC No. 16273910

>>16273909
Support your claim.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:21:36 UTC No. 16273924

>>16273719
ten times, as in an order of magnitude more is 10 times some number, and an order of magnitude less is one-tenth some number

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 10:04:45 UTC No. 16273948

>>16273711
This, planes are superior: less infrastructure. If it weren't for state mandated security, aircraft would be easily the fastest transport in all situations.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 10:11:57 UTC No. 16273958

>>16273948
But trains are far more efficient energy wise. Thanks for the reply.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 10:13:28 UTC No. 16273959

>>16273893
This is true

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 10:30:13 UTC No. 16273962

>>16273895
>expensive tube to withstand the external pressure
no
>every train needs thick walls
no
>I can't imagine the hydrogen costing more than all that, I haven't done any calculations though
what a surprise
>With hydrogen, all you need to do is leak proof everything to prevent any hydrogen from leaking out
"all you need to do" is something that can't physically be done by any known means.
Great post chap!

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 10:36:12 UTC No. 16273964

>>16273962
>I'm not going to elaborate on anything I claim, but just trust me, bro.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:11:39 UTC No. 16273996

>>16273694
>why not start with hydrogen
Look up hydrogen embrittlement.
>If you think hydrogen is too dangerous,
Yes
>you can use helium instead, which is a little heavier than hydrogen but still much lighter than air.
Helium is a non-renewable and already limited resource.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:14:30 UTC No. 16274002

>>16273996
Thanks for the reply

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:40:32 UTC No. 16274024

>>16273694
>hydrogen
Imagine the explosions
>helium
Imagine the cost

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:44:28 UTC No. 16274026

>>16274024
As long as there is no oxygen present explosions are impossible. Thanks for the reply.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 17:17:52 UTC No. 16274426

>>16273730
Dude it just means 10x, that's it. It's basic, even simple, and how the fuck do you not understand that 100 is an order of magnitude greater than 10.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 17:43:55 UTC No. 16274502

>>16273694
how do you plan to contain the hydrogen? Hydrogen atoms have a small enough radius to the point where it leaks out any kind of metal tank you place it in. Additionally, it weakens the structural integrity of the metal over time as it leaks. Long term hydrogen storage has always been a huge pain in the ass to deal with.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 20:21:33 UTC No. 16274937

>>16273706
>trains are already fast enough
Lol no. The point of using vacuum tubes is that you could have trains running at orbital speeds. Or even double orbital speed (you'd have 1g acceleration *outwards*).

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 20:34:23 UTC No. 16274962

>>16274026
>>16274024
wouldn't explode, would burn. and would need less of a seal than vacuum.
if you also make it less than 1 bar of pressure, then i think chance of a major disaster would be pretty small.
the first few trains would be the safest trains on the world. after a while, the slack would creep in though, and with slack maintenance, we may get to test what happens.

then again, combustion engines and lithium batteries are all around us,

>>16273694
vacuum is cheaper, and cheaper to maintain most likely.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 23:05:27 UTC No. 16275210

>>16274962
>vacuum is cheaper, and cheaper to maintain most likely.
not him.

Vacuum needs thicker tunnel/pipe wall and energy to keep removing the air/vapors. For the H2/He it would be only to replace the leaked gas through permeability and the wall cam be thin as the static pressure is nil and the train wouldn't be absurdly fast to induce a large dynamic pressure.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 02:27:46 UTC No. 16275488

>>16274426
I understand what it is, I just think its a stupid overused term.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 03:00:03 UTC No. 16275515

>>16274502
I am not actually trying to build a train; I am just curious about its feasibility as a concept. If someone does decide to build it, I suppose they would have to give strong consideration to the materials used in order to minimalize hydrogen loss and weakening of structures. There are materials that are actually pretty decent at containing hydrogen because of their low permeability. Thanks for the reply.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 03:01:23 UTC No. 16275516

>>16274962
Thanks for the reply.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 03:50:28 UTC No. 16275553

>>16273948
I still find it unbelievable we used to have supersonic planes in the 1960s. What a clown world we live in.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 03:59:45 UTC No. 16275564

>>16273694
because machines get very hot, and combining hot machinery with Hydrogen gas would create lots of explosions.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 04:00:46 UTC No. 16275565

>>16274502
Can't you store Hydrogen pretty well in sealed glass vials?

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 04:18:24 UTC No. 16275572

>>16273726
>Wow an 1850 bullet train at incredible 50km/h
Yeah at that time we were still far from potentially problematic speed, one thing is going from 10m/s to 50m/s other completely different is from 200m/s to 1000m/s

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 04:25:12 UTC No. 16275575

>>16275564
Can't get an explosion if there is no oxygen present in the tunnel. Thanks for the reply.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 05:34:24 UTC No. 16275609

>>16275575
Even in this fantastical scenario, it would be impossible to keep oxygen out of the tube.

How do you expect to stop leakage, especially if passengers will be boarding/off-boarding?

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 07:40:31 UTC No. 16275690

>>16273730
The virgin "5 orders of magnitude" vs the chad "100000x"

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 07:54:04 UTC No. 16275702

>>16275690
10^5x

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:44:02 UTC No. 16276229

>>16275690
Chad 10^666 vs Number slave 10..................................30 minutes later..0000

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 19:53:02 UTC No. 16276398

>>16275515
>>16275565
Well sure, you can store hydrogen in anything, but only temporarily. Given enough time, it will slowly but surely bleed out the very walls of your container. As it does this, it will decay the structural integrity of your material. Normally the way hydrogen gas works is you electrolyze water to generate the gas on demand, then you use it for whatever you were trying to do, then you open the container and let the gas leave. As for hydrogen cells, it uses redox reactions to directly convert energy released by hydrogen-->water reactions into electricity rather than heat.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:20:38 UTC No. 16276695

>>16273694
No reason in particular.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 02:50:49 UTC No. 16276842

>>16273694
>why not start with hydrogen
Great idea. I nominate OP to sit in the smoking section.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 02:58:10 UTC No. 16276845

>>16273711
This should have ended the discussion. Rails are the limiting factor, not drag. You can compensate for drag by just putting a more powerful engine on the train. That's a lot cheaper than trying to build a soiytube.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 05:26:23 UTC No. 16276932

>>16273706
wow nobody think anything unless you know everything great message retard

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 07:33:17 UTC No. 16276983

>>16275609
I imagine some kind of ramp that is sealed off on all sides. Thanks for the reply.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 07:46:26 UTC No. 16276998

>>16276398
Maybe there can be a layer on everything that is made of a material that has low hydrogen permeability to reduce embrittlement as much as possible. Perhaps parts would still need to be replaced, not sure how often that would need to be done, though. Thanks for the reply.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 07:55:19 UTC No. 16277003

>>16276842
You could have the whole train slightly pressurized to prevent hydrogen from leaking in.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 08:03:38 UTC No. 16277009

>>16276845
Not a tube, more like a tunnel. The train will likely be a maglev, so the only resistance will be from drag, which certainly adds up. Thanks for the reply.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 10:58:32 UTC No. 16277130

>>16276983
You need a better imagination, then

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:04:01 UTC No. 16277137

>>16277130
You have a better idea?

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:08:26 UTC No. 16277142

>>16273694
I'd rather pour money into developing hydrogen planes b/c there's no real alternative to oil other than hydrogen for planes.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:09:33 UTC No. 16277143

>>16277137
Yes, not filling up train tunnels with hydrogen

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:12:30 UTC No. 16277149

>>16277143
Why?

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:13:30 UTC No. 16277151

>>16277149

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:17:59 UTC No. 16277157

>>16277142
Both are good because planes and trains are good for different things. Thanks for the reply.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:20:20 UTC No. 16277159

>>16277151
This is like my third time saying this: hydrogen cannot combust if there is no oxygen in the tunnel.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:29:33 UTC No. 16277169

>>16277159
Your passengers might wish for a bit of oxygen

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:57:31 UTC No. 16277205

>>16277009
> so the only resistance will be from drag
Maglev not only it's expensive but it adds a lot of "equivalent friction", they need energy to levitate the train and a lot of energy for a fast train*.
>coils waste a lot of energy when the magnetic field isn't longer needed, you need "recuperators" to avoid wasting energy

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 12:13:52 UTC No. 16277225

>>16273694
The problem with the hyperloop and the vactrain is not the sealing of the track. It's the fact that almost the whole track has to either be underground or way up high in order to keep the Gforces of going up and down to a minimum. When you're going 1200km/h you cannot adjust the incline or decline by very much without drastically affecting the ride experience for the passengers. To make a comfortable ride, you have to dig tunnels for most of the track or put the track on tall pillars, both of which are engineering nightmares. It's just not economically feasible.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 12:57:33 UTC No. 16277257

>>16277009
For the last fucking time, the problem is costs and maintenance, not wind resistance. Same issue with airplanes. People don't want to go faster, they'd rather save $100 and waste six hours on layovers.

Instead of wasting money on these retarded vanity projects that will never turn a dime, it would make vastly more sense to just lay some fiber cable. Then people can enjoy high resolution video conferencing without having to travel anywhere, and no one has to suffocate or burn to death in the soiyencetube.

🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 11:37:54 UTC No. 16278597

>>16277205
Thanks for the reply.

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 11:40:44 UTC No. 16278599

>>16277205
>>16277225
Thanks for the reply.

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:03:05 UTC No. 16278630

>>16277257
If air resistance isn't a problem, then why do planes fly so high to reduce it? In the hydrogen tunnel, there will be less drag than a plane flying at 40,000ft. My idea isn't to create a rail only for rich people, it's to make transportation by rail more efficient. I also never said it would only be good for human transport. You should really read the other replies on the thread before posting.

>Instead of wasting money on these retarded vanity projects that will never turn a dime, it would make vastly more sense to just lay some fiber cable. Then people can enjoy high resolution video conferencing without having to travel anywhere

So, you just want people to spend their lives in some kind of metaverse instead of traveling in the real world? Even in a world like that, you can't transport cargo through fiber optic cables.

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:08:15 UTC No. 16278634

>>16278630
>high to reduce it?
Because it's a "low hanging fruit" to reduce costs. Not different from lubing the bearings. It helps a lot because engines are only efficient at nearly max rpm, so to reduce fuel consumption they need lower density air. Spinning down a turbofan makes them far more inefficient but they're required during TO.

For short range flights they don't fly high.

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:09:16 UTC No. 16278637

>>16278634
>but they're required during TO.
and large engines are necessary during TO*

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:26:41 UTC No. 16278648

>>16273694
OH THE HUMANITY!