13-Year-Old Scientist Designs Alternative To Hyperloop (cnn.com) 138
dryriver shares a report from CNN: Several rival companies may be hard at work trying to get Elon Musk's Hyperloop concept off the ground, but hurtling across country -- maybe even across continents -- at 600 miles per hour in a low-pressure steel tube still feels far from reality. But 13-year-old New York student Caroline Crouchley may have invented a more economically viable and eco-friendly Hyperloop solution. Crouchley's idea, which just won second place in the annual 3M Young Scientist Challenge, is to build pneumatic tubes next to existing train tracks. Magnetic shuttles would travel through these vacuum tubes, connected via magnetic arm to trains traveling on the existing tracks. This system would utilize current train tracks, thereby cutting infrastructure costs and, Crouchley says, eradicating the potential safety risk posed by propelling passengers in a vacuum. There'd be no need for trains to use diesel or electric motors, making the trains lighter and more fuel-efficient. This is important to Crouchley, who aims to devise active solutions to the climate crisis. "I pinpointed transportation as something I wanted to work on because if we can make trains more efficient, then we can eliminate the amount of cars, trucks and buses on the road," Crouchley tells CNN Travel.
13 year old scientist (Score:3)
Re:13 year old scientist (Score:5, Informative)
Can you be a scientist just because you say you are?
No. To be a scientist, you have to "do science": Form a falsifiable hypothesis and then test it.
So she is not a scientist. She is an engineer.
Re: 13 year old scientist (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
TFA has a photo of a model, although it's not clear if it actually works.
Re: (Score:2)
So she is not a scientist. She is an engineer.
She is a scienteer.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you be a scientist just because you say you are?
No. To be a scientist, you have to "do science": Form a falsifiable hypothesis and then test it.
So she is not a scientist. She is an engineer.
It's about operating a train; checks out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In the small, perhaps. But Science involves the communication, review, and reproduction or falsification of those ideas by others.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And it does critically involve insight in what you and other scientists are trying to find out or trying to verify and quite a bit of experience as well.
So yes, anybody can use the scientific method and anybody educated should be familiar with it and have done it in the small to see it works (which is a meta-science thing). But to become a scientist you either need to be a genius (happens sometimes, although exceptionally rarely, in mathematics) or go the traditional way via BA, MA, PhD and then wor
And we got a winner. (Score:2)
Correct. Apparently parent posters have no clue what science actually is.
Which is no surprise, coming from a country where people say self-contradicting nonsense like "I *believe* in science". (The whole point of science is that you do not have to believe. If you believe, you are religious.)
So thank you, for a bit of sanity in this nuthouse.
Re: (Score:2)
You are welcome. Love the example about people mistaking Science for religion! It is pretty much at the root of a whole host of problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. Humans seem to have the need to believe in something--virtually anything when comes right down to it. I expect that *somebody*, *somewhere*, believes that there is actually a teapot floating in space.
"God, I believe I'd like to submit a bug report." -- (thx 2 xkcd)
Re: (Score:2)
I can fry an egg. Does that make me a chef?
I can put on a band-aid. Does that make me an MD?
I can sing badly. Does that make me a musician?
I can change a blown fuse. Does that make me an electrician or an electrical engineer?
And so on.
The answer to all that is "of course not". And becoming a scientist is at least an order of magnitude harder than all these.
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong for all but MD, which has very specific licensing requirements backed by very specific laws. The rest are just titles and there's a world of difference between a general title and licensed/accredited professional.
A BAD chef or musician is still one. A court recently upheld exactly this in regards to engineering (IIRC) just recently.
You can spout nonsense and draw unsupported conclusions. Does that make you a politician?
Re: (Score:2)
Ivory tower bullshit. (Score:2)
Following the scientific method and doing proper research takes *all of one evening* of reading up on the right material.
(Start with Wikipedia on "scientific method", "measurement" and "double-blind study". Which should lead you to "statistics", "obervation", "experiment", "logic", etc)
Everything else is just expertise in a specific field.
But you can do proper research on things that require no expertise either.
Plus there are often solutions in a field, that required little expertise in the field. E.g. beca
Re: (Score:2)
Please stop insulting real scientists. And you are dead wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Following the scientific method and doing proper research takes *all of one evening* of reading up on the right material.
I would consider that "scientish" rather than "scientist". F'rinstance, I don't consider myself a psychiatrist just because I mentate.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a unicorn or just happy to see me?
How is this better than "A normal Train" (Score:5, Insightful)
I dont understand having the tube next to the train. The whole point of the hyperloop was to travel with less wind resisstance/drag/Electric only
The train can already be electric, and this does nothing to remove drag. I don't understand why this is novel in the firs place It adds more infrastructure and solves nothing.
Re:How is this better than "A normal Train" (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not missing anything. The problem is the translation from the STEM encouragement of 13 year-olds into click-baity headlines that end up on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just like my kid designing a ocean cleaning robot out of legos, saying it will cost 9 dollars and we can buy it at Costco. Problem solved....
Dear Union Pacific, BS&N etc (Score:2)
Nice tracks you have there. Guess what? Weâ(TM)re gonna need them
Re: How is this better than "A normal Train" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't reduce drag, but it could potentially be slightly more efficient since the locomotive is smaller and you don't have to haul the fuel as well as the cargo.
I doubt that the small efficiency gain is worth the cost of building the infrastructure for it, though. Cost per pound for freight shipment by train is already dirt cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
The weight of fuel carried by the locomotives (or even tenders, if those are still a thing) is minuscule to the weight of the carriages being pulled.
So yeah, that set my eyebrows into my receding hair line as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course electric trains already don't have to haul the fuel; they are usually powered from overhead catenary wires.
And even if you did want to remove the weight of the electr
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How is this better than "A normal Train" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A major problem with that is train derailments which are not uncommon... they just don't typically end in disaster because nothing was around and it occurred at low speed etc... well putting a tube next to the tracks means *every* derailment is a serious problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Derailments aren't that serious of an issue.
Width of the rail right-of-way isn't wide enough to support more tracks or there would be more rail already. The US rail system is overloaded without the ability to expand.
Another issue are all the telephone poles along side of the tracks. They were originally used for rail signalling but in many places now have fiber optic lines. It's a big job to move them out of the way,
Still another issue are the towers for the catenary wires along the commuter routes. You
Re: (Score:2)
Derailments aren't that serious of an issue.
They aren't because of the space left to either side of the rail line. Even so they sometimes are a serious issue.
Width of the rail right-of-way isn't wide enough to support more tracks or there would be more rail already.
You don't need more tracks, just more sidings. But in many places there is adequate room for double tracks. We're often not fully utilizing the rail we have already, which is why we haven't laid down more rail even where we can.
Another issue are all the telephone poles along side of the tracks. They were originally used for rail signalling but in many places now have fiber optic lines. It's a big job to move them out of the way,
The fiber along rail lines was mostly laid by Qwest (never forget) and they buried most of it.
Still another issue are the towers for the catenary wires along the commuter routes. You're not moving them easily.
Some catenary line is easily moved, because it's mounted to gantries. I have
Re: (Score:2)
What about Sprint? (Southern Pacific Railroad Internal Network Telecommunications)
Re: (Score:2)
Qwest was founded by a former exec of SP. The whole business plan was to bury fiber along the ROW, which was made possible by actions he took while at SP. Qwest's CEO Nacchio was the only telco CEO to refuse to install the feds' backbone monitoring equipment, then they charged him with insider trading and denied him bail. Your tax dollars at work. That line was buried. There were photos of the rail cars being used for it.
Re:How is this better than "A normal Train" (Score:5, Interesting)
The right of way is typically 30 feet on both sides of the track...
It depends very much on where you are.
and the US rail system has far more track than it can use and is actively tearing it up to turn it into hiking and biking trails since nobody uses trains anymore.
Yeah, "nobody" uses trains any more because of a literal conspiracy to terminate profitable passenger rail systems so that auto, oil, and rubber companies could make money. Only there are several places where people do still use trains, and they generally offer good value for money. And there's a lot of effort being spent to lie to people about those hiking and biking trails. I've been following the situation with the rail line in Santa Cruz county, where a suspiciously well-funded alliance has been trying to promote railbanking in order to convert the ROW there to trail-only. But they literally cannot have that trail, because portions of the ROW will revert to private ownership if the rail line is banked. And there is really no other plausible means of adding transportation throughput to the region, because there's no room to expand the CA 1 there. There is a faction trying to promote bus-on-shoulder which will require something like $135M in improvements to do poorly, because in many areas the "lane" created can only be ten feet wide — and a bus is eight feet wide, plus mirrors. And even then, there are multiple areas where the bus would have to merge back into traffic to go under an overpass.
We need more rail — preferably lots of HSR, but even more light rail would make a massive improvement. These days there's all kinds of options for that including battery-operated rail vehicles that charge overnight, and run on (and charge from) catenary wires where it's convenient. In this case there's still room for a 10-12' wide trail next to the rail line, even though the ROW is narrower than 30'. And as Monterey is developing their rail line, restoring the Santa Cruz line to active service would provide transport all the way to Monterey, through Watsonville. And eventually, the rail could be connected to the CA HSR through the Pajaro station.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no conspiracy, the conspiracy is that there are no profitable privatized train systems in the world yet people keep pushing it as if people want trains rather than cars.
If you want rail, go ride it so it becomes a viable option and hop on a bus on both ends of the journey to get to your final destination. That's all of Europe for you, travel takes twice as long and is consistently delayed or on strike, costs an arm and a leg while still being subsidized through high taxes.
Where people want to go, t
Re: (Score:2)
The members of the conspiracy were literally found guilty in court, so saying that it didn't happen is dumb. This is incredibly well-known. Look up the streetcar conspiracy on Wikipedia. There doesn't even have to be one now, because (as the CA HSR proves) we just can't do eminent domain like we used to. Only there early still is such a conspiracy, because where do these anti rail groups get their funding?
Cars are heavily subsidized in a variety of ways. Highways don't pay for themselves any more than rail
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I remember it used to be kind of sluggish, but I haven't found it to be that way lately, because there are fewer accidents. I mean, I haven't driven it in the mornings, but I drive down it starting at ~5:45 three days a week, and I almost never hit any traffic on CA-17. All the traffic is on CA-85 trying to get to CA-17, where it takes me an hour to drive what should be a 20-minute drive.
Admittedly, I try to avoid CA-17 SB on Fridays,
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that if there are problems in the morning, it isn't because of 17, but rather because the traffic has nowhere to go when it gets to the other side of the hill,
The highway is wider on either side of the hill than the 17 is. Admittedly, heading north on 1 from the scruz side is a bit sticky, but then, there's not much of anywhere to go from there so it's the smaller portion. And there are two lanes in that direction, so the only big problem there is the merge with the fish hook.
But you're right that the 1 south backs up as well, even though it's wider than the 17 in the part which carries the most traffic. And there's no room to widen it properly. Some of the overp
Re: (Score:2)
Most overpasses are 15'' or so, and states cap vehicle height at either 13'6" or 14'6" as a result. You can drive taller vehicles, but you have to get a permit. For on highway use you have to get a permit each time you transport, usually involving filling a route plan. In cities you get a standing permit. But double deckers are only really viable on short, low speed in-city routes.
Buses suck rocks for public transport. They do too much pavement damage. We only use buses because drivers are expensive. The bu
Re:How is this better than "A normal Train" (Score:5, Interesting)
This subsidy artificially drops the cost of transporting goods by truck below that of transporting them by train (after factoring in onload/offload costs). Without it, transporting cargo by truck costs roughly 12x per ton-mile than transporting it by rail. In countries without such a subsidy, trains still remain the preferred method of transport over long distances, while trucks are typically only used for the short haul from the train station to the final destination.
Passenger rail also suffers because of this. If you have lots of cargo trains using the rails, the cost to build and maintain the rails gets amortized over more trains. And the cost borne by each individual train is reduced. But with relatively few cargo trains, each train has to bear a larger share of the rail cost. Meaning the passenger train ticket is significantly more expensive because subsidized trucks are siphoning off much of the cargo traffic.
Unfortunately, the trucking industry has grown into a $700 billion industry employing 3.5 million drivers. You can't just crank their fuel taxes up by 5x overnight to try to fix this. Any fix (assuming you can get it past the truck industry lobby) will need to be phased in gradually over decades, to give people time to adjust and find jobs in other industries.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with subsidies, trucking is more expensive than rail (based on a tons-mile cost). What exploded the growth of trucking was "Just in time delivery" (pioneered by Ford Motor Co). When your factory has only 6 hours of parts on hand, or your store has only two days inventory, rail movement is not an option. Businesses and industries are willing to pay a premium to put their inventory on the highways, in trucks, instead of hauling by rail. Aside from the convenience, "just in time" reduces costs - no ne
Re: (Score:2)
> "nobody" uses trains any more because of a literal conspiracy to terminate profitable passenger rail systems
I think you're confused. Passenger rail has NEVER been profitable in this country. However, rail companies used to be required to operate passenger trains as part of the deal for being granted the massive tracts of land for railways.
Then the rail companies lobbied to free themselves of that involuntary loss leader, and passenger rail was spun off into what became the government-subsidized priva
Re: (Score:2)
It has to compete with the highway system, which also loses money. If you get near a point, let us know.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing about airlines is that they are fast. It takes about 5 hours to fly from SF to NYC. If we had high-speed passenger rail between major cities that could get you from SF to NYC in under 8 hours (362 MPH average), it would be packed every day, because government would presumably subsidize the original construction costs, and you'd just be paying the operating costs, which would likely be a
"Nobody uses trains" IN THE US! (Score:2)
Everywhere outside world car industry country, everyone uses trains.
And inside world car industry country, everyone uses cargo trains, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If it had blockchain integration, it would be way better than a normal train. Oh well, can't expect a 13-year-old to invent the future by themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
If it had blockchain integration, it would be way better than a normal train. Oh well, can't expect a 13-year-old to invent the future by themselves.
Does it really deserve a funny mod without working Wesley into it?
Okay, I'll shut up now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
As I understand the diagram, the notion seems to be to send a really big motorized magnetic slug through the evacuated pneumatic tube, and magnetically couple a dummy "engine" in front of the train to the magnetic slug.
Unlike a mag-lev train, the tracks are still conventional, so you've got great big rolling friction losses, and I can see no way that the train could be any faster or any lower vibration than it is on existing tracks with existing engines. The cost would be mu
Re: (Score:2)
I think they mean an actual pneumatic tube, i.e. the magnetic slug would be pushed using air pressure applied from one end. I have no idea what the efficiency of such a design would look like.
Re: (Score:2)
The efficiency gain comes from using pneumatic tubes. Instead of having the motor/engine fixed to the train, you have it stationary at the end of the track pumping air into the tube. The theory is that you reduce weight and can potentially make the air pump more efficient due to not having size and weight constraints.
It's not an entirely new idea, there have been similar systems in use before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Magnetic coupling is novel I think, but I'm not convinced it would be any more eff
Re: (Score:2)
So what are the advantages? Seems to me like some kid invented the horribly lossy pneumatic power line.
I mean, good for them - tackling these sorts of problems as a kid is a great endeavour! But why is a creative child's non-solution like this in the news?
I'd bet good money that the energy losses from a magnetically coupled pneumatic slug far exceed the transmission losses in a similarly expensive high-voltage overhead "streetcar line". To say nothing of the relative maintenance costs of the two.
And, unle
The 13-year-old scientist got scooped (Score:2)
https://www.bing.com/videos/se... [bing.com]
This 89-year-old dude already has one of these trains running on the grounds of his Mendocino, CA vineyard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Big glaring issue. (Score:2)
I've given the whole train/rollercoaster idea a lot of thought, I've had similar ideas.
Existing tracks are a bad idea if you want to go fast. The existing tracks aren't designed to go fast, not THAT fast anyways. If you were to build an all new set of tracks you could engineer what you need to for speed.
On that note - instead of next to a train the best place to build this would be under the train, it would also increase stability instead of sabotaging it. You already have the right-of way under the trai
Re: (Score:2)
Also the rail road companies that own the Right of Way (granted to them by US gov) have extremely strong legal right and almost NEVER allow competing transportation systems to use their ROW
Re: Big glaring issue. (Score:2)
We haven't established that a tunnel is required, just a magnetic source. Theoretically it could be in a flat housing equal or less in height than the tracks.
As long as we're talking about bullshit....
Can we please get back to reality? (Score:2)
Trying to make ideas from decades old children's books about the future work is a colossal waste of time.
boondoggle? (Score:5, Interesting)
Biggest problem for this design: tunnels/space (Score:2)
It's an interesting idea but faces a pretty huge problem in practice, in that most tunnels trains go through are just wide enough for the train (or a train each way). You'd have to expand them out a lot to accommodate this tube... I have to imagine even without the tunnels there are a lot of railway right of ways not wide enough to accommodate this.
That's the advantage of Hyperloop, you just fennel under everything and can use as much space as you like, in 3 dimensions. And you don't have to deal with wea
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Try existing rail infrastructure, make it fast, use better tech, its all so smart, the future... until its time for human testing
Re: (Score:2)
Hyperloop won't solve any of those problems either. What solves them is building a brand new track that supports higher speeds by being straight and limited to one type of traffic. Exactly like the Japanese did with their bullet train network.
Hyperloop does nothing special that the others can't in that regard.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't call it stupid (Score:5, Informative)
It would be unfair to call the 13 year old stupid even if it won't work. It's okay to propose an idea. And the way these Science Fairs work you judge HOW they evaluated a hypothesis not WILL IT WORK. That's know as science and so they appropriately call her a scientist.
What is Stupid is for the news magazine to publish this unquestioningly. A casual analysis spots obvious flaws that would need to be address or at least remarked upon by the author of the news article.
Just to name but a few. The point of the hyperloop is to get the air resistance and friction down so that the cars inside can travel ballistically and not need a propulsion system except at the terminals. Likewise they need to be small enough so that one can accelerate these things over a short distance. You aren't likely to be accelerating a train fast since they outweigh the passengers by a lot. And there's a momentum mismatch between the drive units and the train.
I'm guessing that possibly the scientist proposed something else such as pressure or suction to continuously propel the drivers. Not balistic transport.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your proposal would make a good science fair project :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming you don't work in the scientific world. Holes are continuously poked in every single idea. Most people here aren't making fun, but pointing out the obvious flaws. CNN is supposedly a news site with "real journalisming" going on but they make it sound like their grandma talking to her friends about their granddaughter's science project.
They could point out the original hyperloop still doesn't have any track. Or point out that we're basically talking about a high school art project and wonder why
Magnetic arm ... (Score:2)
So we just take existing train tracks good enough to support a normal train traveling at 965km/h we build a tube next to it, we run a humongous magnet through that tube - strong enough to be able to pull the aforementioned train at 965km/h (600mph) against the outside air pressure and it will be safer.
Problem ?
Works by suction? (Score:2)
Isambard Kingdom Brunel (Score:2)
Stupid stupid idea (Score:2)
Existing train tracks have been privatized (Score:2)
Back in the Gilded Age the government gave massive land grants to the railroad to build tracks in the West and to this day they zealously monitor and profit from their land assets. QWest [wikipedia.org] ran a lot of Internet backbone fiber optic lines along railroad tracks.
Good luck trying to negotiate public right of way on existing private rail lines at an economical price. I bet it would be cheaper and a better long term strategy to build massive underground tunnels like Elon is doing and wait for the next wave of gove
Greta Thunberg? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see a car ferry concept on a train. Best of both worlds: each person has their own customized space and don't have to associate with the hoi polloi, and the trainspotters get their toys.
Unfortunately, I don't think it could be efficient. Not enough density.
The whole selling point of Hyperloop (Score:2)
The whole selling point of Hyperloop was that it had the potential to be *fast*, blowing right by the current state of the art in high-speed rail and giving air travel a run for its money. The original paper outlined a system so fast that tracks would have to turn a very wide radius to avoid causing discomfort to the passengers. You obviously can't do that on existing rights-of-way.
Next to existing tracks ... (Score:2)
Crouchley's idea, ... is to build pneumatic tubes next to existing train tracks. Magnetic shuttles would travel through these vacuum tubes, connected via magnetic arm to trains traveling on the existing tracks.
Have fun getting the "right of ways" and land next to existing tracks to build on. Maybe this would work cross-country, but in densely built/populated areas, there may not be enough land next to the tracks for this. Hell, my city wouldn't even approve building a light-rail system on our existing unused rail tracks -- mainly because it didn't want the expense of trying to get the land/right-of-ways to build stations and extension tracks.
Not a new idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Maglev (Score:2)
The current record for a high-speed train that actually works & can carry passengers (in 7 cars) is 603kph (375mph).
Let me know when they've come up with a vacuum tube train that actually works & can carry a load of passengers. Anything else is just a pipe dream.
You are all missing it. (Score:2)
The idea of putting people in a vacuum and blasting them down a tube at 600+ mph invokes many safety concerns.
I had the "Hyperloop" idea a decade or so before Elon. I too was once a kid and I too saw the drive through bank tubes. The evolution seems simple.
My idea was to build massive tubes from coast to cost ( with many "tributaries") obviously.
But instead of being above ground it would be below ( Elon's boring company might help) And instead of sending people it would be cargo.
With far less trucks on th
My own design from about the same age (Score:2)
This seems silly and an idea I had when I was 15 actually seems a little less strange. Any opinions on whether this would work?
The idea is to merge maglev with conventional rail. The railtrucks containing wheels and the engine would ride on normal rail tracks. There would also be a half-cylinder maglev track (just two sections on the cylinder, from each track up to each side). The passenger vehicle would be suspended on magnets above this cylindrical track. When not moving or at places where there was no ma
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is to merge maglev with conventional rail. The railtrucks containing wheels and the engine would ride on normal rail tracks. There would also be a half-cylinder maglev track (just two sections on the cylinder, from each track up to each side). [...]
The main advantage of this over most maglev is that switches are considerably easier, the maglev tracks could end for a straight section and conventional railroad switches used there.
Your problem is economically infeasible, because you have to build two tracks in one, and maglev is already expensive enough that it doesn't make sense in most cases. For relatively short distances carrying sufficiently high traffic along sufficiently flat routes, maglev is cool. For everything else, it doesn't make economic sense. Normal rail is cheap and good. There are machines that can do all the maintenance with very little human labor, and rail can be laid in a broad variety of environments. It even l
13 year old scientist? (Score:2)
Teach real science instead of praising effort (Score:2)
Young people learning science is great (Score:2)
Its fantastic that a 13 year old is learning about science and engineering. Learning how to come up with new ideas, and think them through. Its a sign of real potential.
Its also OK to be a student - most career scientists are students until they are in their late 20s. (BS, PhD, Post-doc).
The media should however be clear about what is a great student project and what is science and engineering. That said, I've seen a lot worse come out of industry on occasion
well, turns out this is bullshit (Score:2)
that 13yo may be nice and all, but fails to understand the concept underlying the need for the entire train to be encased in a vacuum tube... reducing air resistance which will reduce the heating of the external shell of the train. also, the use of maglev propulsion is there to remove the resistance due to rolling steel wheels on steel rails.
My suspicion is that this "idea" was cooked up by some existing company using the 13yo as a shill
A re-invention if ever there was one... (Score:3)
The greatest Engineer of the 19th Century one, Isambard Kingdom Brunel had just such a railway. It was called the "Atmospheric Railway" and ran along the coast of Devon (UK). The seals were made of leather and used tallow as a lubricant. Rats loved it so the thing didn't last very long. There is still one of the pumping houses in existance at Dawlish.
Many of IKB's ideas were just impossible to attain using the materials and technology of the time.
The main drawback isn't zoning. (Score:2)
The main drawback is trying to create that large of a vacuum chamber.
Cartoons vs. modelisme (Score:2)
However, it seems they learn about the world from cartoons.
Re: (Score:2)
If this girl and her teachers had some exerience in modelisme...
Mmph. I thought I was going to learn a new technique or philosophy and discovered that it's just a typo and French.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No apology needed! If anything, I should apologize for the snark. I certainly don't mind picking up words in another language, and your point was clear enough.
And to the point, if they're going to watch cartoons, perhaps they should watch a few Road Runner episodes to get tips on physics :)
Glaring and OBVIOUS to me problem. (Score:2)
This tube is meant to be above ground parallel to train tracks.
I drive over train tracks every day.
Cool Idea -- Here's Mine (Score:2)
Don't use steel -- use PVC. Build a walking (long legged) PVC extrusion machine, piering legs into the ground as it goes to hold the tube up in the air.
The machine would merely need continuous replenishment of PVC resin and liquid fuel for the engine. Using legs that extend and retract, rather than bend at the knee, perfectly smooth movement should be obtainable (six legged) with computer adjustments to balance and inertia. Easily programmable. PVC holds pressure or vacuum very well, is much lighter, is
Re: (Score:2)
You could have the extruder at the front of the train laying track as you go. No more eminent domain issues!
The real question is seat pricing (Score:2)
Once it goes live, there'll be differential pricing according to the view (or lack thereof) through the windows. It's like riding in a perpetual half-tunnel
Re: (Score:2)
But she is a modern scientist just playing a shell game with power sources, much like California and how they 'don't contribute to global warming' because all their power comes from out of state...
Re: (Score:2)
And what is powering that magnetic arm? Hmm, that power comes from somewhere.
But she is a modern scientist just playing a shell game with power sources, much like California and how they 'don't contribute to global warming' because all their power comes from out of state...
Power comes from large-scale power generation. As mentioned in TFS.
Your last statement is factually wrong. The best kind of wrong.