New high-temperature super-conductor

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 9:46:14 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 22 Jun 2019 12:27:15 -0400) it happened bitrex
user@example.net> wrote in <EFsPE.922$1x5.720@fx47.iad>:

in
China the government just tells you "We're demolishing your house next
week you need to move. here's $100" they get upset if you try to tell

Maybe, and US does that to Syria, and ... Vietnam, and (endless list)
and does NOT give even a hundred $.

In Vietnam, village relocations did happen, but cash wouldn't
have helped; the new locations were prepped in advance, with wells dug
and roads cleared and such, before the moves. By the US Army Corps of Engineers.

The dwellings weren't going to be made of store-bought manufactured goods,
and Amazon Prime didn't deliver there...

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 12:27:15 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 6/22/19 12:19 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 11:46:23 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 6/22/19 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:

It's a pretty old idea I think.
Only really feasible with "room temperature" superconductors given the
size the thing would have to be to store appreciable energy to make it
worth the time, but all sorts of wild stuff would be possible with a
ductile, machinable room-temperature superconducting material it'd be
one of the greatest discoveries in engineering/materials science
history, surely.

Will the maglev train be in a tunnel? Hopefully it will be more comfortable than a plane.

I would expect, even the parts on land would be in a vacuum tunnel of
some kind. To be competitive with air travel times.

I rode on the Japanese Bullet Train, about 200 MPH. It's reliable and
super quiet, very comfortable. Guys with carts come by and sell sushi
and other snacks. It has regular wheels and rails and works pretty
good.



I take Amtrak's Acela between Boston and Providence RI regularly which
tops out at about 150 somewhere along there. the tilting action in
curves is much more aggressive than I was expecting, feels like getting
seasick if I'd have to ride it much further than that at that speed.
ka-chunk! to the left, ka-chunk! to the right, bang-bang.

$45 one way for a ~25 minute ride, $70 for "first class." It's almost
always completely full up on weekdays and annoyingly they don't do
reserved seating, not even in "first class."

The Bullet Train is so gentle you don't even hear or feel it
accelerating or braking. But the segment that I rode along the coast,
Nagoya to Hamamatsu, was flat and mostly straight. Scenic but no
adventure at all.

The guy with the snack cart enters at one end of of your car and bows
deeply. After he passes down the car, he turns and bows deeply before
he leaves, whether he's sold anything or not.

If a cell phone rings, the person covers it up and flees to the
vestebule between cars before he answers it.

Very civilized, those Japanese. Nice PMTs too.



China has some trains almost the equal of that now, it's easy to do in
China the government just tells you "We're demolishing your house next
week you need to move. here's $100" they get upset if you try to tell
people that in CT or NJ. Well you'd probably have to give them real
money at least

One problem with the California No-Speed-Rail Project, the Train to
Nowhere, is that acquiting right-of-way generates a couple hundred
lawsuits per mile.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 23/6/19 3:24 am, Jan Panteltje wrote:

This is reality right now:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-airshow-factbox/factbox-airbus-and-boeing-aircraft-deals-at-paris-airshow-idUSKCN1TL1Y5

Airbus sells twice as much as boing:
https://www.rt.com/business/462406-airbus-outpaces-boeing-paris-show/

It's more than twice as nice (than 777) to be a passenger on though.
The airlines have trouble keeping them full enough though, except on
limited routes.

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 3:06:44 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

One problem with the California No-Speed-Rail Project, the Train to
Nowhere, is that acquiting right-of-way generates a couple hundred
lawsuits per mile.

Problem? That means a couple hundred disputes settled by court order,
per mile. That's a SOLUTION. Drafting random folk (navvies) for workers and
confiscating everything in sight would be (has been, historically) a problem.

If you don't like the courts' decisions, that's a personal problem, not California's.

 

[bitrex]

On 6/22/19 12:51 PM, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 11:53:49 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/22/19 4:31 AM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

Since the tube would follow the curvature of the Earth, the passengers
would be weightless after achieving that speed but before slowing
down,


I didn't think of that but yeah 18,000 mph is an implausible speed even
for a very futuristic project like that. you have to make it comfortable
for your frail-est passenger, little old ladies and ill people are
supposed to ride this train, too!

You can't make your passengers pull 5 Gs for three minutes on
acceleration out of the station. You can't really even make your
passengers pull 1 G for 10 minutes in one direction and then 1 G in the
other direction, on deceleration, either, you're building a transport
system not the Vomit Comet at the amusement park

The problem is not as much the acceleration as the change in acceleration, also known as "jerk". We constantly feel 1 G of acceleration from the earth's gravity. Add 1 G perpendicular and you now have 1.4 G at 45°. Yeah, the seats will need to face the right direction and turn around before slowing down. The acceleration just needs to be brought up slowly.

doing the math if you start out at 1 G perpendicular instantaneously for
10 minutes acceleration and then decelerate at 1 G the other way for
another 10 gets you across the Atlantic, approximately, in 20 minutes at
a top speed of around 14,500 mph but that's going to be a really
uncomfortable 20 minutes I think. 1 G instantaneous acceleration and
maintaining it is like being fired off in a Model S Ludicrous Mode
continually for 10 min, tolerable for an astronaut but not old ladies
even with tilting seats. forget about having a cup of tea on your trip.

It would have to be brought up slower but then your top speed is going
to be less. 2-3000 mph with a travel time of about an hour and a half
sounds fine to me. Makes the engineering simpler and there's a point of
diminishing returns on selling travel time vs. having premium snacks and
beverages available on the trip.

 

[bitrex]

On 6/22/19 12:51 PM, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 11:53:49 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/22/19 4:31 AM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

Since the tube would follow the curvature of the Earth, the passengers
would be weightless after achieving that speed but before slowing
down,


I didn't think of that but yeah 18,000 mph is an implausible speed even
for a very futuristic project like that. you have to make it comfortable
for your frail-est passenger, little old ladies and ill people are
supposed to ride this train, too!

You can't make your passengers pull 5 Gs for three minutes on
acceleration out of the station. You can't really even make your
passengers pull 1 G for 10 minutes in one direction and then 1 G in the
other direction, on deceleration, either, you're building a transport
system not the Vomit Comet at the amusement park

The problem is not as much the acceleration as the change in acceleration, also known as "jerk". We constantly feel 1 G of acceleration from the earth's gravity. Add 1 G perpendicular and you now have 1.4 G at 45°. Yeah, the seats will need to face the right direction and turn around before slowing down. The acceleration just needs to be brought up slowly.

Maybe if you arranged things just right you could get the acceleration
forces and the weightlessness effect to cancel each other in such a way
that the passengers would feel less discomfort but that sounds like one
of those "it looks good on paper" ideas.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 19:34:24 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

> That wikipedia article only taks about a boing 767?

It does indeed. He must have got rid of his A380, then. At one time it
seems he had *both* aircraft:

http://www.pravdareport.com/history/96739-roman_abramovich_a380/

I'm inclined to think the Russian people could have made better use of
all the money he "appropriated" from Russia, though.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 23 Jun 2019 09:58:31 -0000 (UTC)) it happened Cursitor
Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in <qenig7$m1i$1@dont-email.me>:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 19:34:24 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

That wikipedia article only taks about a boing 767?

It does indeed. He must have got rid of his A380, then. At one time it
seems he had *both* aircraft:

http://www.pravdareport.com/history/96739-roman_abramovich_a380/

Here an 'oficial' denial by one of his spokesmen:
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=9051cd7c-0906-4d1d-bdb0-635432718347

Was fake news probably (Figaro).

I'm inclined to think the Russian people could have made better use of
all the money he "appropriated" from Russia, though.

Yes, and no, I sort of do admire his business capabilities
It is mainly US dollars anyways..

Above some minimum income what can one do with all that money?
Buy a boat, airplane, pizza , women, ? cars..., diamonds?
Give it away?


What I would NOT do is fly on one of those space tourism projects like Branson's
Virgin Galactic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipTwo
that thing looks destined for crashing.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 5:57:22 PM UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 17:29:30 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 23:51:38 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 21/06/2019 10:18 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
This week's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences
reports a new high temperature super-conductor, with a critical
temperature up at 73K (which is still well below room temperature but
above the 66K which was the previous peak).

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/25/12156.abstract?etoc

I can get access to the full paper if anybody is interested.

Nobody is talking about making cables out of the stuff yet, or even
speculating if it could be made into a conducting lead.


I don't accept the hype about using superconductors for power
transmission anyway. It's not as if the existing transmission
infrastructure wastes that much, and the infrastructure required to keep
cables cool would be hugely expensive.

A superconducting cable has a constant dissipation due to the cooling.
With sufficient power, the cooling losses are smaller than the copper
losses in ordinary HV lines. Unfortunately, the breaking point is
about 10 GW for a few thousand kilometer links. Such power levels
require a few nuclear reactors or something like full scale DESERTEC
solar power system (politically too risky after the Arab spring).


Seems to be a solution looking for a problem and one that would be
killed by economics.

Failures would be spectacular and slow to repair.

That's generally true for all high voltage transmission lines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basslink

It went down in December 2015 and wasn't fixed until June 2016.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 3:51:20 PM UTC+2, Winfield Hill wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote...

This week's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences
reports a new high temperature super-conductor, with a critical
temperature up at 73K (which is still well below room temperature
but above the 66K which was the previous peak).

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/25/12156.abstract?etoc

I can get access to the full paper if anybody is interested.

Nobody is talking about making cables out of the stuff yet,
or even speculating if it could be made into a conducting lead.

I thought there were super-conductors that operate at
much higher temperatures than that, what's the catch?

You are clearly right. The article is talking about a particular copper-oxide super-conductor and only comparing it with similar compounds, not the YBaCuO compounds that George Herold has reminded me about.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 3:51:44 PM UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 21/06/2019 10:18 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
This week's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences
reports a new high temperature super-conductor, with a critical
temperature up at 73K (which is still well below room temperature but
above the 66K which was the previous peak).

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/25/12156.abstract?etoc

I can get access to the full paper if anybody is interested.

Nobody is talking about making cables out of the stuff yet, or even
speculating if it could be made into a conducting lead.


I don't accept the hype about using superconductors for power
transmission anyway. It's not as if the existing transmission
infrastructure wastes that much, and the infrastructure required to keep
cables cool would be hugely expensive.

The infrastructure required to support the existing cables isn't cheap.

Seems to be a solution looking for a problem and one that would be
killed by economics.

As with all technical advances, it is going to be killed by economics until the technology gets cheap enough to be useful.

It's never clear when that's going to happen, and spending a little research money on pushing towards that cheap solution is perfectly sensible.

Read the history of heavier-than-air flying machines.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 4:00:52 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

On 6/22/19 12:51 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 11:53:49 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/22/19 4:31 AM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

Since the tube would follow the curvature of the Earth, the passengers
would be weightless after achieving that speed but before slowing
down,


I didn't think of that but yeah 18,000 mph is an implausible speed even
for a very futuristic project like that. you have to make it comfortable
for your frail-est passenger, little old ladies and ill people are
supposed to ride this train, too!

You can't make your passengers pull 5 Gs for three minutes on
acceleration out of the station. You can't really even make your
passengers pull 1 G for 10 minutes in one direction and then 1 G in the
other direction, on deceleration, either, you're building a transport
system not the Vomit Comet at the amusement park

The problem is not as much the acceleration as the change in acceleration, also known as "jerk". We constantly feel 1 G of acceleration from the earth's gravity. Add 1 G perpendicular and you now have 1.4 G at 45°. Yeah, the seats will need to face the right direction and turn around before slowing down. The acceleration just needs to be brought up slowly.


doing the math if you start out at 1 G perpendicular instantaneously for
10 minutes acceleration and then decelerate at 1 G the other way for
another 10 gets you across the Atlantic, approximately, in 20 minutes at
a top speed of around 14,500 mph but that's going to be a really
uncomfortable 20 minutes I think. 1 G instantaneous acceleration and
maintaining it is like being fired off in a Model S Ludicrous Mode
continually for 10 min, tolerable for an astronaut but not old ladies
even with tilting seats. forget about having a cup of tea on your trip.

That was the point of my statements about the acceleration vs. the jerk. If the 1 G is ramped up over a few seconds it isn't so much to deal with. Sitting in a seat for 20 minutes won't be enough time to worry with tea or anything else. In a skyscraper, do they serve tea in the elevators?

It would have to be brought up slower but then your top speed is going
to be less. 2-3000 mph with a travel time of about an hour and a half
sounds fine to me. Makes the engineering simpler and there's a point of
diminishing returns on selling travel time vs. having premium snacks and
beverages available on the trip.

What? I think you have it backwards. People would be very happy to get there in 20 or even 30 minutes without snacks vs. an 90 minutes with snacks. I don't get why you think snacks are so important. Do they serve snacks in cabs?

The whole point is if practical, this would be an entirely new way to travel across the oceans of the world. I'm not sure it is really practical in any sense however.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3b7f698c-798c-4c62-a240-19bc9bf7bc01@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 3:06:44 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

One problem with the California No-Speed-Rail Project, the Train
to Nowhere, is that acquiting right-of-way generates a couple
hundred lawsuits per mile.

Problem? That means a couple hundred disputes settled by court
order, per mile. That's a SOLUTION. Drafting random folk
(navvies) for workers and confiscating everything in sight would
be (has been, historically) a problem.

If you don't like the courts' decisions, that's a personal
problem, not California's.

I think they should design a contained (below ground) rail system
where the train is mag-lev and mag-motive, but has overhead
suspension (like the roller coasters) when failure or pause in the
meg-lev happens. That way, the tunnel can have banked turns
incorporated as well. Also, other utilties (DC links, etc.) can be
included in the Tunnel block.

Anything above ground is vulnerable and a waste of the space
required to be set aside for the run.

Fuck the scenic route shit. You want fast transport. Period!

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 11:07:57 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Above some minimum income what can one do with all that money?
Buy a boat, airplane, pizza , women, ? cars..., diamonds?

That pretty much covers it. What more could anyone possibly want?

> Give it away?

That's cheating.

What I would NOT do is fly on one of those space tourism projects like
Branson's Virgin Galactic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipTwo
that thing looks destined for crashing.

Just don't be one of the first! That's my best advice. Let others de-bug
the thing first. I'm sure there'll be plenty of them. Poor fools! ;-)



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:c34d992b-993a-4ba9-bb01-4051fed3712c@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 4:37:04 PM UTC+2,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3b7f698c-798c-4c62-a240-19bc9bf7bc01@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 3:06:44 PM UTC-7, John Larkin
wrote:

One problem with the California No-Speed-Rail Project, the
Train to Nowhere, is that acquiting right-of-way generates a
couple hundred lawsuits per mile.

Problem? That means a couple hundred disputes settled by
court order, per mile. That's a SOLUTION. Drafting random
folk (navvies) for workers and confiscating everything in sight
would be (has been, historically) a problem.

If you don't like the courts' decisions, that's a personal
problem, not California's.


I think they should design a contained (below ground) rail
system
where the train is mag-lev and mag-motive, but has overhead
suspension (like the roller coasters) when failure or pause in
the meg-lev happens. That way, the tunnel can have banked turns
incorporated as well. Also, other utilties (DC links, etc.) can
be included in the Tunnel block.

Anything above ground is vulnerable and a waste of the space
required to be set aside for the run.

Fuck the scenic route shit. You want fast transport. Period!

There was an article in the Proceedings of the IEEE a few decades
ago that wanted to dig evacuated tunnels between major cities.

If you make them parabolic, you just drop a train in a one end,
and it pops up at the other end in 80 minutes, independent of the
distance travelled.

You need magnetic levitation to make the process almost friction
free, and you'd need some kind of electro-magnetic drive to make
up for the residual frictional losses.

The long distance routes wouldn't have been all that practical,
since they start dipping into the molten core of the earth, but it
was a cute idea.

Oh, they could build one over at Yellowstone!

Actually an easy experiment could be done in a large salt dome
(which they all are).

easy digging. Just mind the heat once the depths are achieved.

The bottom would be like the Gateway Arch turned upside down (only
much bigger).

They would have to build that part ahead of time. So one digs a
big long deep slot to get that down there, and then builds the two
tunnels to connect to the surface.

Way too much digging.

flat run, tunnel near the surface, always powered, not a big deal.

There could easily be plenty of "coast" "declines" to go down with
less power. Levitated roller coasters can coast a looong way.

Do not have to fully evacuate the tunnels either. We could even
use a pressurized system with seal flaps surrounding the train at
specific points along its 'fuselage'. There could even be a test
design where directional jets blow air in line with the run and
assist in the movement of the "projectile" in a 'blowgun' manner.
Sealing agaisnt vacuum or pressure... both pose major problems at
those scales.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 4:37:04 PM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3b7f698c-798c-4c62-a240-19bc9bf7bc01@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 3:06:44 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

One problem with the California No-Speed-Rail Project, the Train
to Nowhere, is that acquiting right-of-way generates a couple
hundred lawsuits per mile.

Problem? That means a couple hundred disputes settled by court
order, per mile. That's a SOLUTION. Drafting random folk
(navvies) for workers and confiscating everything in sight would
be (has been, historically) a problem.

If you don't like the courts' decisions, that's a personal
problem, not California's.


I think they should design a contained (below ground) rail system
where the train is mag-lev and mag-motive, but has overhead
suspension (like the roller coasters) when failure or pause in the
meg-lev happens. That way, the tunnel can have banked turns
incorporated as well. Also, other utilties (DC links, etc.) can be
included in the Tunnel block.

Anything above ground is vulnerable and a waste of the space
required to be set aside for the run.

Fuck the scenic route shit. You want fast transport. Period!

There was an article in the Proceedings of the IEEE a few decades ago that wanted to dig evacuated tunnels between major cities.

If you make them parabolic, you just drop a train in a one end, and it pops up at the other end in 80 minutes, independent of the distance travelled.

You need magnetic levitation to make the process almost friction free, and you'd need some kind of electro-magnetic drive to make up for the residual frictional losses.

The long distance routes wouldn't have been all that practical, since they start dipping into the molten core of the earth, but it was a cute idea.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 10:47:15 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 4:37:04 PM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3b7f698c-798c-4c62-a240-19bc9bf7bc01@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 3:06:44 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

One problem with the California No-Speed-Rail Project, the Train
to Nowhere, is that acquiting right-of-way generates a couple
hundred lawsuits per mile.

Problem? That means a couple hundred disputes settled by court
order, per mile. That's a SOLUTION. Drafting random folk
(navvies) for workers and confiscating everything in sight would
be (has been, historically) a problem.

If you don't like the courts' decisions, that's a personal
problem, not California's.


I think they should design a contained (below ground) rail system
where the train is mag-lev and mag-motive, but has overhead
suspension (like the roller coasters) when failure or pause in the
meg-lev happens. That way, the tunnel can have banked turns
incorporated as well. Also, other utilties (DC links, etc.) can be
included in the Tunnel block.

Anything above ground is vulnerable and a waste of the space
required to be set aside for the run.

Fuck the scenic route shit. You want fast transport. Period!

There was an article in the Proceedings of the IEEE a few decades ago that wanted to dig evacuated tunnels between major cities.

If you make them parabolic, you just drop a train in a one end, and it pops up at the other end in 80 minutes, independent of the distance travelled..

You need magnetic levitation to make the process almost friction free, and you'd need some kind of electro-magnetic drive to make up for the residual frictional losses.

The long distance routes wouldn't have been all that practical, since they start dipping into the molten core of the earth, but it was a cute idea.

I've not looked at the math on this. There are an infinite number of parabolas between two points in a plane. How do you select the one that gives an 80 minute path? I don't think I can solve that with algebra unless there is some simplification I'm not thinking of.

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 10:37:04 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3b7f698c-798c-4c62-a240-19bc9bf7bc01@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 3:06:44 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

One problem with the California No-Speed-Rail Project, the Train
to Nowhere, is that acquiting right-of-way generates a couple
hundred lawsuits per mile.

Problem? That means a couple hundred disputes settled by court
order, per mile. That's a SOLUTION. Drafting random folk
(navvies) for workers and confiscating everything in sight would
be (has been, historically) a problem.

If you don't like the courts' decisions, that's a personal
problem, not California's.


I think they should design a contained (below ground) rail system
where the train is mag-lev and mag-motive, but has overhead
suspension (like the roller coasters) when failure or pause in the
meg-lev happens. That way, the tunnel can have banked turns
incorporated as well. Also, other utilties (DC links, etc.) can be
included in the Tunnel block.

Why would a long distance underground tunnel have turns?

Anything above ground is vulnerable and a waste of the space
required to be set aside for the run.

Fuck the scenic route shit. You want fast transport. Period!

I have no idea if such a tunnel is remotely practical. There is the Chunnel which must have been an ambitious project, breaking new ground <pun intended>. I expect an intercontinental tunnel would be a whole new ballgame though.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Judges1318]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 17:47:42 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

One idea was a miles-in-diameter superconducting coil to store energy.

Would the magnetic field of this coil be of sufficient intensity in order
to redistribute the flow of liquid iron of the Earth's core? Would
the Earth's magnetic field collapse as a consequence?

 

[Steve Wilson]

On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 1:08:40 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

Airbus lost a ton of money on the A380. Production will shut down
soon.

Boeing just got a new order for 200 of the 737 MAX.

You forgot to mention that Airbus received orders for over twice as many jets as Boeing at the Paris Air Show - 595 vs 234:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Airbus steals Paris Air Show with twice as many new plane orders than Boeing

Published time: 21 Jun, 2019 15:32

European aerospace company Airbus has dominated Le Bourget airfield as it easily outpaced US rival Boeing with the number of orders for its aircraft on the final day of trading at the Paris Air Show.

The business program at one of the world’s largest aerospace-industry exhibitions closed on Thursday. Over the four days, Airbus secured firm orders, letters of intent and memorandums-of-understanding for 595 jets, while Boeing had orders for 234 planes, according to the aviation consulting firm IBA.iQ which tracks aircraft orders.

Boeing had a rough start from the very beginning of the show on Monday when the company recorded zero orders, while its main competitor in the large jet airliner market, Airbus, won 100 orders.

Boeing inked the first deal at the 2019 Paris Air Show on Tuesday, as South Korea’s biggest carrier Korean Air Lines Co Ltd announced the purchase of 20 Boeing 787-10s and a lease on 10 Boeing 787-9s. On Wednesday, it won its first orders for 200 Boeing 737 Max planes, a surprise since the aircraft were grounded in most parts of the world after two fatal crashes.

https://on.rt.com/9wsm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Due to their fumbling, inompetence, and coverup, I would think carefully 2 or three times before getting on a Boeing plane. I understand many other customers feel the same.

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com