A skeptical response to Musk's hyperloop
The article is full of cant in more ways than one, and more about social norms when entering a new field than the proposal itself. This is obvious from the kind of nitpicking that goes on (no references! 4.37 m/s^2 is the maximum motion sickness possible because an accredited expert proposed it; I've never seen 4.9 m/s^2, but it's surely a barf comet!). Despite the author's high opinion of his own knowledge, the criticism amounts almost entirely to basic arithmetic and comparisons to existing systems that are built on rather different principles. The really interesting, constructive questions: does this low-pressure air cushion thing really work? what are some factors that we need to explore to determine its true efficiency? etc. are of no interest to this kind of expert, who is more interested in tribally defending his own turf (see the unnecessary name calling) than in figuring out new ground.<p>In all fairness, I would give much more slack to an engineer talking about his field. But, as the author himself points out, almost all civil engineering technology is from the 19th and early 20th century. He seems to think that, in between, his colleagues have been perfecting the fine forms of the art and polishing its many facets. Except feats that were once fairly common, such as building the Hoover Dam under budget and two years ahead of schedule [1], are in the realm of the mythical these days.<p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_dam" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_dam</a>