PunkyBrewster

OK. Call me naive.

Is this REALLY in the works???

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence...teractive.html

Blondie

Wow - now that's an extreme concept. This is the first I had heard of it. No sign of plans to make it happen though.

Xenos

Are you sure that this wasn't first posted 14 days ago?

mastad

It is being built right after the Translunar tunnel to the moon.

Xenos

Aah Mastad - that'll be 1st April 2013 then?

PunkyBrewster

Wouldn't 14 days ago have been March 31st?<BR><BR>(How's that for a topping effort?)

soccr

K, Punky -- website doesn't say it's in the works, just says this is how it would have to be designed. I think it's Discovery's version of sci-fi. <BR><BR>However, an interesting idea. I wonder how fast it would have to go and how many hours you would be spending underground, not to mention how they would ever manage to cope with the incredible pressure at that enormous depth. <BR><BR>Anyone want to speculate along with me?

dgruzew

This is based on Mag-Lev trains which have never been used yet. Likey in 10-20 years or so we will see the first Mag-Lev train on the ground. Then someone might think of using it to cross the ocean - I doubt this will happen for many years, probably past our lifetime.

flyaway

A Mag-Lev train is being used now at Shanghai airport.

Xenos

There was a Maglev train in use at Birmingham International Airport (UK) for almost 11 years, before being closed in 1995 due to it being unreliable.

jahoulih

It says that it would go at 5,000 mph and make the trip in 54 minutes. If it could really go that fast, wouldn't it make more sense to go in the other direction, make the trip in about three hours, and not have the ocean to worry about?

Xenos

Jahoulih - Huh? Would you run that past me again?

jahoulih

The website mentioned in the first post says that the train would go at 5,000 mph from New York to London in 54 minutes through a tunnel floating in the Atlantic Ocean. I was just thinking it might be easier to go in the other direction and build the thing on land (except for the little bit in the Bering Strait).

rex

Yes, jahoulih - - what &quot;other direction&quot;? If you mean up over the North Pole, there is no solid ground there, right?<BR><BR>Or perhaps you're thinking that an Alaska-Siberia connection is a less sea-plagued route to connect the &quot;old world&quot; to the America(s)?<BR><BR>Seems like supersonic flight will carry more passengers and cargo from North America to Eurasia in the 21st century (especially the second half) than any Mag-Lev option - - regardless of where they might put any such &quot;tube&quot;.<BR><BR>Speculating is fun... no need to be inhibited by facts...<BR><BR>Best wishes,<BR><BR>Rex<BR>[email protected]<BR><BR>

jahoulih

I see we were posting simultaneously, Rex. Yes, I meant the Alaska-Siberia route. I think the Bering Strait is narrow enough that a bridge or tunnel would be feasible. (I'm not at all sure the 5,000 mph speed is feasible.) Given the impending demise of the Concorde, I doubt whether we'll be traveling from America to Eurasia by either maglev train or supersonic plane for quite some time to come.

dgruzew

The only reason they are saying the train could travel 5000 miles an hour is beacuse they are factoring in the tube will be a Vacuum(no wind resitance) - this eliminates the other way around idea over land(unless you make a tube over land). even in a vaccum - I can't see how the G-force would not kill the passengers. <BR><BR>Also - I meat there is currently no intercity Mag Lev in production - there are a few airports that used them and I belive there was a little one in Epcott center. Germany plans on having one in 2005 - between Hamburg and Berlin - but I bet that timetable will change. Also the speed of this train will be 300 - 500 kph maximum

soccr

This is fascinating. Having missed the reference to 5000 MPH (?!?), I wasn't thinking about G-forces, but Jehosephat, that's fast! <BR><BR>Reality comment: If the Concorde is failing partly because the premium speed turned out not to be compellingly attractive to travelers, it would be surprising if large numbers of people would sign up for what would undoubtedly be a very expensive means of transport.<BR><BR>Fantasy comment: if 'twere built, I still wonder about pressure, ESP. if it were planned to go so fast. I have enough trouble with my ears going through Alpen tunnels....... what if the tunnel were 20,000 Leagues under the Sea? Obviously I'm not a great physicist, and of course people manage deep-sea dives in submarines, etc. that manage the pressure, but still.....

jahoulih

Doesn't the space shuttle go at comparable speeds? (Not that that's such a great example.)<BR><BR>You're right, they'd still have to build the tube, but I'm guessing that it would be easier to build it on land than through the water, even though it would have to be several times longer.

dgruzew

Pressure should not be an issue - becuase the tube is a vaccum - so there is no airpressure - then the train would have its own pressurization. Theorically this would work - but the speed and g-force I still wonder about?? Thats an interesting refrence to the space shuttle - beacuse on landing it is going about 12000 miles per hour - mabye because of the lessend gravity the G-force is not as strong??? - I don't know.

rex

&quot;G force&quot; has essentially nothing to do with velocity, it has to do with _acceleration_ - - for presumably 10-15 minutes, the acceleration would be about 300-500 mph/min (a Porsche can do about about 360 mph/min for about a tenth of a minute), then the acceleration would be zero for 30 minutes, then the deceleration would occur for a similar period of time.<BR><BR>When trains were first introduced in the 1830s, there were similarly mistaken views that humans could not survive velocities of greater than about 30 mph - - showing no awareness of the difference between velocity and acceleration.<BR>