Revision as of 16:01, 2 July 2025 edit Tronvillain (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 11,303 edits →Theory and operation: cr: there's no contrast between "partially evacuated tubes" and 1/1000 of an atomosphere. Tag: Reverted ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:00, 2 July 2025 edit undo Stepho-wrs (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 51,785 edits Revert. The point is that the traditional vactrain aimed at a perfect vacuum while the initial Hyperloop concept required at least some air to remain for the fans and wings to work. Your rewrite removed that distinction. Tag: Undo Next edit →
Line 33: [[File:Hyperloop.jpg\|thumb\|A 3D sketch of potential Hyperloop infrastructure. The steel tubes are rendered transparent in this image.]] The much-older [[vactrain]] concept resembles a [[high-speed rail]] system without substantial [[Drag (physics)\|air resistance]] by employing [[maglev\|magnetically levitating]] trains in [[vacuum\|evacuated]] (airless) or partly evacuated tubes;. ~~however~~However, the difficulty of maintaining a vacuum over large distances has prevented this type of system from ever being built. ~~Similarly~~By contrast, the Hyperloop alpha concept was to operate at approximately {{convert\|1\|mbar\|Pa\|spell=in\|lk=on}} ~~(roughly one thousandth of an atmosphere)~~ of pressure, ~~but~~and ~~would require compression of~~requires the ~~tiny amount of remaining~~ air for levitation.<ref name="nova20130813"/> ===Initial design concept===

Hyperloop: Difference between revisions