"Open Source Engineering"...Seriously???

Bill Gates does it every day, and still can't release a complete, bug-free software design.

As I understand it, there's nothing really revolutionary in his ideas, he just has the vision and the financial capital to make it look like a serious proposal.

Compare it with the high speed rail programs that are designed in a top-down fashion out of Washington by politicians and their cronies, who ignore the experts about the costs and predicted usage, and proceed to spend (or try to spend) billions of taxpayer dollars on boondoggles. Politicians and their cronies never have their own 'skin in the game' so to speak; they're gambling with house money and they won't lose regardless of the outcome.

At least Musk is giving it his own time and (some of) his own money; he's got a stake in it to see it succeed. I appreciate the fact that he's keeping his mind and options open. You don't have to contribute any ideas to him for free. Heck no. Save those ideas and go build your own super-speed tube system.

"Save those ideas and go build your own super-speed tube system."

That's just it...I could have the best, most cost effective, and feasible solution but...no capital or financing to make it happen. If anyone who has the money gets wind of my idea then they stand to profit. See what I'm sayin'...

And I'm not saying I have any ideas...

That would be called........ synergy.

You got the ideas, Musk has connection for money.

I stopped reading when I got here:
"pressurized cushion of air 0.020 to 0.050 in. (0.5 to 1.3 mm) off the ground.Peak pressures beneath the skis need only reach 1.4 psi (9.4 kPa) to support the passenger capsule"

I'm gonna take a pass on this one. I'm not ready to trust my life to a 0.020" cushion of air at 1.4 PSI at 700 MPH. What's the amplitude of earth tremors in that corridor?

Or what happens if the compressor takes a dump?

As for the open source aspect, I don't think it will "fly".

Ditto. I'd rather be in an airplane with miles of air around me!

They like to break it down to small numbers...

At the shipyard, we were to design a hatch with minimum weight (11 ga Aluminum) and for the seals to withhold 4 PSI. (Minimum Weight played a big part, because the ship was transported by a Galaxy aircraft)

And in the meeting, engineering said that's nothing...... shocked, I told them 4 PSI on a 24" x 48" Hatch is over 4500 pounds of force on the hatch...... should have keep my mouth shut, because I ended having to do it.

There are probably some who would contribute their time just to feed an ego.

"I helped design that" is the meth of the egotistical ilk.

I'm more inclined to bush hog my property, then sit on the deck with a beer and point and say "I cut that...yep".

he's pimping, no question, plenty of silicon valley venture capitalists have done exactly the same thing...they cherry pick other work to make even more money

I have to admit this guy has had me thinking about this entire concept for a couple of days now. because his release was shy on details I had to guess on a lot of the numbers I was crunching. I'm assuming his "low pressure tube" would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 4-5 PSI any lower than that and he'd have an oxygen starved "tunnel of death" when anyone left his pod while still in the tube. It better not ever quit short of its destination! he noted that "commercial pumps are currently available". that's so reassuring. who is going to pay the bill to have a 300 mile long tunnel drawn down to low pressure? sure the pumps are here but the energy draw to suck them down to pressure would bankrupt the project before the cement was dry. we'll never see it built, buy your ticket for the mag lev instead

It seemed to me that he released the plans because he had decided that he did not want to invest in building the system. He is hoping others will take the risk and do all the research and development and he will just lease them the property or something. You can bet he will profit from it somehow. I do have to agree with Lyn. I'm not riding in it. I will wait for them to get the bugs out of it!

The instore vacuum cash delivery systems were an evolution of the tensioned cable spring loaded platforms. The Musk/Gardi Hyperloop could also be regarded as an evolution of high speed rail. (Elon Musk of Paypal / Space X is disillusioned with HSR proposals on the west coast of the USA. John Gardi is the Canadian with the Hyperloop published diagrams that went worldwide).

I think I will stay on the side lines with this one and let other well meaning serfs chisel their thoughts on the tablets of others for the glory of the kings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_railway I hadn't realized it was an evacuated tube system. I think after 147 years there are engineering solutions to rats eating leather.

that would must had to be the most expensive type of propulsion ever choosed for a public transport.

ps: and no, no calculus and not tech´s with a x-ray on top of your home!

That is answer 32 to the question, "How do billionaires become billionaires."

As you can see, everyone of them know how to use other peoples efforts for free and make them feel good about it. I wish I had that kind of personality.

interesting rant. off topic but I enjoyed it

Have to agree with Fredski,

There are people that will take 100% of nothing and make something of it,

then there are people that take 100% of nothing and bank on it.

I'm somewhat doubtful anyone who frequents this site is hoping if they come up with a billion dollar idea they'll get an employment offer. Musk has several of the pieces and he knows Calif has billions to blow and he wants a piece of that.......this is just one part of his marketing plan. the "car(or pod)" can be made, the tube would be far too costly to operate and depending on the pressure selected would be a "tunnel of death". you'll never see it

I think California's billions have already been blown......

Well you have a pretty good point here.

If in fact I have a billion dollar idea then surely I shouldn't need to give it away to get an employment offer because I should be able to instead employ myself.

This of course is a whole other issue - how to convert an idea into a profit?

If the idea is your own then you are looking at patents and business ventures to develop your idea or you might opt to just sell or lease your patent.

If it is not your idea then it is just a straight forward business venture of taking an idea (hopefully paying for it, buying or getting a patent licence from the inventor) and then carrying out a good business plan.

This thread about open source engineering reminds me of a graduate systems engineering course. In the old days, large system concepts such as a new type of transportation system would be developed as part of a university program and publicly available to all. Graduates offered free engineering input as a student and professors offered free engineering input in that they were already employed by the university. If the concept was viable then government funded and coordinated the project and private industry offered services making a profit doing so.

This process seems to have changed with private research being done by the universities (using public resources) and governments letting private industry own and operate what used to be public infrastructure.

Maybe what needs to be open source is the setting of the "subjective human purpose" of a new transportation system and the defining of the interface specifications. Once the components are identified with performance specifications then this is where engineering fees would be paid to design and build. It seems unwise to give away this aspect of it.

GA Dug.

The idea of getting input from a great many thinkers is critical to the success of any venture.

Many times we are quick to assign motive to someone else's actions or communication. When in actuality, we don't know their intention, motivation or character. We then let that cloud the possible good benefit of the venture.

If a cause was deemed to be worthwhile, maybe it would be possible to put aside 'self imposed restrictions', like the need for recognition and the profits from personal patents etc. And before you say that it is not possible, the international world of Arduino control systems, is a clear demonstration that it is possible and is already being done, very successfully.

And looking to the immediate future, opportunities like the internet of things with an estimated 50 Billion (interconnected) nodes by 2020, covering energy, security, communications, transport, automation etc, could be the model for 'open source engineering', namely common standards and the flexibility to share/advance with that starting point, to meet the needs of many.

Problem is with your second paragraph, may be verifying the information.

I am suggesting that if a project is big enough with many (million) devotees, then because of the weight of numbers and successes, a project may no longer be the 'play thing' of a few, but becomes 'open source' in nature for the good of many.

I understand your reference to 'verification' and 'standards' etc, but like the Arduino project with the many spin offs and variations, it is the marketplace and meeting specific needs, that is guiding the platforms, not some rigid adherence to a static set of standards.

I just threw it out there,

Definitely some food for thought in the comments here. I think the term "open source" however cannot be used for engineering in this context. The "Open Source" concept originated in software as in the "source code". The code was available for free but it still had to be compiled into binary to make it useful. Not everybody can do that and the compiled code is usually never licensed for free. There are lots of companies that make profit from "free source code" (MySQL, RedHat, etc) but they have to work the code to make it useful. They are not giving away the knowledge (idea) of how they compile and make the source code useful. This is key. The elements are available for free but how you assemble those elements to make a profitable product is not. Think of "source code" like raw steel, nuts, and bolts (yes I know you have to pay for those...you know what I mean!). By themselves they have little or no value but what you create with them can have enormous potential. So...providing info to Elon on how to assemble nuts and bolts into a new transport system that can make him profit is simply...providing free engineering and consulting!...Foolish!

Yes, there are some that try to profit on the exploitation of others, so what's new. However, there are projects, (not necessarily the Hyperloop), like hand water pumps, sanitary systems, hand crank lights and radios, and even signage like a STOP sign, where some collective, open sourced engineering can result in a better world.

OK, and here is one from my collection ... My Community Front Door that I openly put out there as a possible open source engineering project. The door is ... a door, that doubles as a boat, a bridge, a trolley and a roof. It would sit in a frame that connects tents, timber, thatched reeds or basic shelter that is readily available to the outside world. It comes with a clip in table, LED lighting, water filtering, shovels (that double as oars or trolley handles), hand crank battery recharge capability and radios etc. It can link people together and promote personal education. It also has lockers for storage and for parcel/mail delivery so it provides identity and a sense of place and protection. It could be made in almost any material. Recycled plastic printed in 3D could be a good start.

So fellow CR4 travellers, divert your Hyperloop thinking and let's consider working on the community front door ... in an open source engineering way. (There are other details if there is interest, like the door frame etc).