2159 BAY STREET, LOS ANGELES, CA 90021

Dear Mr. Rob Lloyd and the Hyperloop team,

My name is Steven Davidoff and I am now a senior at Robbinsville High School,

Robbinsville NJ. I am writing to you in regards to your project, The Hyperloop One. About two

years ago my family and I planned a trip to South Carolina. With such a long trip from New

Jersey, I thought to myself there has to be a better method of transportation that doesn't waste as

much time, especially in the fast paced modern world. Driving for many hours on I 95, I pictured

a clear tube parallel to the turnpike in the median. This vision was similar to a slide in a water

park with a pod that can hold a vehicle the size of a standard car or truck. The pod would move

at hundreds of miles an hour free of air resistance/ drag, traffic dangers, surrounding weather and

objects that can cause damage and be dangerous to the average car on the highway.

About two years later in my engineering class, we researched methods of transportation.

Someone brought up the hyperloop, the future highway. I found it a coincidence that the

hyperloop was very similar to what I pictured but still had many differences. While this vision

was a dream of mine, I started to sketch out some potential prototypes and even modeled them in

my basement on a smaller scale. I also made a basic model of my assembly in the Autodesk

Inventor CADing software. I pushed the idea to the side as I was busy with school and work; I

also thought my ideas were too complicated. I have a few ideas that I wanted to share with you

that are different as this meant a lot to me.

 When I pictured the tube, I envisioned a pod that could fit a car, I thought of what would

make it fast and efficient? Where would the contact points of the pod to the tube be? Attached in

figure 2.1 and sketch 1.2 is the frame of the tube. I have created a circular frame with two points

of attachment from the

circular frame to the

ground. They are spread

apart in a triangle

formation to give side

support on turns. The

purpose of having the

post oriented far apart

on such a large angle

provides the structure,

frame the support

needed. The circular, Figure 2.1 - Final isometric view, single section of tube

round frames are spread

out nearly 3.5 ft apart. The frames support three rails that are mounted one at the top most part of

the structure, and two and two at the bottom nearly 120 degree angles apart. The rails were

initially intended to be made of steel. As initially intended, the pod was thought to be supported

magnetically. The pod would be surrounded by neodymium magnets that would line up and

interact with neodymium magnets of the same polarity. This would provide the hovering action

inside the
tube. Using magnets of the same polarity allows it to repel rather than attract which if they were

to attract, the pod can shift too far in one direction running the risk of permanently becoming

stuck to the tube. I also created a small electromagnet inside an aluminum tube which would

provide the hovering action. Using this method to hover the pod was successful yet if the power

to the system were to be cut, the pod would sink to the bottom of the tube potentially causing

serious damage. However, I figured adding a backup power source such as large capacitors or

batteries would protect the system from this situation. It seemed that I also found a method of

regulating the magnetic field to protect the pod from making contact with the walls due to an

uneven load or an acceleration - which would be in a direction towards the walls of the tube. The

forces on the pod would be detected with the use of a sensor that would adjust the voltage of the

coil, strengthening or weakening the magnetic field, keeping the pod from making contact with

the tube. However, even this seemed too complex. I then thought to myself why didn't I stick to

the original plan of using magnets but magnets that repel? My final design contains magnets that

repel to line the pod with the tube successfully. To reduce the air resistance on the pod, I added

powerful fans that would have ducts branch off the tube. These ducts will branch at nearly a 30

degree angle with the tube to create a vacuum in the direction of pods motion. Having enough

fans should reduce the air resistance significantly as the fans will move the air at high speeds due

to the small volume of air available in the tube as the pod passes. Fans will keep a draft in the

tube but are most effective as the pod approaches, passes the duct.

Now that I developed a way to reduce frictional forces on the pod making it more

efficient, I had to develop a method of efficient thrust. I first thought of increasing the strength of

the vacuum by installing a greater amount of larger fans and ducts. With the pod having
adjustable flaps that would open and close, the pod can be advanced through the tube using the

wind as power. Opening the flaps would create drag when needed to allow the pod to move.

Closing the flaps or retracting them in towards the pod, would allow air to flow past the pod

allowing to slow. The thought was that the pod would have a set of friction brakes that would

touch down on the frame rails to in turn, slow the pod. The only issue with this method of

propulsion is the air flow and pressure would be too powerful for the system, the pod will still be

forced to move as the pod acquires most of the areas tube. It would also be too dangerous to get

in and out of the pod. Another idea I have generated was to use an electromagnet principle to

provide propulsion. This was one of my best methods of propulsion developed. The tube would

be surrounded by a series of coils, laminated wire wound tightly close together. As simulated

with a drinking straw surrounded by tightly wounded speaker wire and a nail, the nail moved

through the straw to until it was center with the coil. Winding two separate coils in series with a

1.5 inch gap, the nail traveled to the nearest coil and then to the second coil after the gap. In

theory if this were simulated on a larger scale, it could most definitely move the pod through the

tube. The one issue with this is it uses a huge amount of wire and power to create an

electromagnetic field to move a pod containing a vehicle. Another method of propulsion is to use

a powerful wind turbine to be attached to the pod. The one issue is regarding the length of the

blades. The greater surface area of the blades produces more power as more air is moved. The

blades will therefore have to extend passed the body of the pod to gain effective thrust without

interference of the pod. This means the outer tube of the system will have to be much greater in

diameter than the pod. As of January 2018 I was considering the risks of a vacuum tube and how

the tube can essentially implode due to the ultra strong vacuum. Conversely, if the pod contained
powerful fans, the tube can explode as the pressure behind the pod increases. I also noticed that a

huge amount of copper wire and energy would be needed to advance the pod through the tube

after reviewing the electromagnetic propulsion method. I then considered the possibility of using

hydraulics to advance the pod. The benefits provide strong, responsive motion while providing

efficiency. Shown in the attached sketch 1.1, the pod will be advanced using a combination of

hydraulic and electromagnetic technologies. Attached to the frame is three, 3.5 inch diameter

pipes that will be mounted away from the maglev technology. These pipes are responsible for

carrying high volumes, high pressure water or fluids along with steel blocks or balls that fit

snugly inside the pipe; this is similar to the fitting of a piston in a car engine. Having a high

power pump circulate the water at high pressure through the pipes, will in theory advance the

steel blocks/ balls through the pipe. The pod will contain electromagnetic coils that will be lined

up with the pipes containing the steel driven by the water. By applying a voltage through the

coils, an electromagnetic interaction will occur between both the coil and steel in the pipe. This

will cause the pod to move through the tube as it is attracted to the moving steel. This method is

yet, complex as the pipe will have to withstand extreme high pressures of water. Additionally, the

steel parts inside the pipe can cause damage to the pipe as the flow will have such a high

velocity. The best method to date that I have found to move the pod successfully is to use a cable

drive. Pictured in sketch 1.4 a large drum will wind two very small gauged steel cables parallel to

one one another. The cables will have a very small bracket that will not impede with or damage

the drum. Attached to the circular brackets will be large steel plates that will interact with the

electrically charged coils attached to the pod. Overall, the same principle is still being used to
move the pod as with the hydraulic method, yet this method reduces the risk of pipe burst and

failure to operate if there is not enough pressure in the pipe to move the pod.

Originally, I had thought of making the walls bordering the frame out of a clear glass.

This will allow riders to view their location through the transparent wall. However, after

considering costs of glass, complexity in manufacturing and possible breakage of glass, I

changed my mindset of using glass to the use of aluminum. The first small scale prototype

consisted of an aluminum tube from a canopy set that was wrapped with laminated speaker wire.

The benefits of aluminum features a rust free surface, light in weight, can be cheaper than

tempered glass and is a strong material that will not shatter. However, aluminum is not as easy to

construct as fiberglass and is still costly. Additionally, aluminum is an excellent conductor of

electricity providing a great source to the ground for lightning. Fiberglass is not only a stronger

material, but doesn't break as easy as that of glass. Additionally, the fiberglass can be molded by

hand into different shapes during construction. In the end, the transportation tube will look like a

slide from a water park. Closing off each end of the pod is two conical shaped, beveled ended

caps that reduce aerodynamic drag. This design was chosen to equalize the pressure difference

within the pod. As the pod strikes the air the air is in a high pressure state adding an opposing

force to the pod; the cap on the back end is meant to reduce the pressure to lower pressure by

providing a forward push as it would create a vacuum. The design for the aerodynamics of the

pod are shown attached in sketch 1.3.

As of December 2017, I realized adding a strip of tempered glass to serve as a window at

average human eye level, will provide the riders with a view as they travel at these high speeds.

This will consume less glass opposed to making the whole frame glass, while still entertaining
the riders by giving them a view of their location. Additionally, I noted that due to the geometries

of the system I have created I would need to improve turning at these high speeds. I had

integrated a “snake” like function into the existing design by dividing the pod into three sections

and linking them together. The principle requires the pod to decrease size only slightly on the

side closer to the pivot point. It behaves similar to an accordion bus with two pivot points instead

of one. As shown in the cad sketch below figures 5.2 and 6.1 and the hand sketch 1.3, the pod is

now comprised of three sections that are modified to like together and pivot. The pod contains

one male section that meshes with two surrounding female sections. To prevent the system from

collapsing inwards on a stop, springs line the inner walls pushing them apart along with a

limiters that limit the motion of the tube to shift up to six inches on each side. This in turn,

provides 12 inches, one foot, of pivoting action. This provides sharper turning capabilities while

reducing the stress on the pod on turns.

Attached are some visuals of what the system would have looked like. The most recent CAD

sketches are shown below in figures 4.1 - 5.2. These sketches depict the aluminum frame.
Figure 4.1: Final isometric view highway tube with pod

Figure 5.2: Final isometric view of pivoting pod

Figure 6.1 - male/ female pod sections interlocked (spring tension system)
 Figure 9.1 - Front View, Side View, Top View

Additionally, hand sketches are attached to provide a better visual of the system and

functions. I hope that these ideas help influence the functionality of the system as I worked really

hard to brainstorm the most beneficial geometries and workings of the system. As I decide on

college shortly, any opportunities would be amazing to help better my experiences. I hope to hear

your feedback soon!

Thank you,

Steven Davidoff