Nerissa Gliders

Swisaw · Jan 31, 2011

In honour of my beloved departed wife, Nerissa, I rename my transportation invention 'Gliding Bridges' in her name to 'Nerissa Gliders' and disclose technical details of the invention to make her name immortal as I believe this invention will become one of the main means of transportation in future. For full technical details please click the link bellow:
http://www.thrilling.me.uk/nery.html

thetime22 · Jan 31, 2011

Please tell me you have this concept copyrighted? Seems like a great idea, I can't find any faults.

vvaannmmaann · Jan 31, 2011

thetime22 said:
Please tell me you have this concept copyrighted? Seems like a great idea, I can't find any faults.

Apart from not knowing how the system is powered?

estwig · Jan 31, 2011

vvaannmmaann said:
Apart from not knowing how the system is powered?

Gravity, it is theoretical, but looks good on paper.

thetime22 · Jan 31, 2011

vvaannmmaann said:
Apart from not knowing how the system is powered?

A bit confused.. your asking me if i know how the system is powered, or your asking him how the system is powered?

Swisaw · Jan 31, 2011

thetime22 said:
Please tell me you have this concept copyrighted? Seems like a great idea, I can't find any faults.

You mean if I have patented it? No, but patent pending and I am not sure If I can take it any further.

MikeJ · Jan 31, 2011

This is a joke, isn't it?

I'm not the only one that thinks you're being serious?

davezzr · Jan 31, 2011

Isnt this physics 101 first thing we did at secondary school. The little wooden car rolling down a thirty degree slope and had to work out is speed based on the angle of slope and weight of the wooden car.
Glasgow to London via gravity on a slope!! I guess your math is right except where energy is lost from breaking ,friction and wind resistance.
How are the weights controlled on the return journey and what energy used.
Sorry but we are not physicists, even still it sounds unsustainable

Swisaw · Jan 31, 2011

davezzr said:
Isnt this physics 101 first thing we did at secondary school. The little wooden car rolling down a thirty degree slope and had to work out is speed based on the angle of slope and weight of the wooden car.
Glasgow to London via gravity on a slope!! I guess your math is right except where energy is lost from breaking ,friction and wind resistance.
How are the weights controlled on the return journey and what energy used.
Sorry but we are not physicists, even still it sounds unsustainable

Long distances like between London and Glasgow will need energy but it should be a small fraction of the energy needed for trains and aeroplanes between both points. This is because the vehicle moves on a slope from a higher point to a lower point and it is very light. It doesn't have engine, wheels, gear box and other assaciated parts. It glides on rollers fixed on the way. These rollers act as driving wheels. It can be made shuttle between London and Glasgow in under an hour, which is faster than trains and aeroplanes with less fuell and wear and tear.

Swisaw · Jan 31, 2011

MikeJ said:
This is a joke, isn't it?

I'm not the only one that thinks you're being serious?

This is not a joke dear friend. I am very serious about it.

MikeJ · Jan 31, 2011

Swisaw said:
It can be made shuttle between London and Glasgow in under an hour, which is faster than trains and aeroplanes with less fuell and wear and tear.

It can run at 500mph?

Downhill?

roydmoorian · Jan 31, 2011

MikeJ said:
It can run at 500mph? Downhill?

Going the other way would that be downhill as well :|

I'll bet there isn't 50 metres difference in height above sea level (taken at Newlyn) between London and Glasgow. It won't be a very steep hill over 347 miles

Jeff FV · Jan 31, 2011

Perhaps I've mis-understood something, but this 'aint going to work.

Conservation of energy is a fundemental principle in physics. At the top of a system, when the vehicle is at rest, it has gravitational potential energy: mgh

If it is then released, at the bottom of its fall, all this potential energy has been converted into kinetic energy 0.5mvsauqred - assuming no losses. To raise the vehicle back to the same height it started from needs the same amount of energy.

So in an ideal, loss-less, system, the truck could start from rest, go down the slope and then back up, coming to a rest at the top.

You correctly state that if passengers travel one way (on the down hill) then less energy will be needed to raise the empty vehicle back up to the top, but this means you need to some how capture & store that excess energy (not easy) and also that passengers will only ever want to travel one way (down hill)

I was beginning to get a little bogged down with the detail, but you say you are going to use the turning of a roller to pump water to store energy. This may be feasible (but I remain to be convinced) then this will absorb some of the potential energy, reducing the kinetic energy that is transfered to the vehicle, thereby lowering the final speed of the vehicle, so it would not now have the kinetic energy to get back up the slope.

You can't get 'free' energy. This won't work, sorry. Was an interesting exercise in energy transfer, though.

Jeff

MikeJ · Jan 31, 2011

To be fair, anyone that travels from Glasgow to London isn't likely to want to go back.

Jeff FV · Jan 31, 2011

MikeJ said:
To be fair, anyone that travels from Glasgow to London isn't likely to want to go back.

Spoken like a true resident of Edinburgh!

Swisaw · Feb 1, 2011

MikeJ said:
It can run at 500mph? Downhill?

yes, if it is energised.

Swisaw · Feb 1, 2011

dots and spots Jeff said:
Perhaps I've mis-understood something, but this 'aint going to work.

Conservation of energy is a fundemental principle in physics. At the top of a system, when the vehicle is at rest, it has gravitational potential energy: mgh

If it is then released, at the bottom of its fall, all this potential energy has been converted into kinetic energy 0.5mvsauqred - assuming no losses. To raise the vehicle back to the same height it started from needs the same amount of energy.

So in an ideal, loss-less, system, the truck could start from rest, go down the slope and then back up, coming to a rest at the top.

You correctly state that if passengers travel one way (on the down hill) then less energy will be needed to raise the empty vehicle back up to the top, but this means you need to some how capture & store that excess energy (not easy) and also that passengers will only ever want to travel one way (down hill)

I was beginning to get a little bogged down with the detail, but you say you are going to use the turning of a roller to pump water to store energy. This may be feasible (but I remain to be convinced) then this will absorb some of the potential energy, reducing the kinetic energy that is transfered to the vehicle, thereby lowering the final speed of the vehicle, so it would not now have the kinetic energy to get back up the slope.

You can't get 'free' energy. This won't work, sorry. Was an interesting exercise in energy transfer, though.

Jeff

It doesn't lower the speed. If it does so, it will stop. As long as the vehicle is heavier than the resistance, it slides downward. If it slides downward, it will accelerate. It is like two lifts acting as counter weights to each other operated by two operators one on the top of building and one on the ground. One of the lifts used to carry loads and the other used to carry counter weights.

When the loading lift is on the top, the counter weight carrying lift is going to be on the ground. To let the loading lift to come down, the counter weight carrying lift made a bit lighter than the loading lift. When potential energy of the gross weight of loading lift becomes more than the energy needed to pull the counter weight carrying lift and friction, the loading lift comes down and accelerates unless controlled. To take the loading lift back to the top, you have to make the counter weight carrying lift on the top heavier. In this way, with use of the counter weight carrying lift, you should save as much as over 95% energy, theoretically, well, at least 70% practically. That is not bad.

Instead of the counter weight carrying lift, let the loading lift operates a water pump to pump up water to the top of the building when it comes down. To take it back to the top, use the water on the top as a counter weight. The same logic applies on Nerissa Gliders although they move on the slope.

MikeJ · Feb 1, 2011

The counter weights on a lift are to stop the lift moving as fast as gravity would like it to. The weights "recover" that energy and reuse it later.

On your system, you're setting the slope to overcome the friction of the moving object. There's no "lost" energy for you to recover.

Swisaw · Feb 2, 2011

MikeJ said:
The counter weights on a lift are to stop the lift moving as fast as gravity would like it to. The weights "recover" that energy and reuse it later.

On your system, you're setting the slope to overcome the friction of the moving object. There's no "lost" energy for you to recover.

Not so! because equal opposing counter weights cancel each other, both behave as they don't exist. So the heavier side accelerates as fast as the gravity wants minus the friction, which is made negligibale with the use of lubricated rollers.

vvaannmmaann · Feb 2, 2011

Has the OP calculated the costs of building this thing? Then consider the endless planning wrangles,the Nimbys,costs of compulsory purchase etc etc,

eutrans · Feb 2, 2011

vvaannmmaann said:
Has the OP calculated the costs of building this thing? Then consider the endless planning wrangles,the Nimbys,costs of compulsory purchase etc etc,

Was about to ask what would the infrastructure cost be? to the nearest hundred million will do.
How long will the infrastructure take to build?

Highland Park · Feb 2, 2011

vvaannmmaann said:
Has the OP calculated the costs of building this thing? Then consider the endless planning wrangles,the Nimbys,costs of compulsory purchase etc etc,

I was thinking the same thing vanman. Let's suppose the "perpetual-motion" technology described by the OP actually works (I have serious doubts re friction but I lack the Engineering nouse to disprove the theory).

If we make a glider say 100m long then he purports that adjacent towers must be less than 50m apart. Further, the towers at the London terminus need to be 200m tall - taller than the Post Office tower. Errrm.

Even if it was possible to winch a 100m glider up to a 200m height, I FOR ONE could not be paid enough to get into the darned thing.

P.S. By my reckoning - any city with DOCKS is to all intents and purposes at sea level.

roydmoorian · Feb 2, 2011

Ever heard of " terminal velocity " ?

Feb 2, 2011

The train arriving at platform 3 may be a tad late.

Bit puzzled as a free falling body will only reach 125mph,how is the choo choo going to make it to 500mph.?

Earl

Swisaw · Feb 2, 2011

Please note that Nerissa Gliders is not a perpetual machine although it came about because I applied to patent a perpetual machine, the concept of which I didn't know anything about. I got a warning letter and advised to withdrow it otherwise I would lose my money. I withdrew it and got back my 30 quid. I didn't get any warning when I made application for Nerissa Gliders. I am not saying so because I didn't get any warning, I say so because there is nothing perpetual about it.

Anyway, let us to see what needed to build it between London and Glasgow, assuming the distance between supports is 100.00 metres . For this, the length of the glider has to be over 200 metres long to ensure, it always stay on at least two supports. Assume the route is on a straight line from Glasgow to London. This needs 10.00 supports per kilometre or 5000.00 supports for 500.00Km between both points.

The cost of these supports should be less than half of a dual carriageway with one lane on each side or a similar railway. Total lane length of both lanes of this imaginary dual carriageway becomes twice the distance of both points or 1000.00km long. But the length or total heights of these supports remain 500.00Km between both points. This is assuming the distance between supports is 100.00metre and the highest support is 100.00metre. If the highest support is 100.00metre, the lowest one will become zero. So approximately the total length of these supports on one way becomes half the distance between both points or 250.00km. In addition to that, these supports can be build a lot quicker because they can be prefabricated and taken to their spot.

Nerissa Gliders have to be energised on long distances with small slopes, in which case the rollers over supports have to act as driving wheels. Not all supports need to have driving wheels. If the length of the glider can go on a maximum of three supports, one support for each three supports with driving wheels will be more than sufficient enough.

All stations of Nerissa Gliders can become energy generators because every vehicle goes up to the departure points can come down on lifts, the potential energy of gross weight of which can be recovered and used. For Nerissa Gliders to become energy generators, the distance may be made to be around 100.00 km long and departure point to around 200.00metres high. A network of Nerissa Generators can be built between each two of these points: Glasgow, Edinburgh, New castle, Manchester, Birmingham, Milton Keynes, London and Brighton.

Nerissa Gliders is very good for use of vehicle ferries over rivers like Woolwich Ferry. Woolwich Ferry takes about 6 minutes per crossing, Nerissa Gliders can do it in 20 seconds theoretically for a height of 20.00metres and a distance of 200.00metres.

Feb 2, 2011

so how do you get it to do 500mph considering an object in free fall reaches 125mph and also taking into account the wind resistance at those types of speeds.?

Earl

popunder · Feb 3, 2011

> I applied to patent a perpetual machine, the concept of which I didn't know anything about.

This has been the funniest day for a while on UKBF.

ps: just because the Patent Office didn't reject the application this time it doesn't mean it isn't ball-locks

Swisaw · Feb 3, 2011

popunder said:
> I applied to patent a perpetual machine, the concept of which I didn't know anything about.

This has been the funniest day for a while on UKBF.

ps: just because the Patent Office didn't reject the application this time it doesn't mean it isn't ball-locks

I didn't know it would be rejected. Later I discovered in some countries, you have to pay a fine for applying to patent anything perpetual.

There is nothing perpetaul about Nerissa Gliders. It travels on a slope. If a a slope is not sharp enough, you have to energise it but it doesn't need as much energy as a vehicle of same gross weight needs. If the slope is sharp enough it will move under gravity and you can recover most of it's potential energy.

Swisaw · Feb 3, 2011

sirearl said:
so how do you get it to do 500mph considering an object in free fall reaches 125mph and also taking into account the wind resistance at those types of speeds.?

Earl

A free falling object travels at an acceleration of around 9.8m/s/s. This means it travels at an acceleration of 980.00/s/s after 100.00 seconds or an average speed of 490.m/s. A free falling object doesn't have a speed limit. Every second travels faster 9.8m than the previous second. There are 3600.00 seconds in an hour. A free falling object reaches (9.8 x 3600)/2= 17,640mph after one hour.

Obviously, you have to make allowences for friction and wind resistance. Friction almost becomes negligible because of lubrication. The wind some times becomes with you and some times becomes against you. You need to have spare energy ready to face the wind in case it comes against you.

Highland Park · Feb 3, 2011

Swisaw said:
A free falling object doesn't have a speed limit.

Since when? You'd better take cover during the next hailstorm. Even a lead balloon reaches a terminal velocity.

[All puns in the above post are intended]

Swisaw · Feb 3, 2011

Highland Park said:
Since when? You'd better take cover during the next hailstorm. Even a lead balloon reaches a terminal velocity.

[All puns in the above post are intended]

My calculation is a theoretical one. Obviously air and wind reduces gravity acceleration.

vvaannmmaann · Feb 3, 2011

Are you the same guy that posted some time ago about having the answer to all the world's energy needs?
Told us that the world needed your device,were going to publish all the details,you would give your device to the world for free,this amazing device could fit into a suitcase then disappeared as quickly as you appeared?

roydmoorian · Feb 3, 2011

I have an idea to run 44 ton artic trucks with a 50cc honda engine - Oh sorry, I forgot about friction and wind resistance

oldeagleeye · Feb 3, 2011

Have you not made a mathmatical mistake here or did I read the numbers wrong as regards the height of the departure point. Either way I can't take this seriously

Are we talking 100m (metres) high or 100 miles. Launching a hang glider from 100metres would only get you to the outskirts of the city.

As for 100miles. That is into space isn't it.

Where is the weight calculation anyway. If the glider weighed nothing. If there were no drag.

In short it seems to me your talking about launching at the re-entry layer of the atmosphere and a glide path of 550miles traveling a twice the speed of sound

Seriously. there is a basic scientific principle here that you can't get around even if your 'glider' didn't move more that a metre forward and that is the energy required to haul it up to the top of the tower has to be more than the energy generated by the falling object.

Rob

Tom McClelland · Feb 3, 2011

The whole thing is complete nonsense, in numerous respects. Waste no further time on it.

To explain why it is nonsense is beyond the scope of what it is reasonable to spend time posting on an internet forum. An undergraduate course in mechanical engineering or physics would suffice.

For a real device that actually works loosely based on similar principals you might want to inspect the Lynton and Lynmouth funicular. Gravity powered by water. The L&L railway works because (a) it operates on a short, steep, slope and (b) there is an effectively limitless water supply at the top, to weight the car moving downwards. Neither of those conditions applies in the fantasy devices suggested by the OP.

oldeagleeye · Feb 3, 2011

At a height of 300ft and with elevators trimmed for max distance and power off a light aircraft with just 1 on board will travel just under 1 mile before before the wheels hit the ground. A 747 will travel the same.

I only just remembered it is called the 15- 1 rule which assumes neither an ap or down wind.

The OP is confusing thrust will gravity(drag). In other words gravity reduces thrusts by a fact of 1 mere in height every 15 metres and you can't re-energise ( create lift again ) without using more power.

Feb 3, 2011

Swisaw said:
A free falling object travels at an acceleration of around 9.8m/s/s. This means it travels at an acceleration of 980.00/s/s after 100.00 seconds or an average speed of 490.m/s. A free falling object doesn't have a speed limit. Every second travels faster 9.8m than the previous second. There are 3600.00 seconds in an hour. A free falling object reaches (9.8 x 3600)/2= 17,640mph after one hour.

Not sure where you are getting your information from but in earth's atmosphere this applies.?

With air resistance acting upon an object that has been dropped, the object will eventually reach a terminal velocity, around 56 m/s (200 km/h or 120 mph) for a human body. Terminal velocity depends on many factors including mass, drag coefficient, and relative surface area, and will only be achieved if the fall is from sufficient altitude.

Earl

Bes · Feb 3, 2011

it came about because I applied to patent a perpetual machine

I haven't laughed out loud at something I read on a forum for a while now, but I did when I read that...

OP- seriously give it up, there are a million reasons this will never work

Swisaw · Feb 3, 2011

sirearl said:
Not sure where you are getting your information from but in earth's atmosphere this applies.?

With air resistance acting upon an object that has been dropped, the object will eventually reach a terminal velocity, around 56 m/s (200 km/h or 120 mph) for a human body. Terminal velocity depends on many factors including mass, drag coefficient, and relative surface area, and will only be achieved if the fall is from sufficient altitude.

Earl

My calculation was theoretical. Obviously air and wind reduces acceleration and at some point, your terminal velocity, acceleration becomes zero.

An mechanically driven aerodynamic glider glides on a slope should be able to cross terminal velocity barrier. Isn't that possible? If yes, then the glider should be able to reach London from Glasgow for under an hour, Otherwise under three hours. Still it is not bad. It takes a lot less energy and wear and tear than trains and aeroplanes.

roydmoorian · Feb 3, 2011

Swisaw said:
My calculation was theoretical. Obviously air and wind reduces acceleration and at some point, your terminal velocity, acceleration becomes zero.

An mechanically driven aerodynamic glider glides on a slope should be able to cross terminal velocity barrier. Isn't that possible? If yes, then the glider should be able to reach London from Glasgow for under an hour, Otherwise under three hours. Still it is not bad. It takes a lot less energy and wear and tear than trains and aeroplanes.

I'm afraid that the " Terminal Velocty Barrier " is not like the Sound Barrier - it is TERMINAL.

Cookie Consent

Essential

Analytics

Marketing

Nerissa Gliders

davezzr

eutrans

Highland Park

popunder

Highland Park