Nerissa Gliders

[Swisaw]

Having originally stated that this system won't work, the OP has come back with some more posts, and I think I now understand what he's trying to do.

Forget about Glasgow to London, lets focus on his Woolwich Ferry idea:

The departure point is, say, 100 feet higher than the exit point. Vehicles and passengers make their own way up to this departure point, converting their own chemical (e.g.petrol for a car) energy into gravitational potential energy (gPE) and they enter the glider. Thus the glider now has its own gPE + that of the vehicles and passengers.

It starts off down the slope and all this gPE is turned into Kinetic Energy by the time it reaches the other end, at the bottom of the slope. This Kinetic Energy is somehow collected & stored, bringing the glider to a halt at the bottom.

The vehicles now exit the glider, making it lighter than when it set off from the top, therefore requiring less energy to raise it back to the top than was gained in Kinetic Energy as it traveled down the slope.

There are still huge engineering difficulties to be overcome, but if this is how the OP envisages the system, then theoretically it is possible.

However, I doubt its a patentable idea - the Victorians were doing something similar 150 years ago. I can't remember exactly where (it was 10 years ago) but I saw a similar system in East Devon that the Victorians had built.

A mine shaft was at the top of a hill, the docks at the bottom. They built a railway line (approx 1 mile long?) to take coal trucks from the top of the hill down to the bottom. By some clever pulley mechanism, as one set of (full) trucks went down the hill, they were able to pull an empty set of trucks back up the hill - the differential in weight being sufficient to overcome losses in the system due to friction etc. Thus they were able to operate the system with no other energy source than gravity.

Clever people those Victorians.

Jeff

You understand it but can not accepted.

 

[mm60103]

The idea of the cable is to demonstrate how the theory works. In practice, the vehicle as rolls down, it operates water pumps to pump up water to a high point as high as the height of the slope. Then the water on the top used as a counter weight to lift up the vehicle to same height as before of another slope to come back gliding on another slope. At end of each journey, potential energy of the vehicle and passengers recovered and stored. At the end of the journey passengers leave and the vehicle becomes lighter. We use the stored energy to left up the vehicle to departure point. The energy needed to lift up the vehicle is less than the recovered energy of the vehicle and passengers. So we will be left with some spare energy for other uses.

Obviously we have to consider, air resistance, friction and wind. Friction becomes negligible with the use lubricated rollers. We have to live with air resistance, which slows down the vehicle but can not take gravity energy. With the wind, it some times becomes with us to speed up the vehicle and some times it becomes against us, in which we have to be ready for it to deal with it.

You are massively underestimating the forces you need to overcome and the system losses.

Lets say each pump moves 10 litres of water.
The first pump will be close to the top of the slope so you will be just over 10 litres of water.

1 mile down the road though you need to move a mile of water in a pipe - you need to push it along the pipe so that 10 litres in at one end results in 10 litres out of the other. You need a lot of energy to make this water move. This is just 1 of very many system losses.

You talk of rollers and lubricated surfaces. The best situation you could have is if the car is hanging vertically downwards from a rope. The whole mass of the car is the charging force into your system less losses due to air friction etc.

You could do with spending 30 minutes with a physics teacher at a local school. Pay him for half an hour of his/her time and you will come out with a good understanding of why your proposal will not work.

I've put a link on so that you can have a look at the Saltburn lift. Look at the amount of water they are moving.

I'm not allowed to post URLs yet. Suggest you Google Saltburn Cliff lift and look at the Wikopedia entry.

 

[Swisaw]

You are massively underestimating the forces you need to overcome and the system losses.

Lets say each pump moves 10 litres of water.
The first pump will be close to the top of the slope so you will be just over 10 litres of water.

1 mile down the road though you need to move a mile of water in a pipe - you need to push it along the pipe so that 10 litres in at one end results in 10 litres out of the other. You need a lot of energy to make this water move. This is just 1 of very many system losses.

You talk of rollers and lubricated surfaces. The best situation you could have is if the car is hanging vertically downwards from a rope. The whole mass of the car is the charging force into your system less losses due to air friction etc.

You could do with spending 30 minutes with a physics teacher at a local school. Pay him for half an hour of his/her time and you will come out with a good understanding of why your proposal will not work.

I've put a link on so that you can have a look at the Saltburn lift. Look at the amount of water they are moving.

I'm not allowed to post URLs yet. Suggest you Google Saltburn Cliff lift and look at the Wikopedia entry.

It is not the distance, it is the hight, which you have to over come when you deal with fluid, like water. Put a water tank in London 200.00metres high over sea level. Do the same in Glasgow. Link both tanks with a pipe lower than the tanks all the way between both points. To fill both tanks, you need to do it either in London or Glasgow. At which ever point you do the filling, the water equally distributes between both tanks and both tanks become full at the same time. You need energy only to raise water into the tank, you don't need energy to push water between London and Glasgow.

 

[roydmoorian]

quote=Swisaw;1519642]It is not the distance, it is the hight, which you have to over come when you deal with fluid, like water. Put a water tank in London 200.00metres high over sea level. Do the same in Glasgow. Link both tanks with a pipe lower than the tanks all the way between both points. To fill both tanks, you need to do it either in London or Glasgow. At which ever point you do the filling, the water equally distributes between both tanks and both tanks become full at the same time. You need energy only to raise water into the tank, you don't need energy to push water between London and Glasgow.[/quote]

You do to get the levelling process to take place at speed

High tide times and heights vary between London & Glasgow. :redface:

 

[MikeJ]

You need energy only to raise water into the tank, you don't need energy to push water between London and Glasgow.

Yes you do.

 

[Jeff FV]

Lets forget about the physics for a moment.

Re-read your sentence below.

The engineering, environmental and political aspects of that alone should be enough to realise that this is a non-starter.

Put a water tank in London 200.00metres high over sea level. Do the same in Glasgow. Link both tanks with a pipe lower than the tanks all the way between both points.

Jeff

 

[Swisaw]

Lets forget about the physics for a moment.

Re-read your sentence below.

The engineering, environmental and political aspects of that alone should be enough to realise that this is a non-starter.



Jeff

It is green energy, which overrides everything else. Something like this between London and Glasgow may never be built but we should see a lot soon built as vehicle ferries over rivers, used as generators and ferrying vehicles for a fee, toll.

 

[oldeagleeye]

This really has to be a wind up. Imean a tower 100 metres high driving vehicle all the way to London. It's a joke. There must be doxens of sections of the M1 that are higher 300ft than London. They get a mile or 2 free wheeling that is all. The fact isto create any sloop to London from Glasgow you would have to build a take-off platform nearly 20 miles high in the sky. The you would have to do the same in London for the return journey.

You can't use that railway as a model. That had energy driving it in the form of gravity and the energy transferred from the men load them.The weight of the full wagons running down hill easily pulling up empty ones.

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/f...2599/55143630.jpg[/IMG][/URL] Uploaded with Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[Drpepper]

This really has to be a wind up. Imean a tower 100 metres high driving vehicle all the way to London. It's a joke. There must be doxens of sections of the M1 that are higher 300ft than London. They get a mile or 2 free wheeling that is all. The fact isto create any sloop to London from Glasgow you would have to build a take-off platform nearly 20 miles high in the sky. The you would have to do the same in London for the return journey.

Simply got round, just build the one but it pivots in the middle

 

[MikeJ]

Simply got round, just build the one but it pivots in the middle

This accounts for the OP's name. Not "Swisaw", but "Seesaw"

 

[oldeagleeye]

BTW. Don't know if you guys have heard they are building cable car link over the Thames. Some of the best ideas are the oldest. What next. Horse drawn barges using the canals. How about bridle paths thru London with the waste turned into bio fuels.

Our fat cat bankers would even be able to indulge themselves in a bit of fox hunting on the way to the office. Tally ho chaps.

 

[roydmoorian]

The fact is to create any slope to London from Glasgow you would have to build a take-off platform nearly 20 miles high in the sky. The you would have to do the same in London for the return journey.

No no no, it would only have to be 11.5 miles high. The straight line distance fron London to Glasgow is only 343 miles after all. :redface:

 

[Bruvver]

I know we are all lads at heart, and boys like toys etc.
But the amount of serious consideration given to this post is amazing. Sort of puts other 'serious' posts into context.
If the idea had any merit, why not post it to a site where scientifically learned people could discuss it ?

I feel cheated for reading it.

 

[MikeJ]

Very few people are taking it seriously. People are trying to explain to the OP why it won't work, to save him money.

I'm giving up now. I've decided to teach my dog some card tricks, it'll be more rewarding and there's more chance of me succeeding.

 

[gmoto]

I've often thought some kind of subterranean vacuum system, possibly with maglev vehicles is the solution to most of our transport problems (apart of course from the immense cost).

For the OP - if you want something that isn't incredibly slow, air resistance, as many have said, is a massive factor. Even a pretty aerodynamic road car needs over 500hp to do over 200mph. F1 cars are an interesting example -at high speed, thanks to their downforce they will brake at 1g just by pushing the clutch in. So that's equivalent to slamming the brakes fully on in a normal road car, just from wind resistance.
Get things that are designed purely for aerodyanmics and you do need a fair bit less power to do say 50mph - but still a considerable amount more than your system could possibly have to spare.
(ignoring all the other confused points).

 

[Swisaw]

This idea will marginally help to improve efficency, but no where like the figures you are hoping for. Just like the Kinetic Energy Recovery System used in a F1 car - there is a physical / energetic cost - in that case the cost is additional weight

Friction, wind resistance & heat will all erode the benefit, a lot more than you imagine

In addition, everytime you convert energy from one form to another, you add more inefficency

? how do the pasengers / load actually get liffted up 300M before the return journey begins - because in theory - that is the initial source of the potential energy

Here is the big issue with the numbers

Potential energy of the vehicle is 20,000x200x10=40.00MJ. Assume on the way, half of the potential energy of the vehicle, which is 20.00MJ, needed to drive the vehicle and overcome friction and wind. So at the end of the journey, the vehicle generated 160.00-20.00=140.MJ net energy. To lift up the vehicle to the departure point, needs 40.00MJ + 5.00MJ for friction. Take away this 45.00MJ from net energy generated, which is 140.00MJ, you will be left with 95.00MJ in hand.

Trains with regenerative braking are only up to 17% more efficent

With all the will in the world, if you move humans or loads at any speed, you need saftey, and that consideration adds to weight, and hampers design. If trains could be featherwight, and more aerodynamic they would be

This is a physics 101 question. You can make things more efficent (recover energy) but the process of doing this doesnt come as a free lunch ticket. You can harnes one form of energy and convert it to another, but you wont gain energy

Your Newtonian calculation based on height, weight, force, mass, friction is sweet, but misses the obvoius

"Every action has an equal and oposite reaction"

If you expect to harvest energy as you push something, the something you push is pulled.. the point being the rollers

Example If you study KERS braking, then essentially you harvest energy as a car/train is stopping - The reason the brake pads last longer in this set up is because they are doing less of the stopping - the KERS system is essentially stopping the car by absorbing the energy moving it forwards

Your rollers are like the KERS system - as you "glide over them" to recover energy, you have to remove energy, if you remove energy you are slowing the glider down. You are hoping that you can remove enough energy, to re-use it for the return journey. With friction and heatloss in the mix, this can neevr happen, not even close

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nerissa Gliders don't include any electrical generators. You can not compare it with F1 or KERs, both nothing more than electrical generators, Well F1 is a bit more efficient because it uses flywheels but can not store energy for long times.[/FONT]


The efficiency of Nerissa Gliders is similar to the efficiency of hydraulic generators, which is over 90%. The following is quoted from Wikipedia:
“Large modern water turbines operate at mechanical efficiencies greater than 90% (not to be confused with thermodynamic efficiency).”


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]All important components of Gliders of Nerissa Gliders; like engine and fuel if needed, wheels and others, are fitted externally. Nerissa Gliders routes are cheaper and quicker to build and cheaper and easier to maintain. Nerissa Gliders can be made like a cylinder in the middle with the long cones at the front and back. This simple and obvious design will give Nerissa Gliders an aerodynamic advantage superior than the aerodynamics of NASA Shuttle. Well, Nerissa gliders should be build to replace all airlines operating nationally. It is a lot a lot cheaper than aeroplanes and it is going to be quicker a lot also. Not to mention it is going to be very green and environmental.[/FONT]

 

[Experienced IT guy]

Er... No the third law of thermodynamic is you cannot reach absolute zero.

The lowest temperature so far achieved is in the region of hundereds of nanokelvins - where atoms can achieve a state know as a bose-einstein condensate. this was (I believe) initially achieved for a few hundred sodium atoms around the turn of the century. What is facinating about this degree of cooling is that the actual positions of the atoms become indeterminate within the volume of cooling. Curiously as the universe is constantly cooling, it will eventually reach a point where the temperature is at or below this currently achived local state of cooling. At this point according to current understanding, the universe will have no meaningful size. Under such conditions, a big bang could occur. It ties in with Multi-verse thinking.

But then again who knows?

I'm just popping out for some asprin.:|

The last big bang I had was ages ago and I was not cold.

Earl

Actually this wiki article is pretty straight forward, like most of Einstein's stuff, the maths is only about secondary school sixth form level - at least it was in my day, but I hear A levels are a bit easier these days.

Enjoy


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose–Einstein_condensate

 

[ORDERED WEB]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nerissa Gliders don't include any electrical generators. [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif][/FONT]

Irrelevant - if you use one device to mechanically collect energy from another, then Newtons second law applies

That applies to KERS does and your rollers presumably

 

[Highland Park]

I feel cheated for reading it.

Quite right too. I have been guilty of posting on it 2-3 times mostly to point out fundamental errors.

However, when I read OP's claims that a SYMMETRIC design out of a Tintin book is going to experience negligible air resistance going forward and still be boosted by a tail wind, then the sooner this thread be allowed to quietly die, the better.

I won't be posting on this thread again.

 

[popunder]

Some of the best ideas are the oldest. What next. Horse drawn barges using the canals. How about bridle paths thru London with the waste turned into bio fuels.

How about airships: http://www.hybridairvehicles.com

 

[Swisaw]

Irrelevant - if you use one device to mechanically collect energy from another, then Newtons second law applies

That applies to KERS does and your rollers presumably

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Yes, yes, yes but some systems are more efficient than the others. Hydraulic machines are more efficient than electric generators. The efficiency of a hydraulic machine is over 90%. The following is a quote regarding electric generators:[/FONT]


“[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]The efficiency of an electric generator seems to peak at 75% of max power and drops off strongly under 25%. As the power output drops the power factor also gets worse. Utility companies will charge more for the electricity, for example, for motors that have poor power factors because it costs more[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]“.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]KERS is an electric generator and useful only when you brake at high speed. If you drive in the city, it doesn't produce anything. When you add up every thing, you may discover it costs you more than it gives back. KERS is very heavy, which causes more fuel consumption and more wear and tear on your vehicle.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]On the other hand, rollers of Nerissa Gliders are stationary, operating water pumps, hydraulic machines, which are also stationery. They don't add anything extra. A push-pull pump operates at any speed. This is not so with electric generator.[/FONT]

 

[gmoto]

Rollers by nature can not be stationary. The clue is in the name 'roll', which happens to be what it does .
There's reasons transport uses wheels on the vehicle, rather than the 'track' these days - one of them is that it makes it a lot easier to maintain.
In the 'real world' bearings and bushing get dirty and the outer surface wears down. Maintenance is a lot easier if your transport can return to be base to be maintained - when the 'track' has to be, everyone has seen the pain from road works and works on railways.

The forms you are talking about to 'redlaim' this energy are also really heavy. Have you ever tried pulling a normal long rope tight between two people over a decent distance? To get a reasonable amount of tension it's actually really hard over 50 meters, say. There will also be associated losses around this.

 

[ORDERED WEB]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]operating water pumps, hydraulic machines, which are also stationery. They don't add anything extra.[/FONT]

So essentially it is just like KERS - except the way the potential energy is collected

You ae proposing to convert kinetic energy from the object moving over the rollers, and storing it by changing it into potential energy using "hydraulic machines"

This falls squarely back to Newtonian mechanics - the second law - Every action has an equal and opposite reaction

It seems that you think the energy you collect from your hydraulic pumps is free, it isnt. The energy will slow the vehicle down

It's a bit like a dynamo on a bike - when you clip the dynamo down onto the tyre, you need to put slightly more effort into riding the bike. Replace dynamo with "roller + Hydralic pump" and the result is the same

I dont doubt it is possible to make really amazing strides in veihcal efficiency - there are plenty of energy recovery techniques out there, fitted to trains, planes and cars etc.. However in all cases, you cant recover what isnt there, and you cant recover without taking

This is pretty basic physics, and you seem to have skipped over a couple of very obvious steps

I have a MSc in Physics and engineering, but I reckon any A-level or bright O-level student could figure this one out

 

[ORDERED WEB]

Some interesting ideas in this thread - link up 2 massive resiviors, and use the moons gravity (tides) to shift mass between them via a pipeline - if one whacked a series of valves between them, then it might be possible to liberate some "relitivley free" energy

However, harnessing the flow of a river (hydro electric) seems more obvious

 

[gmoto]

Just remembered; reminds me of the person that came onto a motorcycle forum and in all seriousness explained how he was going to make a water powered motorbike from plans on the internet.

He didn't quite 'get' that his bike, which converted water to hydrogen and oxygen, then combusted it, would have an exhaust of the same amount of pure water which could thus actually be perpetual motion not just 'runs on water', so was even less probable than he was trying to claim.

He got quite angry and PM'd me about it when I didn't take it seriously.
Apparently the sites he had read explained; it was all a 'oil conspiracy' that we weren't all using this technology.

 

[oldeagleeye]

Have you noticed ho0w conveniently the OP IGNORES the fact that his theory is wrong from the start - literately.

He claims a launch height of 100 metres when if fact it is between some 12 and 18 MILES up in the sky. End of story.

Mind you with his imagination he could have a bright future ahead of him working for the government. I mean they aregoing to have 10,000 policeman's helmelts on their hands next year thanks to the cuts in public services.

Some sort of giant perpectual motion machine perhaps

 

[Swisaw]

Rollers by nature can not be stationary. The clue is in the name 'roll', which happens to be what it does .
There's reasons transport uses wheels on the vehicle, rather than the 'track' these days - one of them is that it makes it a lot easier to maintain.
In the 'real world' bearings and bushing get dirty and the outer surface wears down. Maintenance is a lot easier if your transport can return to be base to be maintained - when the 'track' has to be, everyone has seen the pain from road works and works on railways.

The forms you are talking about to 'redlaim' this energy are also really heavy. Have you ever tried pulling a normal long rope tight between two people over a decent distance? To get a reasonable amount of tension it's actually really hard over 50 meters, say. There will also be associated losses around this.

Rollers are stationary in a sense that they are not fixed to the glider. They are fixed at a spot and remains there always and get used only when the glider passes over them. It has disadvantages but has more advantages. The disadvantage is that you need to have a lot of rollers per direction, which means they cost more. The advantages are that the rollers last very long and don't add any weight to the glider, which reduces wear and tear cost and reduce fuel consumption if the glider energised. They also need less maintenance. When you add up all of these, the costs of these stationary rollers on the long run could be less than half the cost of usual rollers fixed to the vehicle.

 

[ORDERED WEB]

It's pertinent that This is a business forum, and we are doubting the physics. Maybe the OP should post the idea here: http://www.physicsforums.com/, where a robust discussion on the physics and the maths can be had

 

[Swisaw]

So essentially it is just like KERS - except the way the potential energy is collected

You ae proposing to convert kinetic energy from the object moving over the rollers, and storing it by changing it into potential energy using "hydraulic machines"

This falls squarely back to Newtonian mechanics - the second law - Every action has an equal and opposite reaction

It seems that you think the energy you collect from your hydraulic pumps is free, it isnt. The energy will slow the vehicle down

It's a bit like a dynamo on a bike - when you clip the dynamo down onto the tyre, you need to put slightly more effort into riding the bike. Replace dynamo with "roller + Hydralic pump" and the result is the same

I dont doubt it is possible to make really amazing strides in veihcal efficiency - there are plenty of energy recovery techniques out there, fitted to trains, planes and cars etc.. However in all cases, you cant recover what isnt there, and you cant recover without taking

This is pretty basic physics, and you seem to have skipped over a couple of very obvious steps

I have a MSc in Physics and engineering, but I reckon any A-level or bright O-level student could figure this one out

All your points are valid and prove Nerissa Gliders working. We are talking about gravity and when gravity involved things either accelerate or decelerate. If it accelerates it never stops, but if it decelerates, slows down, it will stop at some point. Nerissa Gliders operates on the basis of weights and counter weights. As long as the gross weight of the glider is heavier than the counter weight, which are rollers operating water pumps, the glider will accelerate at a speed of gravity x (height/slope) metres/s/s.


If it slows down, it will stop. But this never happens as long as the glider is heavier than the counter weight + friction + wind resistance. Obviously, you also need to make allowances for friction, air resistance and wind. Friction almost becomes negligible because the glider passes over lubricated rollers. You can minimise air resistance with a proper aerodynamic design. The wind may be with you or against you. You need to have spare energy or other means ready to deal with the wind in case it becomes against you.

 

[Swisaw]

It's pertinent that This is a business forum, and we are doubting the physics. Maybe the OP should post the idea here: http://www.physicsforums.com/, where a robust discussion on the physics and the maths can be had

Thank you. I will soon.

 

[Swisaw]

Nerissa Gliders as a Hydraulic lift


To convince skeptics, I am going to to discuss again the imaginary rebuilding of Woolwich Ferry, as Nerissa Gliders, as a hydraulic lift. A hydraulic lift is made up of a small force and a large force. The smaller force can move the larger force but it has to travel longer than the larger force. For example if the larger force is bigger than the smaller force by 5 times, the smaller force has to move 5 metres to raise the larger force by one metre. To repeat the same thing, the smaller force has to come back to the same place a long the same 5 metre distance and move again along the same 5 metre distance to raise another larger force.


The same logic can be applied to Woolwich Ferry as Nerissa Gliders, except for one thing. The smaller force, which is the glider, needs to travel back a long a distance equal to the same distance on which larger force travelled. In this case the larger force lifted up vertically along some distance. So the smaller force has to be lifted up vertically to the same level. This vertical distance is shorter than the sloping distance, on which smaller force travelled to raise the larger force. From this new position, the smaller force, the glider, can move again downward on a slope, which is the longer distance, to do the same job, to raise up a heavier weight.


The assumed height was 20.00 metres and the slope was 200.00metres. So we raise the larger force by 20 metres high by moving the smaller force over a slope 200.00metres long. The longer distance is 200/20=10.00metres longer than the shorter, height, distance. This means the larger force can become 10 times bigger than the smaller force. In other words, a force of 10.00tones moved a long 200.00metres can raise a force of 10x10=100.00tones with the application of hydraulic principle of force1 x distance1=force2 x distance2.


With the use of over 10.00tones + from the larger force as a counter weight, we can raise the smaller force, which is 10.00tones 20.00metres high for reuse to repeat the same operation as before. This leaves 90.00tone moved force on the top. If this is workable, in each round we raise 90.00tones, a bit less, net, which has a potential energy of 90,000x20x10=18.00MJ. But this is against principles of energy conservation. So it is not workable.


But we can make it workable with this formula: gross weight of the smaller force, the glider, x (height/Slope) = larger force as pumped up water as the glides glides down.


The formula guides us to adjust the pumps to pump up water to a height of 20.00metre as the glider glides along the slope. By the time the glider reaches the lowest point, arrival point, it should pump up a mass of water to the top almost equal in weight to the gross weight of the glider. On the arrival point, the glider becomes empty and lighter. So possibly we need less than half of the water pumped up for use as counter weight to lift up the glider by 20.00metres to the new departure point on the top. So we have left with more than half of the weight of the water on the top as a gained potential energy for other uses.

 

[MikeJ]

Come on mods, can we delete this rubbish now? It's not business related and the guy hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.

At least move it to "Time Out"?

 

[roydmoorian]

Come on mods, can we delete this rubbish now? It's not business related and the guy hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.

At least move it to "Time Out"?

Pleeeeeeeeease :redface:

 

[Swisaw]

This really has to be a wind up. Imean a tower 100 metres high driving vehicle all the way to London. It's a joke. There must be doxens of sections of the M1 that are higher 300ft than London. They get a mile or 2 free wheeling that is all. The fact isto create any sloop to London from Glasgow you would have to build a take-off platform nearly 20 miles high in the sky. The you would have to do the same in London for the return journey.

You can't use that railway as a model. That had energy driving it in the form of gravity and the energy transferred from the men load them.The weight of the full wagons running down hill easily pulling up empty ones.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Nerissa Gliders shuttle between Glasgow and London may be made on the same level at each point as the heights between both points may not be important because of the minimal energy needs of the shuttle. Energy needs of Nerissa Gliders between Glasgow and London can be made to be 100% green and environmental. A network of windmills can be built from Glasgow to London along the route of the shuttle to provide green and environmental energy to the shuttle. These network of windmills can also supply national grid. So you kill two birds with one stone.


For environmental and rising fuel costs an alternative fast means of transportation between major cities like London and Glasgow to replace or minimise the use of airlines or even trains has to be introduced. In this case nothing exists other than Nerissa Gliders.


Nerissa Gliders involves simple classical technologies, which need inexpensive capital and intellectual skills but is is going to be massive for projects like between Glasgow and London. Such project should generate millions of new jobs across the the country on an equal level in construction and heavy industry. You simply generate another boom.

Nerissa Gliders is still patent pending. Any one wants to take it over or become my partner, welcome to do so.

 

[MikeJ]

It won't work. You've failed to explain to anyone here what the benefit is.

Please, anyone, rather than invest in this put your money on the 3:30 at Kempton Park. At least that way you've a chance of getting a return.

Even in that last post, all you've said is it'll be powered by windfarms. We could similarly build wind farms to power electric trains, which already exist.

 

[Swisaw]

It won't work. You've failed to explain to anyone here what the benefit is.

Please, anyone, rather than invest in this put your money on the 3:30 at Kempton Park. At least that way you've a chance of getting a return.

Even in that last post, all you've said is it'll be powered by windfarms. We could similarly build wind farms to power electric trains, which already exist.

But electric trains are very expensive to build and maintain, consume a lot of energy in an inefficient way, not environmental and very slow compared with Nerissa Gliders, which doesn't involve electricity. So Nerissa Gliders is immune from energy inefficiencies of electric motors and electric generators.


Any way if we like it or not Nerissa Gliders will become more important than trains, especially magnetic trains and aeroplanes in future. Germans seems already taken over magnetic train industry. They are building one now in China. Magnetic Trains are extremely expensive. Nerissa Gliders cost a fracion of magnetic trains. You can not build magnetic trains every where but you can build Nerissa Gliders every where. This is a good chance for UK business community to take advantages of Nerissa Gliders. Not only UK markets but world market will take Nerissa Gliders over others like expensive Magnetic trains.

 

[gmoto]

For crossing a river your concept is a 'possibility'.
But then there are anchored rope 'ferry' designs that do this purely by the current of the water, without any need to climb a high tower - so your design has already lost in efficiency to them.

For longer trips your design has massive issues - speed/air resistance and further energy loss problems with a massive rope are very obvious ones.
That's of course ignoring that the energy still has to be put in to the system in the first place - the items to be transported have to be lifted to the required height.

 

[popunder]

I've realised that if this is built one of the supports will have to go in my back garden - well two actually because there's both "lanes" to consider. I'm in the Midlands so I imagine one support will be about 65m high and the other 35m, presumably both concrete and quite thick to support a 200m-long glider and all its passengers.

Will I be allowed to paint them so they won't be quite so noticeable? I know they can't be moved because they have to be exactly 100m apart and built in a straight line.

Oh, actually, just realised you'll also have to build more supports right through the middle of some major towns, hmm I hope people don't mind having massive 150' high concrete pillars in their gardens. Some houses and other buildings might have to be knocked down though as they'll get in the way.

Oh and your route runs through the Lake District, those pillars will all need painting too, or maybe disguising as trees.

Just think though the UK will have only the second man-made structure visible from space, we should definitely get on and build it for that reason alone.

 

[GaryF]

I'm scared of heights.

 

[oldeagleeye]

It is amazing that all too often science fiction becomes science fact. The space station we have now could have been drawn by Artur C Clarke.

The space shuttle with it's opening bay doors almost identical to Thunderbird 2. The 'wedge' shaped cars around today straight of of another 1960 TV series. So what next in the way of transport in the future.

Again we have seen it in looks of futuristic movies.

Imagine then out London tube running not on rails or electric but on a magnetic rail. The stations as they are now open to the atmosphere but at each end there would be an automatic air lock with low energy driven air pumps creating a low vaccum tube. The only energy needed then would be for those small pumps to create a truly high speed tube.

A lightweight one hung from a mono rail above our motorways perhaps.

Maybe the OP got it right then. He just forgot to put his glider into a vaccum tube.

And finally. I spoke before of history repeating itself. Word is the new owner of Harrods is planning to open hundreds of Tea Shops similar to the Lyons tea shops circa 1920 - 1950. I think its a winner.

it seems that millions of us are turning to the herbal and fruit teas which are far better for us than coffee. Indeed many herbal remedies too.

Ginger and honey tea. Great for everything from heartburn to ulcers. Me I create my own blend what with Earl Grey being too week on its own for me. 2 of them to 1 Co-Op 99 then and definately no milk.

Enjoy