Nerissa Gliders

[Experienced IT guy]

Personally, I suspect that creating non-laminer flows is never going to be as efficient as creating a good simple smooth laminer flow.

Its quite difficult to get good simple laminar flow. One of the most highly regarded gliders of the late 70s and eighties (the ASW20) had a problem which all gilders suffer from. The design of the trailing surface is optimised to rduce drag. In the ASW20 that the trailing surface of the wing caused "large" bubbles to form in certain speed ranges, this cause a hole in the performance. The solution was to cause the flow to detach and so limit the size of the bubbles and their contribution to drag. It one of the reasons that GT cars have chopped of tails. Its actually more efficient than a long tail attempting laminar flow over its entire surface. Some gliders have small holes which blow air out of the wing causing detachement of laminar flow past a certain point. Others use stuff call turbulator tape... http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/turbulat.htm

 

[Swisaw]

Yes, it does.
The reason the dimples work on golf balls is because they are an unaerodynamic shape in the first place.

Had they used an already aerodynamic shaped car, it would have probably made it worse. But on a car which does not already have a good smooth laminer air flow, a turbulent airflow will no doubt help.

A simple common sense makes one to believe balls like golf balls have good aerodynamic shapes. But actually this may not be so as car's aerodynamics could be a lot better than golf ball when relevant area of each compared. Almost half external body area of golf balls cause air resistance at an average angle of 45 degree. The other half causes drag. The areas of a car cause serious air resistance and drag may be under 20% of total external area.


The cause of the drag is air separation from the body. I think that is what Experience IT guy means by bubbles. Air separation at the back sucks the moving object against the direction of the move. So dimples prevent or at least minimise air separation.


Again on the basis of a simple common sense I assume this hypothesis: rectangularly shaped bodies on the top and underneath at the front and back could be more aerodynamic than cone shapes. This is mainly because it can be made to provide a lift at the front and at the back, something which cones can not. But they may be heavier than cones. But in the case of Nerissa Gliders this disadvantage may not have a cost.

 

[gmoto]

It is not common sense to believe a sphere has a good aerodynamic shape.
Just throwing a rugby ball versus a football would show you that a sphere isn't a very aerodyanmic shape.

 

[Experienced IT guy]

So dimples prevent or at least minimise air separation..

What dimples or turbulator strips do is cause separation, but do it in a controlled fashon so that the size of the bublles, eddies, turbulent interface between the surface of the objecand the laminar flow a distance from the object is minimised so minimising the drag. There are two aerodynamic areas to any object, the "front" where the air is compressed. Imperfection in the front of a otherwise smooth object will cuse the flow to detach and increase drag, however, because there is in increse in pressure in this area. On the down wind side the flow does not reattach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H63n8M79T8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQHXIHpvcvU

in the case of a golf ball dimples cause the flow to detach earlier on the down wind side (closer to the "middle") and produce a smaller volume of eddies, less drag.

http://www.avalanche-center.org/Education/glossary/laminar-flow.php

 

[Swisaw]

What dimples or turbulator strips do is cause separation, but do it in a controlled fashon so that the size of the bublles, eddies, turbulent interface between the surface of the objecand the laminar flow a distance from the object is minimised so minimising the drag. There are two aerodynamic areas to any object, the "front" where the air is compressed. Imperfection in the front of a otherwise smooth object will cuse the flow to detach and increase drag, however, because there is in increse in pressure in this area. On the down wind side the flow does not reattach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H63n8M79T8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQHXIHpvcvU

in the case of a golf ball dimples cause the flow to detach earlier on the down wind side (closer to the "middle") and produce a smaller volume of eddies, less drag.

http://www.avalanche-center.org/Education/glossary/laminar-flow.php

You seem to be very well informed about aerodynamics. Please tell me how aerodynamic is the following conceptual shape:


This shape is a horizontal rectangular cubic body. But the top has moved forward along the longer side of the rectangle to cause the front side to make an angle of around 135 degree more or less with the bottom of the rectangle and the back to make an angle of 45 degrees more or less with the bottom of the rectangle.

On the basis of simple common sense, I could say this shape is the most aerodynamic than any other shapes. Because at high speed it get lifted from the front and at the back. So far I have not seen this shape in any applications. But it is going to be one of the characters of Nerissa Gliders.

The following is a link to ASW 20 glider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleicher_ASW_20

 

[Experienced IT guy]

You seem to be very well informed about aerodynamics. Please tell me how aerodynamic is the following conceptual shape:


This shape is a horizontal rectangular cubic body. But the top has moved forward along the longer side of the rectangle to cause the front side to make an angle of around 135 degree more or less with the bottom of the rectangle and the back to make an angle of 45 degrees more or less with the bottom of the rectangle.

On the basis of simple common sense, I could say this shape is the most aerodynamic than any other shapes.

Well for a start "common sense" it isnt. Common sense is that an aerodynamic shape is one we see on aerodynamic bodies, aeroplanes, smurfs heads (cycling helmets). Your shape is similar to a brick and has all the aerodynamic (flying) properties of one. This has been an amusing thread and some of the side discussions have been entertaining. Apart from getting high exposure to the name Nerissa, for which I congratulate you, the leg has well and truely come off at the hip.

 

[gmoto]

At the moment, to be honest at best you are making a educated guess

The problem here is it seems to be the opposite, if anything - I would expect an educated guess to at least have been 'educated' by current designs, where people have spent a hell of a lot of money on research and development. Not doing so doesn't really help his request for £100k for a 50% stake in his idea!

For instance - planes COULD have a broad frontal area for the passenger carrying part, but they don't. Why? Because a high frontal area is bad for low friction aerodynamics.
I only know what I've gleaned from my general knowledge of automotive and fligh technology, but already seem to know more than the OP.

 

[Swisaw]

When you are presenting a new idea / invention / proposal for investment, you are better off saying

"I know this is a fact, the computer models show it to be so, the maths do too, and so does the work we did in a wind tunnel"

At the moment, to be honest at best you are making a educated guess

The scientific community has a philosophy of testing, experimentation, peer review and anally documenting all the facts before making a claim. This is for a very good reason

There are way too many if's, buts, could be's, should be's and ought to be's in your idea. before anyone will take you seriously, you need to iron them out 200%

Fair enough. I agree with all your points. Nevertheless when the right investor, who grasps the concept and takes the challenge, will not raise these objections. For him or her, these are not problems because they have engineering solutions.

 

[Mustaka]

Nevertheless when the right investor, who grasps the concept and takes the challenge, will not raise these objections. For him or her, these are not problems because they have engineering solutions.

Now there is your problem. You are baseing your conclusion that someone will invest 'because they have engineering solutions.' The premise being they have engineering solutions.

This type of conclusion is what is known as an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.

Basically your argument is :

1. Premise : Gravity can be used to transport a vehicle down a slope.
Proof : That Plymouth thing everyone keeps bringing up.
Premise Accepted.

2. Premise :They solved the engineering issues on the Plymouth
thing.
Proof : They must have as it works.
Premise Accepted.

3. Premise : Because they solved the engineering problems for the
plymouth thing they can solve all the engineering problems for
Narrissa Gliders project.
Proof : There is no concrete proof at this stage that an engineer would
be able to solve all the engineering problems in a manner that would
make this a viable project. It does not exist.
Premise Not Accepted as not a proven fact.

So your conclusion of

For him or her, these are not problems because they have engineering solutions.

Is invalid.

 

[gmoto]

I disagree... the "Right investor for my idea of 'lying on the beach being served cocktails by attractice ladies' will see the problems in my non-corporeal plans as challenges to be solved, rather than reasons to laugth at me". Fortunately, due to having a reasonable understanding of reality, I haven't yet made an effort to find this mythical "right investor"... though I did buy a lottery ticket the other day, if that counts!

 

[KernowQueen]

Do a Google search for Nerissa Gliders - you will find the same initial post on many, many forums - some very obscure like physics ones, so I suspect the entire thing is some kind of viral attempt. If you notice some comment on it on forums inhabited by engineering/physics type people you'll find comments similar to ours where science poo-poos the entire thing, along the lines of perpetual motion.

The science, reading these posts, is 100% solid the energy calculations simply do not work. However, there does seem to be a personal reason for keeping the project talked about on the internet - the project is named after someone who was lost, and perhaps this is the intent. I can't be harsh, because it probably is comforting in some way to have a project like this being talked about so much - BUT, I fear it's getting out of proportion.

The science is flawed, the project is flawed, so perhaps the topic should be closed. World wide, the post count on this subject is immense - and post count, I suspect, is the reason for keeping it going.

On another forum, the same topic has this note with a link to this forum.

i know no-one forces me to read this, but can i just remind people of what was said over 4 pages ago...

this really is spam of the most peculiar kind, the argument will never be won - either by the OP or anyone else.

 

[gmoto]

Indeed, but some amusing light entertainment; like feeding ducks, just found under bridges and a bit greener!

 

[Mustaka]

Do a Google search for Nerissa Gliders - you will find the same initial post on many, many forums - some very obscure like physics ones, so I suspect the entire thing is some kind of viral attempt. If you notice some comment on it on forums inhabited by engineering/physics type people you'll find comments similar to ours where science poo-poos the entire thing, along the lines of perpetual motion.

The science, reading these posts, is 100% solid the energy calculations simply do not work. However, there does seem to be a personal reason for keeping the project talked about on the internet - the project is named after someone who was lost, and perhaps this is the intent. I can't be harsh, because it probably is comforting in some way to have a project like this being talked about so much - BUT, I fear it's getting out of proportion.

The science is flawed, the project is flawed, so perhaps the topic should be closed. World wide, the post count on this subject is immense - and post count, I suspect, is the reason for keeping it going.

On another forum, the same topic has this note with a link to this forum.

-sqwack- Houston we have a problem

-sqwack- Go ahead UKBF11. What seems to be the problem

-sqwack- Houston our TRMS (troll monitoring system has picked up....

-sqwack- UKBF11 what have they picked up....

-sqwack- Houston the trolls have evolved. I say again the trolls have evolved

-sqwack- UKBF11 this is Houston you are ordered to change course immediatly. DO NOT ENGAGE THE TROLLS

---------------------------------------------

It is probably some grad student doing an experiment in trolling for his masters thesis. Take a plausible idea, ie gravity makes stuff fall, which is true as we have all been drunk and fallen down at some point and bruised or broken something, and make it rediculous enough to get the community to engage. See how long he can keep it going kind of thing.

10/10 to the troll.

+

 

[Swisaw]

Well for a start "common sense" it isnt. Common sense is that an aerodynamic shape is one we see on aerodynamic bodies, aeroplanes, smurfs heads (cycling helmets). Your shape is similar to a brick and has all the aerodynamic (flying) properties of one. This has been an amusing thread and some of the side discussions have been entertaining. Apart from getting high exposure to the name Nerissa, for which I congratulate you, the leg has well and truely come off at the hip.

You are not revolutionary, you don't dare to take new challenges, you are not the leader, you are only a follower, that is way you only believe what you see. You don't accept new aerodynamic shapes because you have not seen them used on bikes and flying objects. But you also think bricks have aerodynamic. Obviously this your statement is not based on common sense deduction. So how did you know that? Did you test a brick in a wind tunnel or seen it in real application? Well, I have not seen brick shapes on objects need aerodynamics in my life. Don't worry about your limitation, you are not a lone, 99.999% of others are like you. Only 0.001% of the society are brave enough to take new challenges with the use of simple common sense based on their simple knowledge to create revolution to become leaders and let other majority to follow.


Even Mythbuster Team showed the same limitation when they dimpled a car to test. When they dimpled the car, they didn't follow the rule of a simple common sense as why things work that way. They thought the car as exactly like a golf ball. Now when you dimple a golf ball, you have to dimple it completely although about 20% of the dimples are useful when the ball kicked into the air. The dimples in the front are useless and may be obstructive to speed when the ball is moving. But a golf ball is a ball, which doesn't have a front or back, so you have to dimple it completely. But a car has a front and a back. You don't need to dimple the front of the car but mythbusters did so. Because they didn't apply the simple rule of simple common sense as why thinks works that way and if it works that way, how to exploit it for better in application.

 

[Swisaw]

i know no-one forces me to read this, but can i just remind people of what was said over 4 pages ago...

this really is spam of the most peculiar kind, the argument will never be won - either by the OP or anyone else.

Ok let me to repeat the idea if you can get it. The thing either moves under gravity or moved by being powered. Everything moves under gravity at the right condition and very thing moves when powered. Did you get that? If yes, prove it isn't working, otherwise don't spam my thread, go learn to change a duvet cover.

 

[Swisaw]

The problem here is it seems to be the opposite, if anything - I would expect an educated guess to at least have been 'educated' by current designs, where people have spent a hell of a lot of money on research and development. Not doing so doesn't really help his request for £100k for a 50% stake in his idea!

For instance - planes COULD have a broad frontal area for the passenger carrying part, but they don't. Why? Because a high frontal area is bad for low friction aerodynamics.
I only know what I've gleaned from my general knowledge of automotive and fligh technology, but already seem to know more than the OP.

You let yourself down by yourself. Plane wings prove your argument is wrong. The way plane wings fitted, make the bottom to act as the front and the top to act as the back. In this way the pressure under the wing becomes very high but very low on the top. So the plane get lifted from the top and the bottom of the wing, exactly as it is lifted from the front and the back. This is the same principle of my rectangular shape.


Those, who designed from automotive and flight technology, were not educated enough in aerodynamics. Otherwise at least they have used dimples in F1 for the cost of a peanut. They use KERS for one million dollar per driver. The following link is about KERS:


http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/understanding_the_sport/8763.html

 

[gmoto]

You let yourself down by yourself. Plane wings prove your argument is wrong. The way plane wings fitted, make the bottom to act as the front and the top to act as the back. In this way the pressure under the wing becomes very high but very low on the top. So the plane get lifted from the top and the bottom of the wing, exactly as it is lifted from the front and the back. This is the same principle of my rectangular shape.

It'd be best if you did a little research before proclaiming others to be incorrect!
Taken from wikipedia article about 'flying wings':

Further difficulties arise from the problem of fitting the pilot, engines, flight equipment and payload all within the depth of the wing section. A wing that is made deep enough to contain all these elements will have an increased frontal area, when compared to a conventional wing and fuselage, which in turn results in higher drag and thus slower speed than a conventional design. Typically the solution adopted in this case is to keep the wing reasonably thin, and the aircraft is then fitted with an assortment of blisters, pods, nacelles, fins and so forth to accommodate all the needs of a practical aircraft.

So your design MIGHT be better, but only if you got your passengers to lie down!
These aren't new designs and there's a good reason they're not used for passenger airlines. And that's of course ignoring the fact that ground level aerodynamics work very differently in many situations.

 

[Swisaw]

It'd be best if you did a little research before proclaiming others to be incorrect!
Taken from wikipedia article about 'flying wings':

So your design MIGHT be better, but only if you got your passengers to lie down!
These aren't new designs and there's a good reason they're not used for passenger airlines. And that's of course ignoring the fact that ground level aerodynamics work very differently in many situations.

will have an increased frontal area

By that it means a frontal area, which is vertical or makes a 90 degree with the horizon. In the case of my shape the front and back tilted forward to make an angle of 45 degrees more or less. So the front and the back replace the wings and the flying object gets lifted from the front and at the back because of the drag. My shape should do a better and a lot cheaper flying machine because it is going to be very light. If this shape converted to a flying machine, it will become lighter than half of a similar machine. Because it doesn't have wings. Wings have weights and you have to make the body heavier to bear the stress of wings.

 

[gmoto]

I'm afraid the physics doesn't work if you redefine a term like 'frontal area'. Frontal area is the profile of the object from the front, regardless of angle. By changing the definition, you won't make your shape more aerodynamic.

All the planes I've flown have been considerably lighter than cars that carry the same number of passengers (infact I've just purchased an incredibly light two seater car, does with out a roof or windscreen and uses a motorbike engine, yet still doesn't weigh as little as a fully enclosed Cesna-style microlight.)


The weight of the wings is often pretty irrelevant. You may remember wings offer LIFT. That means the body is the weight pulling down, lifted by the wings. On the ground it can be an issue, but usually planes have wheels under the wings to help with this.
However, why weight is important, I'm not sure. For ground based vehicles weight is only a big issue moving off from slow speeds - as speed increases it's aerodynamic drag that is the big issue to fight against, not the weight.

 

[Swisaw]

I'm afraid the physics doesn't work if you redefine a term like 'frontal area'. Frontal area is the profile of the object from the front, regardless of angle. By changing the definition, you won't make your shape more aerodynamic.

All the planes I've flown have been considerably lighter than cars that carry the same number of passengers (infact I've just purchased an incredibly light two seater car, does with out a roof or windscreen and uses a motorbike engine, yet still doesn't weigh as little as a fully enclosed Cesna-style microlight.)


The weight of the wings is often pretty irrelevant. You may remember wings offer LIFT. That means the body is the weight pulling down, lifted by the wings. On the ground it can be an issue, but usually planes have wheels under the wings to help with this.
However, why weight is important, I'm not sure. For ground based vehicles weight is only a big issue moving off from slow speeds - as speed increases it's aerodynamic drag that is the big issue to fight against, not the weight.

You made some sound points but they don't make sense. You are ignoring the weight. This is one of the weaker points of your argument. Off course the weight of the wings are very relevant. They add a weight possibly more than the gross weight of the body and the body have to be made stronger to carry the wings or the wings to carry it. If you remove the wings you should be able to reduce the weight of the body by as much as at least one third.


The origin of aeroplane body shapes didn't come about because of wind tunnel tests, they came about because the pioneers imitated nature, birds. They made the body and wings similar to the body and wings of birds. This become a tradition and remained the same. I remain committed to my theory of flying rectangular body tilted from the top forward.


To prove that conceptually, all you have to do is to take a wing of an aeroplane to change it to fly. A wing has three dimensions:, length, width and depth. The depth is the distance between both major surfaces at the top and bottom. Now extend the depth horizontally to some length. In this way, you made a rectangular cubic body, with the front and back tilted forward. Fit the engine and other controlling tools. You will discover you made an aeroplane, which should be lighter than the same winged aeroplane by as much as two thirds.

 

[gmoto]

Actually, I did talk about weight and why it wasn't such a big factor for fast ground based vehicles.
It seems you didn't bother to look up the 'flying wings' I talked about previously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wing
I have put the link there as it seems you are too lazy to search for it?
I only have a very light interest in such things, but am well aware that a massive number of shapes have been tried in real life and wind tunnels, never mind the many more theoretically. I suggest you do some basic research on this prior research.

Fit the engine and other controlling tools. You will discover you made an aeroplane, which should be lighter than the same winged aeroplane by as much as two thirds.

Quite possibly lighter, but also less aerodynamic. Please read my previous two posts where I discuss this.
It will be less aerodynamic.
At speed aerodynamics are more important than weight.

 

[Swisaw]

Yes you are using the potential energy stored in the object. You have failed to answer very simple basic physics questions that highlight flaws at all stages in the process

1. How does the object acquire the potential energy in the first place? Even if people use the chairlift to go up the mountain, to then ski down the mountain, the potential energy is given to the person by virtue of the fact the chairlift elevated them. If I drove from here to where the glider starts from, (assuming it is higher) my car provides the energy. With energy, there is no free lunch. In the case of the railways that use water, the potential energy comes from the sun, that evaporates the water, and makes it rain down and form streams
2. If you recover energy back from the system, that comes at a energy cost. A, the object must physically slow down 2. the recovery system won't be 100% efficient. Before you answer this one, think what KERS actually does. It recovers energy when breaking. actually the pad is worn less, because THE KERS SYSTEM IS DOING THE SLOWING DOWN OF THE CAR. Whilst your system isnt KERS, the principle is the same. If you pull an elastic band, that takes more energy than not pulling it. If the road you drove a car on was elastic, and absorbed your energy in order to propel along lorries or something, that would take more energy to drive on than a regular road
3. You claim great strides in efficiency - but in reality, you are hoping the design works well, It is a bit arrogant to think that common sense means that you understand Aerodynamics more than say the designers of the bullet train, or planes or F1 teams. if it was easy, they wouldn't spend billions on it
4. You ignored comments about safety. What every you would like to think, if you build it and stick a human in it, you will need to make it fairly heavy just to provide the appropriate levels of safety. That weight will kill the project
5. You still are considering basics like aerodynamics in one plane. You neglect to consider crosswinds, headwinds, tailwinds and turbulence
6. You ignore basics like weather
7. you ignore practicalities - like the need for multiple stops along the way

The closest thing your project is to is a rollercoaster. I suggest you have a day out at a pleasure park and look at exactly how they work, and how much energy is expended in lifting up the punters to the top of the ride. Your biggest physics flaw is not understanding that any form of energy recovery slows the vehicle down

This is easily demonstrated with a child's toy - those cars that you wind the wheels up by pulling them backwards. Question - does it take more force to push the toy car backwards or forwards?

Question. if you have 2 of these toy cars, and you put them bumper to bumper (one facing forwards and one backwards, and you push them both back in the same direction) - one car will be filled with potential energy. If you release them (bumper to bumper i.e. one car is pushing and the other one is now absorbing) how far will the pair of cars get? and why? Your system of collecting energy is the same, but using rollers outside of the car. the energy principles however are the same. You are ignoring this very simple principle, and then diverting us to efficiency. The child's car is not efficient, but no amount of efficiency improvement will stop the car collecting energy, slowing the car doing the pushing

Way back about 8 pages ago I asked you
- where initial does the potential energy come from
- why doesn't the energy recovery system slow down the glider

If you cant make it work for a marble on a track, it wont work

Let me to answer you point by point.


1-
People and cargoes have to go up. In case of Nerissa Gliders Shuttle between Manchester and Liverpool, as an example, they have to go up 200.00metres in Manchester and 55.00 metres in Liverpool. Now we try to exploit geographical conditions between these to points as practical as possible to run the shuttle without, or as less as possible, of external power, fuel. We try to use recovered energy of gravity-generated motion and brake power of the gliders and what ever comes down at both points to run the shuttle.


Liverpool is 70.00 metres above sea level and Manchester is 125.00metres, which means Manchester is higher than Liverpool by 55.00metres. There is a distance of about 50,000.metres between both points. The station in Liverpool has to be high 55.00metres and in Manchester 200.00metres high. We use gravity to drive the shuttle from Manchester to Liverpool and use recovered energy to drive it back to Manchester. For this purpose the route from Liverpool to Manchester is going to be on a straight level to let passengers and cargoes to disembark to the ground in Manchester. But the route from Manchester to Liverpool is going to be on a slope starts 200.00metres high in Manchester and ends 55.00metres high in Liverpool.


In Manchester, the potential energy of all vehicles, take cargoes and passengers 200.00metres high to the shuttle, recovered when they come down. Gravity-generated energy of the shuttle recovered from Manchester to Liverpool as much as possible. Potential energy of the cargoes and passengers going down 55.00metres in Liverpool is recovered. Potential energies of vehicles bring cargoes and passengers 55.00metres high to the shuttle in Liverpool, is recovered. Brake energy of the shuttle recovered on both directions.


So what are the benefits of this Nerissa Gliders Shuttle between Manchester and Liverpool?


a- The recovered energy should be enough to drive the shuttle from Liverpool to Manchester and to lift it 200.00metres in Manchester. This saves the cost of fuel.


b- The shuttle glides on pillars It doesn't need rail line or roads. So it takes a fraction of the land, which usual roads and railways take.


c-Unlike railways and motorways, the shuttle doesn't create barriers.


d- The shuttle doesn't carry the engine, fuel tanks, wheels, gear boxes and thousands of other associated parts. This saves a lot on fuel and wear and tears.


e- The shuttle can be made the safest means of transportation. For example it can be made so that it will never derail.


f- The shuttle causes vehicle gas emission on a route of 255.00metres, 200.00metres in Manchester and 55.00metres in Liverpool. But it doesn't cause emission on a route of 100,000.00metres, 50,000 on each way. Trains and vehicle cause gas emission all the way between both points.


2-
The system should recover over 90% of its gravity generated motion energy. As long as the potential energy of the glider is higher than the potential energy of the counter weight, energy recovery system, the glider moves and accelerates.


KERS system may not be useful at all. It is very heavy and works only at high speeds. It may not be worth the cost. It may cause more fuel and wear and tear than what it gives back. I have already invented a new brake and brake power recovery system, which eliminates brake pad and shoes and works at every speed.


3-


Well, it is a simple common sense that there is nothing unique about aerodynamics designs of bullet trains or F1s. They are all designed to increase downward pressure to get good track. True they spent billions on aerodynamic tests. But that doesn't mean they discovered everything. Even they didn't know, well no one knew until mythbusters test, about the simple dimples, which don't cost the cost of a peanut. But they fitted KERS at a million cost without getting anything back except a few burst of speed.


4-


Nerissa Gliders can be made the safest means of transportation. For example it can be made so that it will never derail. Chinese German-made maglev derailed when collided with a service wagon.


5- Nerissa Gliders can have a best aerodynamic design because it doesn't need air. It can be made like a tube in the middle with long cones at the front and at the back without any extras. Aerodynamics of Nerissa Gliders don't add any extra weight. So it doesn't cost fuel or cause wears and tears. Aerodynamics of trains cause extra weight, which cause more fuel consumption and more wears and tears. The type of winds have not any bearing on Nerissa Gliders.


6- well, weather or the wind is the same.
7- It can be made just like trains for multiple stops. Nerissa Gliders is a wonder Machine. It can be made to cater any needs or conditions.

 

[gmoto]

a- The recovered energy should be enough to drive the shuttle from Liverpool to Manchester and to lift it 200.00metres in Manchester. This saves the cost of fuel.

So, like a maglev monorail.

b- The shuttle glides on pillars It doesn't need rail line or roads. So it takes a fraction of the land, which usual roads and railways take.

Like a maglev monorail.

c-Unlike railways and motorways, the shuttle doesn't create barriers.

Like a maglev monorail.

d- The shuttle doesn't carry the engine, fuel tanks, wheels, gear boxes and thousands of other associated parts. This saves a lot on fuel and wear and tears.

Like a maglev monorail.

e- The shuttle can be made the safest means of transportation. For example it can be made so that it will never derail.

Like a maglev monorail.

f- The shuttle causes vehicle gas emission on a route of 255.00metres, 200.00metres in Manchester and 55.00metres in Liverpool. But it doesn't cause emission on a route of 100,000.00metres, 50,000 on each way. Trains and vehicle cause gas emission all the way between both points.

Well, we've established the journey will take years unless you add extra power. Which you've said will come from electricity generated from renewable sources.
So, like a maglev monorail!

2-
The system should recover over 90% of its gravity generated motion energy. As long as the potential energy of the glider is higher than the potential energy of the counter weight, energy recovery system, the glider moves and accelerates.

Very good. But approximately 0.001% of it's motion will come from gravity, so that's rather a waste of time.
Otherwise, it's like, hmmm... probably a maglev monorail!

3-Well, it is a simple common sense that there is nothing unique about aerodynamics designs of bullet trains or F1s. They are all designed to increase downward pressure to get good track. True they spent billions on aerodynamic tests. But that doesn't mean they discovered everything. Even they didn't know, well no one knew until mythbusters test, about the simple dimples, which don't cost the cost of a peanut. But they fitted KERS at a million cost without getting anything back except a few burst of speed.

F1 cars are, yes. That is why they have as big wings as they can. Maglev trains? No. They are not designed for high downforce, I'm pretty sure. Why would they design a train they are trying to LEVITATE to have high down force. More ever, it's obvious they don't. Only the front section is angled - they would need extra wings on every carriage to get consistent down force.
So your design is like an unaerodynamic monorail.

Nerissa Gliders can be made the safest means of transportation. For example it can be made so that it will never derail. Chinese German-made maglev derailed when collided with a service wagon.

And if your train collides with something at speed, the same will happen. Stopping this happening is good planning, not good design.
So, again, like a maglev monorail.

5- Nerissa Gliders can have a best aerodynamic design because it doesn't need air. It can be made like a tube in the middle with long cones at the front and at the back without any extras. Aerodynamics of Nerissa Gliders don't add any extra weight. So it doesn't cost fuel or cause wears and tears. Aerodynamics of trains cause extra weight, which cause more fuel consumption and more wears and tears. The type of winds have not any bearing on Nerissa Gliders.

Like a maglev monorail. Except for the fictional bits like 'doesn't cause wears and tears'. Aerodynamics on trains create very little if any extra weight. As I KEEP saying, aerodynamics are MUCH more important than weight at speed.

6- well, weather or the wind is the same.
7- It can be made just like trains for multiple stops. Nerissa Gliders is a wonder Machine. It can be made to cater any needs or conditions.

Like a maglev monorail!


Congratulations on your amazing design!
Lyle Lanley: Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine,
Bona fide,
Electrified,
Six-car
Monorail!
What'd I say?

- Monorail!

What's it called?

- Monorail!

That's right! Monorail!

[crowd chants `Monorail' softly and rhythmically]

- I hear those things are awfully loud...

It glides as softly as a cloud.

- Is there a chance the track could bend?

Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
.....

 

[Mustaka]

Seriously stop feeding the troll!!!!!

 

[Bruvver]

I am considering suicide......any suggested methods ?

 

[gmoto]

Seriously stop feeding the troll!!!!!

The way links are thrown about, I was wondering if it was actually a experiment in SEO.

 

[MikeJ]

I am considering suicide......any suggested methods ?

You could lay down in front of a Nerissa Glider. But you'd die of old age before it rolled over you.

 

[Mustaka]

I am considering suicide......any suggested methods ?

Yeah I got a sure fire one for you.

Go jump in front of a speeding Narrisa Glider....

 

[Mustaka]

You could lay down in front of a Nerissa Glider. But you'd die of old age before it rolled over you.

Damb. Beaten to the most obvious punch line

 

[kevin555]

I'm thinking of setting up a local test Nerissa Glider - between us and the Royal Mail.

They're not far from us - about 100metres and in a straight line - how high should those pylons be ???

 

[Mustaka]

I set up a Narrisa glider from my fridge to my couch to bring me beer. Works pretty good except my house is fairly large and by the time it gets from the kitchen to the couch its going Mach 0.99.

Working on a breaking system to recover that energy and power my house.

 

[Swisaw]

I set up a Narrisa glider from my fridge to my couch to bring me beer. Works pretty good except my house is fairly large and by the time it gets from the kitchen to the couch its going Mach 0.99.

Working on a breaking system to recover that energy and power my house.

Howdi cousin Mustaka,

A message from KernQueen to you. She wants to know if you can change duvet cover.

 

[Swisaw]

Here begineth the leson in Newtonian physics

"Liverpool is 70.00 metres above sea level and Manchester is 125.00metres, which means Manchester is higher than Liverpool by 55.00metres. There is a distance of about 50,000.metres between both points"

Lets think about the basic trig here. on the opisite side of the triangle, we have 55m On the adjacent side we have 50000m that gives you a angle of incline/decline of (55/50000) TAN -1 = 0.0630 degreesthe law of acceleration can be reduced to a=g*sin(angle)=9.8m/s^2*sin(0.0630)=2.04m/s^2 = 0.0107 m/s^2

Ignoring friction form the air, and from everythin else, and also ignoring the fact you want to recover energy

acceleration = velocoty/time thus velocoty = AxT after 10 mins your shuttle wil be going at 6.46M/s

However thats a lot of things to ignore, so lets just look at friction

it is accepted that good cylindrical bearings have a running friction coeficent of f = 0,0020, and a start up frictional coeficent of f = 0,0040

the angle you need to make anything start moving at all on on such rollers is 0.004 degrees

Even if you took a 2 square meter profile at 100KMH, with a rolling resistance of 0.002 and a air resistance coeficient of a (extreemly generous) 0.5 and a weight of 100KG's

(I didnt bother with publishing the algebra, but it is just about right)

The air resistnce would be 497.7N
The rolling resistance would be 4.9N
and you would need a driving power of 13961W

If we plug this in to F=MA

Force input by gravity
100KG x 0.0107 = 1.07N (!!!)

Force needed to overcome the rolling resistance = 4.9N (not enough)
force needed to counteract wind resistance @ 100KPH = 497N (laughs)

Force needed to actually get the thing started = about 9N (not enough)

So forget about recovering energy, if you just wnt o move 100KG's, you dont have enough input energy to get the thing moving in the first place, let alone moving at speed

and this is just for the weight of 1 adult, and no glider

Here endeth the lesson, lets put this fantasy to bed

Good points. You could be right. Nevertheless the shuttle still can be made working with green energy. Liverpool is on the sea cost, rich in green energy like wind and sea waves. This energy can be used to power the shuttle.

Some times ago, I experimented on a slope of 1/200. This is for an assumed distance of 40,000metres between Liverpool and Manchester. The tools were very crude. I used a 1.00metre ruller, toy car and half centimetre height. The car didn't move always but moved by itself most of the times. When it didn't move, it needed a little push, after that it started accelerating. I am afraid there must be some faults in your calculations. Because the slope of 200/40,000=1/200 is working between Manchester and Liverpool. try it by yourself. The experiment was very difficult to set. Try to use some thing like 2.00metres long. This should be easier becasue the height becomes 1.00centimetre.

 

[Swisaw]

I havent a clue the distances, I took your data from an earlier post



Its pretty irrelevant if you do the trig, and the physics, you will find to use gravity in a meaningfull way over a large horizontal distance, you need a unreasonably large vertical start height

The vertical distance in Manchester is 200.00metres high. The slope goes to apoint of 55.00metres hight in Liverpool. This height is the ground level in Manchester. The distance between pillars should be at least 50metres apart, possibly as much as 100.00metres or more.

 

[paulears]

We all keep promising to stop posting, but you keep changing the rules. If you look at the map, you'll find that you cannot do a direct route, you have to follow contours, and this makes the path length greater, the actual angle lower and the maths work against you even more. Now you add in green energy! You don't need your glider at all - you could fit cars with huge sails, wait for the wind and blow yourself there! A transport system that needs wind is windpowered, NOT gravity. Maybe you could say, gravity assisted wind power - but it's just getting sillier and sillier.

 

[Swisaw]

Some perspective

Well 55 M over 50000M is 1:909 which is a huge difference to 1:200

Also, the toy car over 1 M will pick up such a small amount of speed, wind resistance is a minor part of the equation

if you had pillars 10M apart, you would need 5000 pilars, and they wouldneed to be exactly 1.1 cm difference in height between them

To make this work on a metre rule, you would need 1.1mm difference between one end and the other. Does the toy car roll with that small angle?

You have not grasped my post and don't seem taking notice of what I am saying. I said we built the station in Manchester 200.00metres high. This creates a gradient of 200/50,000=1/250 for a distance of 50,000.00,which is from the centre to centre. But you can not build a station for Nerissa Gliders in the centre of the city. The station has to be outside the city because it is going to be very big. This means in real life you have to build it some where at least 5 to 10 Km far from the city centre. Assume the distance is 10.00km from the centre in each city. This leaves a distance of 30.00km=30,000metres between both points, which gives you a slope of 200/30000=1/150. Assume gravity is 10m/s/s. This slope of 1/150 gives you a gravity acceleration of 1/15m/s/s. At this acceleration the glider can reach Liverpool under 50.00minutes.


Yes the toy car rolled at that small angle and accelerated regardless to the unlubricated wheels. The experiment was very difficult to set up because the height was very small, 0.50centimetre. The ruler was a metal one, which could have bended in the middle slightly, making the slope sharper, and helped the toy to roll. This is an important discovery. It means we can make the slope sharper at the departure point. For example in this case, we can make the slope in Manchester sharper by 10 times to 1/15, which gives a starting acceleration of 1m/s/s. After a few kms readjust the slope. After that you are still accelerating and you can to make the journey to finish quicker. Because you started at faster acceleration.

 

[Swisaw]

So, like a maglev monorail.


Like a maglev monorail.


Like a maglev monorail.


Like a maglev monorail.



Like a maglev monorail.


Well, we've established the journey will take years unless you add extra power. Which you've said will come from electricity generated from renewable sources.
So, like a maglev monorail!


Very good. But approximately 0.001% of it's motion will come from gravity, so that's rather a waste of time.
Otherwise, it's like, hmmm... probably a maglev monorail!





F1 cars are, yes. That is why they have as big wings as they can. Maglev trains? No. They are not designed for high downforce, I'm pretty sure. Why would they design a train they are trying to LEVITATE to have high down force. More ever, it's obvious they don't. Only the front section is angled - they would need extra wings on every carriage to get consistent down force.
So your design is like an unaerodynamic monorail.





And if your train collides with something at speed, the same will happen. Stopping this happening is good planning, not good design.
So, again, like a maglev monorail.


Like a maglev monorail. Except for the fictional bits like 'doesn't cause wears and tears'. Aerodynamics on trains create very little if any extra weight. As I KEEP saying, aerodynamics are MUCH more important than weight at speed.



Like a maglev monorail!


Congratulations on your amazing design!
Lyle Lanley: Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine,
Bona fide,
Electrified,
Six-car
Monorail!
What'd I say?

- Monorail!

What's it called?

- Monorail!

That's right! Monorail!

[crowd chants `Monorail' softly and rhythmically]

- I hear those things are awfully loud...

It glides as softly as a cloud.

- Is there a chance the track could bend?

Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
.....

....and to build Nerissa Gliders between Glasgow and London costs the cost of an A class road but a maglev train costs aroud £1.50trillions, more than UK National Gross product.

By the way, why don't you ask Germans to build you a maglev to take you to work. It is going to be cheaper because you can drive it by yourself.

 

[gmoto]

....and to build Nerissa Gliders between Glasgow and London costs the cost of an A class road but a maglev train costs aroud £1.50trillions, more than UK National Gross product.

Provide some detailed researched costing of that. Until you do, it seems likely to me costs are going to be similar.

 

[Swisaw]

Provide some detailed researched costing of that. Until you do, it seems likely to me costs are going to be similar.

I admit I made a mistake. The cost of Shanghai Maglev was US$1.33 billion on a track of 19 miles on 2000s. Using this as a guide the cost of a maglev between London and glasgow would be 1.33 x(401/19)= US$28.07billion for the dollar values of 2000s. The distance between London and glasgow is 401 miles. Nerissa Gliders should be cheaper at least by 100 times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train

 

[gmoto]

I don't want research on maglev, plenty of people have done that.
I want detailed costings on YOUR idea.
How you come to the figure '100x' less, for something that the way you describe it, is very similar. Without the proof you have properly considered the costs, we have absolutely no reason to believe your claims!