Nerissa Gliders

[Swisaw]

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.



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.

No, no, no. I don't mean this. This is not a flying wing although that is how named. This is another usual plane with a body between two wings, except the wings are as wide as the the length of the body and as deep as the height of the body at the point fitted to the body. The design gives the false impression as both wings fitted to each other.

To understand my design, cut one of the wings of this so called flying wing plane. As you see the wing is similar to a right angled triangle. Now cut the wing so that it becomes a square. After that extend each side so that it becomes a cube. Now tilt the top of the cube so that vertical lines make 45 degress more or less with two opposite bottom side lines on the direction of tilt and 135 degrees more or less on the other side.

Direction of the tilt is the front. Now fit control and an engine on the top front in the middle. Now the shape should should get lifted from the front and the back because of the engine and get lifted from the bottom naturally because of atmospheric pressure becoming higher at the bottom and lighter on the top.

This plane may be or may not be more aerodynamic than a similar usual plane but it is going to be a lot lighter. If it is not more aerodynamic it can carry more loads, an advantage may be more desirable than aerodynamism if the cost is worthwhile.

 

[Swisaw]

- add this to my list above.. at intervals of 10m/s between 0 and 100 KPH how many newtons of lift will you get?

- how does this new vector impact on all of the other maths and calculations?

That is not my problem. That is engineering problem. The engineers have to do the math.

 

[roydmoorian]

That is not my problem. That is engineering problem. The engineers have to do the math.

It's your invention - It's your problem. End of.

 

[Swisaw]

It's your invention - It's your problem. End of.

Agree. If I make it I will ask my engineers to do the math.

 

[Swisaw]

I tell you what... if you cant even be asked do this basic maths/physics... and If you wont do it, or think it isnt relevant, you dont have an invention, you have an idea based on what you think is common sense

However, as a person who has a Msc in physics and Engineering, I am telling you that the basic physics/maths says you wont get moving. Even if you resolve that, the basic physics/maths says wind resistance/friction will cause the object to stop

If you cant be asked to do the calculations, either pay someone, or give up and stop bothering everyone with your "invention". At the moment you have invented a vehicle that will not move

Since you haven't come here (or anywhere else) with one solid bit of maths or physics, I would suggest you gracefully park the idea in the big filing cabinet under the desk

Please dont insult real scientific minds with your thoughts on aerodynamics, kinetic energy, energy recovery, motion, gravity, if you cant come to the table with a basic tool kit of understanding

Please dont insult business minds with your thought on how to build/finance/run this hair brained idea, if you dont come to the table with a real understanding of the market, the costs, the need, the impact, safety & all the other stuff we have highlighted

In the real world, when they put (what seems to be a simple enough and common sense idea) wind turbines on the skyscraper in Dubai, there was a team of highly specialist bridge engineers who considered how to mount a turbine on a bridge, how the bridges interacted with the buildings etc.. In addition there was another team of turbine specialists who designed a turbine specifically for the job. They then as 2 teams worked together for months modelling on computers and then in a wind tunnel. Only then was it found to be a viable idea, at that point they then had to figure out how to manufacture the parts. What was invented - Nothing, its a wind turbine on a bridge. Was it a major headache and complex - yes, did it nearly not happen because it was thought to be unfeasible - YES. In the real world, before people commit money to a idea, they want proof. In the real world, if a inventor or scientist says I think XYZ is true, their peers say prove it. If you feel you have an idea that needs exploring, then that's called research. When you have shown forwards, backwards, sideways, on Tuesdays and Sundays that the idea works, then you have an invention or new concept

I telling you that in the real world, you could have a team of 10 experts in aerodynamics just looking at the nose profile for your "glider". And that will be the tip of the icebeg. there are so many things to consider before you even get this mad idea of the ground as an idea, let alone an invention.

You dont have an invention, you have an idea. Since you haven't been done the maths, you dont even have a specification, so you cant even go to an engineer an say design a object with a air resistance coefficient of xyz

I agree with all your points, although my very crude experiment proved your maths were wrong. The basic idea is very simple. Dubay sky scraper is very complex and can not be compared with the simplicity of Nerissa Gliders.
All the points you have raised have engineering solutions.

The wind can be with you or against you. If it is against you ensure you have spare energy in hand to overcome wind resistance. It is as simple as that.

 

[Swisaw]

However, as a person who has a Msc in physics and Engineering, I am telling you that the basic physics/maths says you wont get moving. Even if you resolve that, the basic physics/maths says wind resistance/friction will cause the object to stop

This doesn't mean you can grasp things better than me and you can not do better than Mythbuster team, who didn't dimple the car correctly. Remember I have already proved your maths was wrong with a very crude experiment.

 

[roydmoorian]

The wind can be with you or against you. If it is against you ensure you have spare energy in hand to overcome wind resistance. It is as simple as that.

But travelling at speeds in excess of 100 mph will mean that the wind is always against you.

 

[Swisaw]

But travelling at speeds in excess of 100 mph will mean that the wind is always against you.

Certainly that is true. Obviously if the gliders have go so fast, they must be powered enough. Bear in mind the gliders are going to be the most aerodynamic like a pipe in the middle with long cones at the front and back. This shape slices air like knife slices jelly and suffers a minimum drag.

 

[paulears]

Look - I'm really sorry, but

This doesn't mean you can grasp things better than me and you can not do better than Mythbuster team, who didn't dimple the car correctly. Remember I have already proved your maths was wrong with a very crude experiment.

I'm afraid he can grasp things better than you. Are you seriously stating that somebody with an MSc (which is NOT the kind of qualification given away in a cereal box) as in a Masters Degree in SCIENCE can be discounted by a 'very crude experiment'.

People have been very patient with you but frankly, you never listen, you change your opinion on a whim, you discount the physics that everyone quotes at you, and you don't have anything apart from an unshakable delusion that your idea is workable.

As so many people, much more learned than me, have pointed out. Your data is flawed, your statements are based on a false premise and you simply do not understand what is going on. Constant references to alternative techniques that again, you don't understand don't support your case, they shatter it!

It's a nice dream - but if and when you engage your own engineer, they won't be on the project very long - it simply will not work. You have no chance of attracting funding, and the practicalities are just too great. Just look at the new high speed rail link - look how much it is going to cost? Proven technology, rather than pie in the sky stuff.

You just need to get a grip on reality - and attempting to denigrade the opinion of people who really do know, and probably have spent a long time being trained - make you look rather ridiculous.

We are up to 30 odd pages of talk - and not a single person supports your science - everyone is saying the same thing - it simply will not work.

Tell you what - let's see one of your practical experiments that show just one feature where gravity overcomes friction at the slope you keep banging on about. Show us a video of it actually moving - NOT hyperbole and wild statements.

 

[Mpg]

I think I see whats going on here.

Does anyone remember an experiment where an unknown chess genius played 10 of the top players and beat most of them.

When in fact he wasn't a chess genius he just let the first player make a move then did that move to the next player and then went back to the first player with the counter move. And them moved onto the next so in fact all the top players were in fact playing each other.

Is this just an experiment to see if all the clever bods on here can troubleshoot your idea into a working platflorm.

I'm amazed after 32 pages this is still going.

 

[Swisaw]

What coeficent of drag?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient

Pick a shape

With the internet, you dont even have to look that far

I go for streamlined body although the back is not long enough to minimise the drag. The back should be at least as long as the front if not longer.

 

[Highland Park]

This idea is a strong candidate for a Nobel Prize, the original Nobel prize that is ... dynamite

Last time I looked, the same thread on physicsforum.com had only posts by OP and a "read count" of few hundred - should tell us all something!! My own Physics Professor - the late, great Reginald Victor Jones - once told us that TRUE knowledge was an understanding of how little you knew.

My earlier request to move this to TimeOut seems to have been ignored or perhaps the Mods have long-since stopped reading the thread. Can't say I blame them.

What I'd like to see now is a best-estimate for how much time has been collectively wasted by the UK's business brains on this piece of utter nonsense.

 

[Highland Park]

Yes - it is said that he bequeathed part of his vast fortune out of enormous guilt for the amount of suffering that his invention had caused.

I think Oppenheimer slept badly too

 

[Swisaw]

Look - I'm really sorry, but

I'm afraid he can grasp things better than you. Are you seriously stating that somebody with an MSc (which is NOT the kind of qualification given away in a cereal box) as in a Masters Degree in SCIENCE can be discounted by a 'very crude experiment'.

Don't worry about him. He can speak for himself and I am sure he didn't ask you to speak for him.

Now the thing either works with gravity or with external power. In both cases when the conditions are right any thing can be made to move. So it is as simple as that. Did you get that? if yes, prove it doesn't work. Otherwise please don't spam my thread.

 

[Swisaw]

This idea is a strong candidate for a Nobel Prize, the original Nobel prize that is ... dynamite

Last time I looked, the same thread on physicsforum.com had only posts by OP and a "read count" of few hundred - should tell us all something!! My own Physics Professor - the late, great Reginald Victor Jones - once told us that TRUE knowledge was an understanding of how little you knew.

My earlier request to move this to TimeOut seems to have been ignored or perhaps the Mods have long-since stopped reading the thread. Can't say I blame them.

What I'd like to see now is a best-estimate for how much time has been collectively wasted by the UK's business brains on this piece of utter nonsense.

The thing either works with gravity or with external power. In both cases when the conditions are right any thing can be made to move. So it is as simple as that. Did you get that? if yes, prove it doesn't work. Otherwise please don't spam my thread.

 

[Bruvver]

.............please don't spam my thread.

Spam....spam .....spam.......spam.....or spam ?

 

[gmoto]

The thing either works with gravity or with external power. In both cases when the conditions are right any thing can be made to move. So it is as simple as that. Did you get that? if yes, prove it doesn't work. Otherwise please don't spam my thread.

Yes, it can be made to move with power. But the reality is you have developed a design LESS efficient and MORE costly than current designs.
Until you can provide the justified figures, it's no better than my vacuum tunnel train system (actually, quite a bit worst, I'd suggest .)

 

[Swisaw]

Yes, it can be made to move with power. But the reality is you have developed a design LESS efficient and MORE costly than current designs.
Until you can provide the justified figures, it's no better than my vacuum tunnel train system (actually, quite a bit worst, I'd suggest .)

Could you share details of your 'vacuum tunnel train' with us on this thread or with me confidentially. I will sign none disclosure agreement contract.

 

[Swisaw]

Look - I'm really sorry, but

I'm afraid he can grasp things better than you. Are you seriously stating that somebody with an MSc (which is NOT the kind of qualification given away in a cereal box) as in a Masters Degree in SCIENCE can be discounted by a 'very crude experiment'.

This very crude experiment was a revelation. Because I used a metal ruler, I thought it could have bended in the middle providing a sharper slope for the car to slide downward. During the experiment, the car moved all the way accelerating. When reached level surface, it continued moving a bit further away from the lower end of the ruler. This revelled the idea of ignition starter in my mind for Nerissa Gliders when driven by gravity.


Ignition starter is made up of a 100.00metre height and 1000.00metre slope length. This gives a gravity acceleration of 10 x (100/1000) =1.00metre/s/s, assuming gravity is 10.00metre/s/s.


Let us to apply ignition starter between Manchester and Liverpool, and between Glasgow and London. We assume the distance between Manchester and Liverpool is 40,000metres after ignition starter. Nerissa Gliders starts at a height of 200.00metre in Manchester. Ignition starter takes 100.00meter height. This leaves 100.00metre more height. Now the slope after ignition starter becomes 100/40,000= 1/400, which gives and a gravity acceleration of 10 x (1/400) = 0.025m/s/s.


Now on this road, Nerissa Gliders continue to accelerate at 0.025m/s/s after ignition starter. But we disregard this acceleration and use only 1.00m/s/s acceleration of ignition starter to see how long it takes for Nerissa Gliders to to cross 40,000metre distance. We us this formla: [FONT=arial, sans-serif]distance[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]=[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]0.5[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]*[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]acceleration[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]*t*t,[/FONT] which is 40,000 = 0.5 t * t, which makes time, t, to: 5.00 Minutes. This means Nerissa Gliders can travel under gravity from Manchester to Liverpool in 5 minutes. Frankly I myself don't believe it but that is what the formal says so.


For the same conditions, the travel Between London and Glasgow takes 5 x (500,000/40,000)= 62.5minutes. The distance is 500,000.00metrs.

 

[roydmoorian]

Aaaah I see - now we have a bent straight line

 

[paulears]

But if your 'real' line length is scaled down to a ruler, you do not have a device capable of measuring the angle. We're talking about an angle so close to level that makes any practical experiment on something as short as a ruler, ridiculous. Everyone bar you can see this - you're selectively using a small part of the maths involved to bias results in your favour, yet ignoring all the others that say dead duck.

The fact that you are obsessive about it, and severely blinkered just reinforces our view that you are indeed seeking something that is so flawed as to be univestable, unworkable and just wrong!

 

[Swisaw]

But if your 'real' line length is scaled down to a ruler, you do not have a device capable of measuring the angle. We're talking about an angle so close to level that makes any practical experiment on something as short as a ruler, ridiculous. Everyone bar you can see this - you're selectively using a small part of the maths involved to bias results in your favour, yet ignoring all the others that say dead duck.

The fact that you are obsessive about it, and severely blinkered just reinforces our view that you are indeed seeking something that is so flawed as to be univestable, unworkable and just wrong!

Lets see if you are wrong or right. The ruler was 1.00m=100.00cm long. The height was 0.005m=0.5cm. This gives you a slope of 0.5/100, which is the same as 1/200. The experiment represnted the height of 200.00m in Manchester and a distance of 40.000m to Liverpool. This gives you a slope of 200/40,000=2/400=1/200.

 

[Swisaw]

you shouldn't have used a ruler, there is much better kit on the market

http://www.thetoyshop.com/Vehicles/CarsRacing/OtherCarsRacing/Revolution-Track-Set/EPN409441

I wish I was this kid.

 

[paulears]

When you did your test, using a bit of Pythagoras, suggests your inclinometer needs to be quite accurate. Horizontal to 1 in 200 is a rather small incline to measure.

 

[Swisaw]

When you did your test, using a bit of Pythagoras, suggests your inclinometer needs to be quite accurate. Horizontal to 1 in 200 is a rather small incline to measure.

As I mentioned it the experiment was very difficult to set up. The height was only 0.50cm, which was a serious problme. I used a sort of modeling clay to create the height. After that, an even level became another a problem. Again with use of clay and spirit buble I overcome it.

Any way that is not an issue any more. Because the gliders start at the ignition starter, which has a sharp slope which can be 1/10 or 1/5. A slope of 1/5 or sharper is good for long distances like Glasgow and London. This slope gives you a gravity acceleration of 2.00ms/s

With this acceleration Nerissa Gliders Should reach London from Glasgow in under half an hour, provided it has extra power to compensate for wind resistance and friction.

 

[paulears]

Oh God! are you aware of how useless a bubble is for determining precise angles? Then you increase your slope angle, increase the distance and don't even consider how high the starting point has to be. Your project base changes as people show you the flaws. It started as a glider, now it needs power. You've ignored where this power comes from, and the weight the power source adds to the glider.

You perched a ruler on some clay, guessed the angle, and used this to support the conclusion the project was sound? So no proper test jig then, laser inclinometer and other quantifiable, repeatable experiment that produces data that is reliable and robust.

This must be some kind of viral exercise - it cannot be genuine.

 

[Swisaw]

Oh God! are you aware of how useless a bubble is for determining precise angles? Then you increase your slope angle, increase the distance and don't even consider how high the starting point has to be. Your project base changes as people show you the flaws. It started as a glider, now it needs power. You've ignored where this power comes from, and the weight the power source adds to the glider.

You perched a ruler on some clay, guessed the angle, and used this to support the conclusion the project was sound? So no proper test jig then, laser inclinometer and other quantifiable, repeatable experiment that produces data that is reliable and robust.

This must be some kind of viral exercise - it cannot be genuine.

It is not as complicated as you make it. Don't worry about the angle. All you need is an even surface. After that, use the clay to make a height of 0.5cm. Then let one end of the ruller on the height. That is all it takes. Nerissa Gliders is the same, nothing has been changed except the addition of ignition starter, which is something very important. Nerissa Gliders doesn't carry power or the engine. Both are used externally if needed..

 

[Swisaw]

to quote your earlier post

"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"

So, are you going to build something 245M high? derived from 200-55 +100M (apparently now needed to get the thing moving)

..................................etc

I cannot make sense of this: 'So, are you going to build something 245M high? derived from 200-55 +100M'. Your post is about Manchester and Liverpool Nerissa Gliders Shuttle. So let us to talk about it again to clarify the meaning of some numbers.
"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".
We build a station in Liverpool 55.00m high or 125 metres over sea level, the same height of Manchester over sea level. So if we move this station to Manchester, it goes to the ground level. But Manchester station is going to be 200.00metres high. So if we move Manchester station to Liverpool it will become 255.00m high.

 

[Barnie]

wow

your energy values are a bit out.

you need to split it into sideways and a down direction as some (alot) will be canceled out by opposite forces ie the ground andfrictional losses will almost certainly kill you

after this then you state using the first few rollers for pumps, due to lack of speed and not much natural forces, the force left for moving down hill i would doubt you would be able to move the pumps

 

[Swisaw]

wow

your energy values are a bit out.

you need to split it into sideways and a down direction as some (alot) will be canceled out by opposite forces ie the ground andfrictional losses will almost certainly kill you

after this then you state using the first few rollers for pumps, due to lack of speed and not much natural forces, the force left for moving down hill i would doubt you would be able to move the pumps

Not so my dear Barnie.
Take it as it is like the old weighing scale. The gliders acts as weights, force, and energy recovery acts as counter weights, opposite force. As long as the weight is heavier than the counter weight, the gliders continue moving and accelerating.

 

[Swisaw]

During my aerodynamic discussions with gmoto, I believe I came across some aerodynamic properties, which I have not seen anywhere applied. I believe they are new. I have already applied for a patent. I will soon write to some manufactures to test waters. After that I may disclose full technical details. I am not going to take it to the grave with me. I will disclose the name when the application recorded with patent office.

 

[Swisaw]

Spam....spam .....spam.......spam.....or spam ?

Do you always use your time reading spams? take my advice instead reading spams go to join the school of KernoQueen to learn how to change duvet cover.

 

[Katy Radcliffe]

I am so glad that I don't understand any of this.

Swisaw, my condolences on the loss of your wife.

 

[Swisaw]

I am so glad that I don't understand any of this.

Swisaw, my condolences on the loss of your wife.

You are very kind dear Katy.
Many thanks.

 

[JElder]

A slope of 1/5 or sharper is good for long distances like Glasgow and London.

532 KM straight line distance to Edinburgh from London

at a 1 in 5 slope that would work as you tested it (and yes, that would be enough to overcome friction and air resistance) your tower is....


Over 100KM tall!!

I hope your capsules are pressurised and radiation shielded. And you have Saturn V heavy lifter rockets to get them up there.

 

[Barnie]

As long as the weight is heavier than the counter weight, the gliders continue moving and accelerating.

your wrong, if it was a single pulley and both vertical it would (think of a lift), the closer you get to the horizontal the less force produced/required.

in the same way i can push my 1T car on a flat and on a tiny gradient i can stop it rolling and i am only 5% of the mass of my car.

the glider would have have to be not only a little bit lighter but a hell of alot lighter.

on the reverse getting it back up the hill it would be like a launch ramp and i dread to think how much past Glasgow it would end up.

for it to be perpetual motion you would have to store the energy of it going up hill not down if you the glider and the weight were the same mass

 

[Swisaw]

532 KM straight line distance to Edinburgh from London

at a 1 in 5 slope that would work as you tested it (and yes, that would be enough to overcome friction and air resistance) your tower is....


Over 100KM tall!!

I hope your capsules are pressurised and radiation shielded. And you have Saturn V heavy lifter rockets to get them up there.

Wrong. The distance between Edinburgh and London is 534.26Km.
Wrong again: The slope of my test was 1 to 200.

London, UK-0.1167
51.5000Edinburgh, UK-3.2000
55.9500Miles:331.98Kilometers:534.26Bearing:NW

 

[roydmoorian]

Wrong. The distance between Edinburgh and London is 534.26Km.
Wrong again: The slope of my test was 1 to 200.

Well even on your own figures you would need a 2.6713 km tall lift to get the passengers to the departure point even if you disregard the travelling capsule :|

 

[Swisaw]

Well even on your own figures you would need a 2.6713 km tall lift to get the passengers to the departure point even if you disregard the travelling capsule :|

You are wrong too.


Let use to build an ideal Nerissa Gliders between Edinburgh and London. The distance between both is 533.26km or 534260.00m from centre to centre. London is 27.00m above see level and Edinburgh is 41.00m above see level. So Edinburgh is higher than London by 17.00m. We build the stations outside the cities and keep a distance of500,000.00m between both points apart from ignition starter distance, in this case we make it 250.00m.


We build the departure point in Edinburgh 150.00m high and in London 167.00m high. This makes the arrival point in Edinburgh on the ground and in London 17.00m high. We allocate 50.00m height on the top as ignition starter height in each point. This leaves 100.00m high to give a slope of 100/500,000= 1/5000 or a a gravity acceleration of 1/500.00m/s/s, gravity assumed to be 10.00m/s/s. A slope of 50/250 for ignition starter gives a gravity acceleration of 2.00m/s/s. At this acceleration it takes for Nerissa Gliders to arrive in London from Edinburgh in under 10.00 minutes according to this formula: d=0.5xaxtt. This is assumed that the gliders have access to an external power and propulsion to compensate for any adverse conditions.

 

[MikeJ]

A jet plane takes about an hour.

You think you can do it in 10 minutes.

Idiot.