Nerissa Gliders

[roydmoorian]

He takes a little bit of physics and ignores everything else.

He also forgets the aeronautics inlfuence - aircraft travelling through a medium base lift calcs on airspeed, NOT groundspeed - because they are very different.

Even a person studying for their PPL license covers this - an aircraft with a cruise AIRspeed of 70mph, flying into a 50mph headwind means a GROUND speed of 20!

He's taken all his already flawed physics and forgot one of the basic principles - the wind! All the maths he's corrupted already won;t work when what tiny amounts of energy he gets from gravity are negated by a light breeze. A stiff breeze would probably blow the glider back the other way!

He has no grasp of finance either - there is no way to recoup the simply massive costs involved.

He takes NO ACCOUNT of the energy required to overcome the inertia in the thousands of stationary intermediate rollers as they are sped up to ?000 rpm by the capsule arriving and passing over them and he dismisses the amount of energy consumed by the powered rollers

 

[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.

The name is 'Wingless Aeroplane'. But since that time I have improved the concept radically. I have changed the name accordingly and reapplied to the patent office.

 

[Swisaw]

He takes NO ACCOUNT of the energy required to overcome the inertia in the thousands of stationary intermediate rollers as they are sped up to ?000 rpm by the capsule arriving and passing over them and he dismisses the amount of energy consumed by the powered rollers

Obviously powered rollers of Nerissa Gliders consume energy a lot less than powered rollers, driving wheels, of trains and vehicles, which needs more power to carry the weight of engine, fuel tank, gear boxes and thousands of other associated parts. These extra weights also cause a lot of wears and tears.


All the stationary rollers are lubricated and shouldn't pose any problem when gliders pass over them. Why do stationary rollers pose a problem when a glider passes over them very fast? I don't see this is to be so. You explain to us as why a lubricated stationary roller cause a problem when a glider passes over it.

 

[roydmoorian]

Obviously powered rollers of Nerissa Gliders consume energy a lot less than powered rollers, driving wheels, of trains and vehicles, which needs more power to carry the weight of engine, fuel tank, gear boxes and thousands of other associated parts. These extra weights also cause a lot of wears and tears.


All the stationary rollers are lubricated and shouldn't pose any problem when gliders pass over them. Why do stationary rollers pose a problem when a glider passes over them very fast? I don't see this is to be so. You explain to us as why a lubricated stationary roller cause a problem when a glider passes over it.

Let me ask you one question - When an aircraft lands and the wheels first touch the ground why do the tyres squeal ? - it is because the wheels are rapidly accellerated from 0 mph up to the approach speed and it takes a significant amount of energy to spin the wheel up to that speed, an action which will be repeated on encountering every successive roller :|

Lubrication helps to maintain the status quo with little energy input but overcoming that roller's inertia in the first place will consume significant energy.

If you watch a parcel travel along an level un-powered roller conveyor it slows down.

Maybe the people in the following link could help you ?

http://www.lacconveyors.co.uk/Gravity-Roller-Conveyors.aspx

 

[paultnl]

The name is 'Wingless Aeroplane'. But since that time I have improved the concept radically. I have changed the name accordingly and reapplied to the patent office.

You can apply all you like but have you ever had a patent granted?

 

[Mustaka]

ttp://www.lacconveyors.co.uk/Gravit...Conveyors.aspx

So Swisaw has in fact invented gravity rollers for trains.

*SEAL CLAPS*

Well done mate!!!!! Well done.

 

[Swisaw]

So Swisaw has in fact invented gravity rollers for trains.

*SEAL CLAPS*

Well done mate!!!!! Well done.

Thank you mate.

You never know what you can do with some thing when you know how and know about it.

 

[Swisaw]

You can apply all you like but have you ever had a patent granted?

No!!! even if I don't get a grant, I can ensure no one can use my patents for upto 20 years. How about that?

 

[Swisaw]

Me - self made multi-millionaire.

You - white van driver.

Me - can recognise crap when he sees it.

You - idiot that has failed to convince anyone with an ounce of common sense about this rubbish.

You: Coyote - baaaang craaash prrrrrt

Me: Road Runner - beeb beeb

 

[Swisaw]

Let me ask you one question - When an aircraft lands and the wheels first touch the ground why do the tyres squeal ? - it is because the wheels are rapidly accellerated from 0 mph up to the approach speed and it takes a significant amount of energy to spin the wheel up to that speed, an action which will be repeated on encountering every successive roller :|

Lubrication helps to maintain the status quo with little energy input but overcoming that roller's inertia in the first place will consume significant energy.

If you watch a parcel travel along an level un-powered roller conveyor it slows down.

Maybe the people in the following link could help you ?

http://www.lacconveyors.co.uk/Gravity-Roller-Conveyors.aspx

Something telling me you have a strong point. But there are many issues regarding the squeal of landing aircraft wheels. Obviously if your explanation is correct, landing aeroplanes cause serious tyre wear and tears, which could be prevented simply by spinning the wheels before the wheels touch ground. So if accelerating from 0 mph to the approaching speed as you claim is a big issue, why the tyres are not made to spin before touching the ground or rather the tyres are actually made to spin. So the squeal happens because the spinning wheels touching the ground.


Anyway, accelerating the wheels from zero does need energy but I am not sure if it is as a serious issue as you state it. If it was they would have made aeroplane wheels spinning when landing. But all we have seen real movie pictures of landing aeroplane wheels, which are not spinning. Also the role of tyres in both cases is quite different from each other. On landing, aeroplane wheels bear a lot of stress because landing is at a sharp angle at the back. In the case of Nerissa Gliders, the wheels and gliders meet almost on a parallel line, at an angle of 180 degrees.


Nevertheless in the case of Nerissa Gliders it could become an issue if the gliders get external power and move very fast. But there is engineering solution for this. Simply you made the tyres spinning before the gliders reach them.

 

[paultnl]

No!!! even if I don't get a grant, I can ensure no one can use my patents for upto 20 years. How about that?

Given the fact that they don't work, why would anyone bother?

 

[Swisaw]

Given the fact that they don't work, why would anyone bother?

Prove it! Obviously you can not. Neverthless you are entitled to your views, which I recognise.

 

[paulears]

I don't know if you've noticed, but aeroplanes, with their millions of quid spent in wind tunnels, honing their aerodynamics also glide. Not far, and gravity always overcomes aerodynamics at some point.

The real issue is that you are totally sold on your idea (because that's all it is, an idea) and we're totally convinced it's just silly, based on vapour. The only way for you to attract investors is to build a small scale model, and prove it works. When you prove it, business will want to be involved - but all the paper in the world will not convince sceptics.

You will have to finance it yourself, as inventors have always done when people were not interested in their ideas. When you can make a small scale model actually do what you claim, people will take notice - until then, they're going to consider you a bit of a nutcase - which happened to Frank Whittle.

Just consider the man who invented maglev trains, who also believed they would become a popular mode of transport - apart from a few curiosities, it was a financial non-starter.

How about space elevators - a concept developed over 100 years ago to get payloads into space - still not been done yet because although the physics is sound, it's just not practical - yet?

 

[Swisaw]

I don't know if you've noticed, but aeroplanes, with their millions of quid spent in wind tunnels, honing their aerodynamics also glide. Not far, and gravity always overcomes aerodynamics at some point.

The real issue is that you are totally sold on your idea (because that's all it is, an idea) and we're totally convinced it's just silly, based on vapour. The only way for you to attract investors is to build a small scale model, and prove it works. When you prove it, business will want to be involved - but all the paper in the world will not convince sceptics.

You will have to finance it yourself, as inventors have always done when people were not interested in their ideas. When you can make a small scale model actually do what you claim, people will take notice - until then, they're going to consider you a bit of a nutcase - which happened to Frank Whittle.

Just consider the man who invented maglev trains, who also believed they would become a popular mode of transport - apart from a few curiosities, it was a financial non-starter.

How about space elevators - a concept developed over 100 years ago to get payloads into space - still not been done yet because although the physics is sound, it's just not practical - yet?

Very good and strong points. Unfortunately I don't have resources to build any model, no matter how small it could be. Nevertheless we have to bear in mind that Nerissa Gliders could be considered as passed the test and working. This is because there is nothing new about Nerissa Gliders. It is made up from existing working components, which we see daily in our life. The components are the same components used in public transport, public or private, except they are better and more creatively and efficiently exploited.


Maglev is working but it is very expensive. Shanghai Maglev, 30.00km long, cost US$1.33billion at dollar value of 11 year ago.

space elevator is an out of order concept. You can not use it to disprove anything.​

Link to Space elevator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator


Link to Shanghai Maglev: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train

 

[paulears]

You see - this is the entire point. The space elevator cannot be made to work, despite having sound physics behind it. The concept is sound, the snages are just that we can't make it. Your concept, because that is all it is, is built on your belief that it will work, with no data that is capable of being tested.

If you are not certain enough to raise the money, to make that investment, to really put your money where your mouth is, then I submit the reality is that you KNOW it won't work, but just cannot admit it. Money is an excuse. There are plenty of actual physical ways to demonstrate the theory has legs. If you are this unsure, why would anyone invest their own money in a project the inventor hasn't had the courage to do the same thing?

You don't listen. Every negative point made by people is not refuted, because they're usually correct. Instead of proving you are right - you just keep walking sidways and trying some other way to convince us.

This must be a wind up - it simply must be.

 

[Swisaw]

The name is 'Wingless Aeroplane'. But since that time I have improved the concept radically. I have changed the name accordingly and reapplied to the patent office.

The new name is 'Wingless Flying Car'. Because it is wingless it can be made wheel-driven like any road vehicle on any road. It can fly and land vertically, fly inside a jungle and can reverse when flying.

I am going to write to major potential customers to test waters. If no one intereseted I will disclose full technical details soon. I am not going to take it to the grave with me. However, I will follow legal formality so that no one can use it for the next twenty years and longer, unless my inherators get some thing out of it. In the mean time any potential entity, interested in the concept, can ask to see details confidentially.

 

[ORDERED WEB]

The new name is 'Wingless Flying Car'. Because it is wingless it can be made wheel-driven like any road vehicle on any road. It can fly and land vertically, fly inside a jungle and can reverse when flying.

I am going to write to major potential customers to test waters. If no one intereseted I will disclose full technical details soon. I am not going to take it to the grave with me. However, I will follow legal formality so that no one can use it for the next twenty years and longer, unless my inherators get some thing out of it. In the mean time any potential entity, interested in the concept, can ask to see details confidentially.

Having seen people screw up parking a simple wheeled car, this sounds like a recipe for mayhem

 

[Swisaw]

Having seen people screw up parking a simple wheeled car, this sounds like a recipe for mayhem

This is not going to be a sort of car to drive it to high street. Nevertheless, if you can afford it and have enough space at home and at your place of work you can use it to avoid traffic jam or to reach work quicker.

 

[Swisaw]

You see - this is the entire point. The space elevator cannot be made to work, despite having sound physics behind it. The concept is sound, the snages are just that we can't make it. Your concept, because that is all it is, is built on your belief that it will work, with no data that is capable of being tested.

If you are not certain enough to raise the money, to make that investment, to really put your money where your mouth is, then I submit the reality is that you KNOW it won't work, but just cannot admit it. Money is an excuse. There are plenty of actual physical ways to demonstrate the theory has legs. If you are this unsure, why would anyone invest their own money in a project the inventor hasn't had the courage to do the same thing?

You don't listen. Every negative point made by people is not refuted, because they're usually correct. Instead of proving you are right - you just keep walking sidways and trying some other way to convince us.

This must be a wind up - it simply must be.

Space elevator is a fantasy in the mind of a sci fi writer. No, it doesn't have sound physics behind it. Scientifically you can not build it. You can not make a rope thousands of miles long stay vertical. It is an out of order concept.


You don't need to build a model to prove or disprove if Nerissa Gliders working or not. It is already proved to be working. Because it is made up of components already passed the test and we use in our daily life every day. It is just like the old weighing scale, which operates on the basis of weight and counter weight. In the case of Nerissa Gliders, a glider is the weight and power recovery is the counter weight. As long as the glider is heavier than the counter weight, it slides downward and accelerating.


In the figure bellow the vehicle has a gross weight of 10,000kg and slides on a slope of 1/100. A counter weight of 10,000kg x (1/100) = 100kg will stop the vehicle rolling downward. Reduce the counter weight to less than 100kg, the vehicle will slide down ward and accelerating. In this case the vehicle should recover at least 9000kg of its counter weights. Assume the unladen weight of the vehicle is 400Kg, which you need to lift the vehicle 1oom. This leaves you with 500kg x g power gain, not bad. Now you disprove this one.

 

[JElder]

A space elevator would work - the 'rope' is held tight by a centrifugal forces/orbital forces at the top - for exactly the same reasons satellites work. We just do not have a material strong enough to build the rope: the structural strength needed, even if it was half a kilometre thick at the base are enormous.

PS: Your diagram above does not allow for wheel/roller friction, air friction and counterweight movement losses. These are significant, and increase exponentially with speed, so a low speed model is not an accurate representation. Also, a 1 in 100 slope would not get you very far - we just can't build towers high enough.

 

[MikeJ]

In the figure bellow the vehicle has a gross weight of 10,000kg and slides on a slope of 1/100. A counter weight of 10,000kg x (1/100) = 100kg will stop the vehicle rolling downward. Reduce the counter weight to less than 100kg, the vehicle will slide down ward and accelerating. In this case the vehicle should recover at least 9000kg of its counter weights. Assume the unladen weight of the vehicle is 400Kg, which you need to lift the vehicle 1oom. This leaves you with 500kg x g power gain, not bad. Now you disprove this one.

1) 100kg won't stop that truck rolling.
2) Why have you fixed the slope at 1:100?
3) You do accept that there's some friction involved in moving that truck, don't you? You can set the slope as shallow as possible, such that you've just enough potential energy in the truck to overcome the friction. Obviously if it's completely flat, then it doesn't move. So you need a slope. But any slope greater than necessary to overcome friction is a waste. Or you can increase the slope further, and use the weight, but then you lose the distance (because the slope is shorter). Either way, it's only going to work if you need to move things downhill.

The only reason the scales work is because you're only moving things up and down, not over a distance.

 

[nabu]

You don't need to build a model to prove or disprove if Nerissa Gliders working or not. It is already proved to be working. Because it is made up of components already passed the test and we use in our daily life every day

I've never heard such nonsense. Are you honestly suggesting that your idea is "proven to work" because weighing scales exist?

You must prove your own theory.

 

[Mustaka]

Thank you mate.

You never know what you can do with some thing when you know how and know about it.

Did you actually think I was serious?

 

[Mustaka]

unless my inherators get some thing out of it.

Please dont tell me you have reproduced. Because if you have that is Darwins theory of evolution shot down by you as well.

 

[MikeJ]

In the figure bellow the vehicle has a gross weight of 10,000kg and slides on a slope of 1/100. A counter weight of 10,000kg x (1/100) = 100kg will stop the vehicle rolling downward. Reduce the counter weight to less than 100kg, the vehicle will slide down ward and accelerating. In this case the vehicle should recover at least 9000kg of its counter weights. Assume the unladen weight of the vehicle is 400Kg, which you need to lift the vehicle 1oom. This leaves you with 500kg x g power gain, not bad. Now you disprove this one.

By "power" I assume you mean Energy?

The formula for potential energy is mass x gravity x height. Since gravity is a constant, we can ignore this, and just concentrate on mass and height.

You start off with an initial energy of 100 x 10,000 (meters x kg) = 1,000,000 joules

With the truck at the end of the slope, you've got a weight at the top of the slope. 100kg x 100m = 10,000joules.

A 100kg weight is not going to pull a 400kg truck back up the slope. But ignoring this minor fact, if it did you'd have a 400kg truck at the top of the slope. 400kg x 100m = 40,000joules.

You start with 1,000,000 joules, you end with 40,000 joules. You've lost 96% of your energy.

 

[ORDERED WEB]

The OP consistently ignores the big picture, he chooses to look at one resource, but ignore all of the drains on the resource

Everytime someone looks at more than one isse, he refers it back to a singular one

There are many issues here
- friction
- wind resistance
- energy recovery
- efficency
- basic newtonian physics
- aerodynamics
- force vectors
- energy loss

Here are a few thoughts for the OP
- why does a pendulum stop?
- why would an ossilating see-saw stop?

The OP have a very limited grasp of physics and engineering and is peddling psuedo science to promote an idea that inst thought out, and doesnt hold up to any form of scrutiny

The OP believes that "common sense" design is a substitute for learning the principles of physics and engineering

Many times in this post have I directed the OP in the right direction to start learning the physics, and to at least get a basic grasp of the real mechanics (especially the links to do with bicycles)

A couple of diagrams isnt an invention, Dont fool yourself.

There isnt a magic bullet that will let you recover more energy than you put in

No amount od showing me pictures of a slope with some weights on this makes your idea work. Before you even think about presenting this again, you need to have done the maths and physics, and covered "all aspects" of the design, and the principles of operation. At the moment it is a hair brained idea on the back of a cigarete box

Everytime anyone has fleshed out the silly idea with figures and science, the OP ignores 99% of the calculation and says one individual aspect of the theing "could" work

Back to the real world

- people dont want transport systems that are incredibly limited in options
- the thing (even if it worked) would be a hugely expensive and impracticle thing to build

As for flyiing cars.. well whats the point in a product that relies on loads of space to land and take off, it is impractical. You may as well have a helecopter

The OP seems to want to solve the worlds transport problems by offering totally usless and impractacle ideas

 

[Swisaw]

Did you actually think I was serious?

No, certainly not. I meant when you get your own mind .

 

[Swisaw]

1) 100kg won't stop that truck rolling.
2) Why have you fixed the slope at 1:100?
3) You do accept that there's some friction involved in moving that truck, don't you? You can set the slope as shallow as possible, such that you've just enough potential energy in the truck to overcome the friction. Obviously if it's completely flat, then it doesn't move. So you need a slope. But any slope greater than necessary to overcome friction is a waste. Or you can increase the slope further, and use the weight, but then you lose the distance (because the slope is shorter). Either way, it's only going to work if you need to move things downhill.

The only reason the scales work is because you're only moving things up and down, not over a distance.

Yes, it does. 100.00kg, as counter weight, can stop a vehicle of gross weight 10,000.00kg rolling over a slope of 1/100. Here is the proof:

1- Counter weight = weight
2- counter weight on a slope = weight on a slope
Now assume the height of 100.00m is also also a slope. So the 2nd formula becomes like this:
3- 100.00kg x (100.00m/100.00m) = 10,000.00kg x (100.00m/10,000.00m)
4- 100.00kg = 100.00kg

Alternatively do it like this:

5- Counter weight = 10,000.00kg x (100.00m/10,000.00m) = 100.00Kg.

 

[MikeJ]

Go buy a model car, some string and some plastercine.

Then come back and apologise.

 

[Swisaw]

By "power" I assume you mean Energy?

The formula for potential energy is mass x gravity x height. Since gravity is a constant, we can ignore this, and just concentrate on mass and height.

You start off with an initial energy of 100 x 10,000 (meters x kg) = 1,000,000 joules

With the truck at the end of the slope, you've got a weight at the top of the slope. 100kg x 100m = 10,000joules.

A 100kg weight is not going to pull a 400kg truck back up the slope. But ignoring this minor fact, if it did you'd have a 400kg truck at the top of the slope. 400kg x 100m = 40,000joules.

You start with 1,000,000 joules, you end with 40,000 joules. You've lost 96% of your energy.

You have completely misunderstood the concept and it is not good idea to ignore gravity, constants, for what ever the reason.


The potential energy of the vehicle on the left on the top is gravity x height x weigth = 10 x 100 x 10,000 = 10.00MJ. Gravity assumed to be 10m/s/s.


10,000.00kg is the gross weight of the vehicle on the top, which means the vehicle is fully loaded. 100.00kg is the counter weight against the gross weight of the vehicle. To make the vehicle overcome the counter weight, we make it a bit heavier like adding a few killograms to it. After the vehicle becomes heavier, it starts rolling downward. For each 100.00m travel on the slope, it pulls up 100.00kg to the top. By the time it reaches the end of the slope, it pulls up 10,000.00kg to the top. This has the same potential energy of 10.00MJ.


We unload the vehicle on the ground and assume the vehicle has an unladen, empty, weight of 4,000.00kg. We have to lift up the vehicle 100.00m as on the right hand of the figure to come back. For this we need 10 x 100 x 4,000 = 4.00MJ, which we get it from the recovered energy of 10.00MJ. This leaves 6.00MJ net gain. How about that.

 

[MikeJ]

Sighs...

Ok, we'll multiply everything by 10 if it keeps you happy.

You start with a potential energy of 10.MJ

You've ended with a potential energy of 4.0MJ.

You've not gained 6MJ, it's just come from moving the weight at the top of the slope to the bottom.

 

[Swisaw]

Sighs...

Ok, we'll multiply everything by 10 if it keeps you happy.

You start with a potential energy of 10.MJ

You've ended with a potential energy of 4.0MJ.

You've not gained 6MJ, it's just come from moving the weight at the top of the slope to the bottom.

Wrong!!! look at the figure again. By the time the vehicle on the left reaches the ground, it pulls up 10,000.00kg to the top on the left. At the same time the vehicle on the right do the same thing. So we use 4,000.00kg + on each side as counter weights to raise each vehicle to the top. This leaves 6,000.00kg on the top on each side, both of which worth 120.00MJ. Did you get that?

 

[MikeJ]

You start with two vehicles, each weighing 10,000kg at the top of slopes.

You end with two vehicles each weighing 4,000kg at the top of slopes, and two lots of 6,000kg at the top of each slope.

You've started with 20,000kg at the top of a slope. You've ended with 20,000kg at the top of each slope.

(we're ignoring friction, etc for the time being).

 

[Swisaw]

You start with two vehicles, each weighing 10,000kg at the top of slopes.

You end with two vehicles each weighing 4,000kg at the top of slopes, and two lots of 6,000kg at the top of each slope.

You've started with 20,000kg at the top of a slope. You've ended with 20,000kg at the top of each slope.

(we're ignoring friction, etc for the time being).

I bet you sniff Falujah Holly Dust.

 

[roydmoorian]

I bet you sniff Falujah Holly Dust.

And just what would a person's sexuality have to do with a mis-concieved physics "problem" ?:|

 

[MikeJ]

I bet you sniff Falujah Holly Dust.

Is that supposed to be offensive?

Have you resorted to calling me names just because I've demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about?

 

[Swisaw]

As for flyiing cars.. well whats the point in a product that relies on loads of space to land and take off, it is impractical. You may as well have a helecopter

Wingless Flying car is just like helecopter, except it is handier. Consider it as a helecopter but without the propeller on the top and long tail at the back. It is radically a new aerodynamic concept.

Sign my none disclosure contract form and send it back to me with your university master degree in physics. After I contact the university to confirm your degree, I will send you full technical details of my Wingless Flying Car.

 

[MikeJ]

Just before you do that, read the 10 posts before this to realise Swisaw doesn't understand the basics of physics.

 

[paulears]

This is exactly where your simplifications show your lack of knowledge. Pulleys and rope are fine methods of connection and diversion - but are not in any sense loss-less. There are in everyday use some good examples of how the missing elements interact.

Theatres

It is century old technology to suspend items above stages and have them move in and out by the application of man(woman) power. The idea is simple. a bar over a stage might need to have 250Kg of equipment suspended. The cables go up to the grid above the stage, they then move sideways, diverted by pulleys, and then down again. On this end is cradle with 250Kg of weight in it. By the application of hand power, a heavy weight can be moved up and down very simply. However, with the brakes off, it's is quite amazing how much extra weight can be added or removed without the bar starting to run on it's own. Frictional losses in the pulleys are the main issue. The rigidity of the wire rope, the friction of the pulley bearings all conspire against exactly what you need in your design, overcoming inertia and managing momentum.

 

[Swisaw]

Just before you do that, read the 10 posts before this to realise Swisaw doesn't understand the basics of physics.

If he needs your view he will give it to you.