Nerissa Gliders

[Bes]

It wouldn't be called terminal velocity if it wasn't... well... terminal.

Do you not think you will expend masses more energy getting passengers and the train up to the 'launch' point than you will save? Even with your water pump system that has to pump water using energy from the rollers? (Which has to be sent hundreds of miles down the track in some cases). Do yo realise how much energy it will take to lift several tonnes of water up the system to counterweight the train?

Surely you must also realise that building a pillar strong enough to cope with the weight of a fully laden 'glider' AND be 100 metres tall (Assuming that's all you need, I think for London to Scotland it would be more like 10,000 metres or more) whilst the force being exerted on the pillar is off at an angle (Adding a pivotal load) is going to make this thing at best hideously expensive and probably impossible to construct? Look how much is being quoted for High Speed 2 (London- Birmingham), it's something silly and that's basically just a normal bit of railway.

Rail travel is already around 100x cleaner than air travel, and certainly cleaner than car travel... WHY does the world even need this?

 

[Tom McClelland]

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

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

If you're planning to revolutionise the transport industry the first thing you need to do is get a proper scientific/engineering training, that covers things like the laws of thermodynamics, drag, lift, efficiency, friction. If you already have science/mathematics A' Levels or equivalent expect perhaps a further 5 years of study. The days when engineers tinkering in private workshops could produce something revolutionary and new are long gone, 100 years ago. To improve what we have now you first have to thoroughly understand it, or you're just going to waste everyone's time with schemes that a moment's glance and a passing acquaintance with thermodynamics show to be impossible.

You can't get more useful energy output from a system than you put into it. Machines and passengers do not arrive at the top of a pylon with MJ of potential energy without that energy coming from somewhere. And even if you can get the potential energy "for free" somehow (eg water-driven funicular) a system where the main energy input is potential energy has an extremely limited range and slow delivery speed, because most of the energy is wasted pulling the vehicle back to the top of the slope for re-use.

 

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

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

I suspect your quote was based on the speeds obtainable in outer space.?

In which case you will need taller towers.

Earl

 

[Highland Park]

LOL

Only problem with outer space is that you have little or no gravitational pull to cause the free-fall in the first place

 

[Swisaw]

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

No!!! sorry I don't have a clue.

 

[Swisaw]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rob

Let us to build Nerissa Gliders, as power generator and passenger carrier, between Manchester and Liverpool to answer your points. The distance between both points is 50.00Km or 50,000.00metres. This is going to be the length of the slope. Let the departure point to be 200.00metre high. This gives a slope ratio of 200/50,000=1/250, which is sharp enough for the glider to glide under gravity.
This gives a gravity acceleration of (height/Slope)gravity=(200/50,000)10=0.04m/s/s. Gravity assumed to be 10.00m/s/s/s. From this formula: distance=0.5xaccelerationx(tt), you will get over 26 minutes. This is the time for Nerissa Gliders to travel between both points.


Assume unladen weight of the glider is 40% of its gross weight and at least 60% of the potential energy of the gross weight recovered. You need 40% of the gross potential energy to lift up the glider 200.00metres to the departure point. This leaves you with 20% gross potential energy for other uses. So you travelled between both points under gravity without energy cost and you got some free energy for other uses. That is not bad.

 

[Swisaw]

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

It is disappointing but you have to live with it.

 

Is your day job brain surgery.?

Only if it is would you mind telling me which hospital you work at.?:|

Earl

 

[Mpg]

Easy guys. I've just had a look at my globe and he's gotta point Glasgow to London is all downhill.

 

[Swisaw]

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

This is not terminal velocity. This is terminal disease.

 

[Swisaw]

Is your day job brain surgery.?

Only if it is would you mind telling me which hospital you work at.?:|

Earl

It is top secret. Can you sign secret act?

 

[lockie]

You would know if it was possible because some major oil company would have bought the patent or idea etc by now so they could hide it away and keep putting up fuel prices.

 

[Mpg]

Can you patent gravity.

 

[MikeJ]

Bisto managed it.

No, hang on, that was gravy.

But there's more chance of gravy powering something from Glasgow to London than this rubbish.

 

[Swisaw]

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

It should be a lot cheaper than building an A class road with two lanes, one for each direction between two points. This is because in the case of the road, each lane has to be as long as the distance between both points. But in the case of Narissa Gliders, each lane, total length of pillars, becomes half of the distance between both points. In addition it is going to be cheaper to build the pillars than the roads.

 

[Swisaw]

Bisto managed it.

No, hang on, that was gravy.

But there's more chance of gravy powering something from Glasgow to London than this rubbish.

If you look at this with an open mind, you will see no one said Nerissa Gliders can travel between Glasgow and London under gravity but certainly gravity should help a lot to reduce cost and time between both points.

 

[Tom McClelland]

An open mind is one thing. But it isn't useful to have a mind so open that your brains fall out.

The entire scheme is scientific gibberish. I suggest that you make us all look foolish by building a working model. When you try to do that you will in fact discover that your plan doesn't work. Until you've built a working model stop wasting people's time by talking about it.

 

[MikeJ]

If you look at this with an open mind, you will see no one said Nerissa Gliders can travel between Glasgow and London under gravity but certainly gravity should help a lot to reduce cost and time between both points.

Where do you mention an external energy supply?

 

[Swisaw]

In this post, I am going to rebuild Woolwich Ferry as Nerissa Gliders and answer most of the points so far have been raised.


Nerissa Gliders could cross terminal velocity or at least to have a very high terminal velocity with a proper aerodynamic design to slice into air and eliminate the drag. It can be made to have a better aerodynamic advantages than aeroplanes and Nasa Shuttle by building the glider like a cylinder in the middle with long cone shape at the back and the front. Fit the feet to each side in the middle. In this way, the glider should slice air like knife slices jelly and almost make the drag negligible. This should at least double terminal velocity if not crossing it. Now with confidence, I can say that Nerissa Gliders can shuttle between Glasgow and London in under two hours.


The route, supports or pillars, for Nerissa Gliders between two points should be a lot cheaper than building a two lane A-class road between the same two points. The length of each lane on the road, has to be approximately equal to the distance between both points. Each lane, total pillar lengths, on the route of Nerissa Gliders can be made to be less than half of the distance between both points. This is provided the distance between each two pillars is longer than the height of the departure point. It is easier and quicker to build supports of Nerissa Gliders than buildings. The supports can be prefabricated and taken to their places, which can be prepared in advance quickly.


To recover potential energy of gross weight of Nerissa Gliders, the pumps don't have to pump up water higher than the departure point. The following imaginary rebuilding of Woolwich Ferry as Nerissa Gliders makes this point clear:


Woolwich Ferry takes about 6.00 minutes per crossing and can take up to 30.00 cars. Assume the gross weight of each car is one tone, this makes a load of 30.00 tones or 30,000.00Kg ferried per crossing. We set a height of 20.00metres and and a distance of 200.00metres for the shuttle between both sides of the river. This creates a slope of 20/200=1/10 which is sharp enough for the glider to slide under gravity at an acceleration of (1/10)10=1.00m/s/s. At this acceleration the glider should do the crossing in under half minute theoretically. This is faster than the existing crossing time by over ten times.


Energy recovery and reuse:


Assume the glider caries the same load, 30 cars or 30,000.00kg load. Assume the weight of the glider is 1/3rd of the load, which is 10,000.00kg. So the gross weight becomes 40,000.00kg. This makes the potential energy of the gross weight to be 40,000.00 x 20 x 10= 8.00MJ. Potential energy=weight x height x gravity. We adjust water pumps to pump up a volume of water equal to the weight of cars on the glider to the height of departure, which is 20.00metres high. We leave the weight of the glider to drive the glider. The weight of pumped water gives a potential energy of 30,000.00 x20 x 10=6.00MJ. At the arrival point, vehicles leave the glider empty. To lift up the glider to the departure point, we use 10,000.00kg of pumped water on the top as counter weight to lift up the glider to the departure point. This leaves 20,000.00kg of pumped up water on the top with potential energy value of 2.00MJ, which can be used for other things. Here you have it; Nerissa Gliders as a vehicle ferry and energy generator.

 

[Swisaw]

An open mind is one thing. But it isn't useful to have a mind so open that your brains fall out.

The entire scheme is scientific gibberish. I suggest that you make us all look foolish by building a working model. When you try to do that you will in fact discover that your plan doesn't work. Until you've built a working model stop wasting people's time by talking about it.

It is not so scientific. It is very easy to understnad. The thing slides on a slope from a higher point to a lower point. If the slope is too sharp, it should slide under gravity with ease. If the slope is not sharp enough, you will drive it, in which case it takes less energy because it goes downward on a lubriacted rollers.

Best regards

 

[Swisaw]

Where do you mention an external energy supply?

Obviously if the slope is not sharp enough, an external energy has to be used to drive rollers on the pillars to act as driving wheels.

Best regards.

 

[Tom McClelland]

It is not so scientific. It is very easy to understnad. The thing slides on a slope from a higher point to a lower point. If the slope is too sharp, it should slide under gravity with ease. If the slope is not sharp enough, you will drive it, in which case it takes less energy because it goes downward on a lubriacted rollers.

Best regards

The glider and passengers don't get to the top of a slope for free. That isn't difficult to understand. The entire concept is gibberish. Build a working model to prove otherwise. And that is my final word in this thread.

 

[vvaannmmaann]

Will there be a branch line so I can get to see my Mum in Mid Wales?

 

[carolinebrown]

With UK Business Forums you can get complete guide!!!!!!!!!

 

[Swisaw]

The glider and passengers don't get to the top of a slope for free. That isn't difficult to understand. The entire concept is gibberish. Build a working model to prove otherwise. And that is my final word in this thread.

Don't worry about passengers to go on the slope. They have to drive or use mini cab or public transport . If the system is an energy generator, you use generated energy as counter weight to lift up the glider to the top. Otherwise levers can be used by a few employees, green energy, to take the glider back to the top.

 

[oldeagleeye]

Obviously if the slope is not sharp enough, an external energy has to be used to drive rollers on the pillars to act as driving wheels.

Best regards.

In which case you would have a rolling road and friction. Stick you 'glider' on the wheels and whoopee - you got a TRAIN.

Come on now Swisaw. You are ingnoring the basic laws in gravity and aeordynamics but hey you think this will work. Have a word with NASA. They are quite good at bringing back gliders from outer space.

 

[Experienced IT guy]

Having a degree in physics from Oxford university encourages me to believe this is one of those "perpetual motion" machines. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created, it can however be dissipated. The second law of thermodynamics states how much energy is turned into heat by any process. I would stop wasting you time trying to patent this.

 

Having a degree in physics from Oxford university encourages me to believe this is one of those "perpetual motion" machines. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created, it can however be dissipated. The second law of thermodynamics states how much energy is turned into heat by any process. I would stop wasting you time trying to patent this.

And the other law is that energy can never be destroyed.

Earl

 

[Experienced IT guy]

And the other law is that energy can never be destroyed.

Earl

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

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

But then again who knows?

 

[mm60103]

Can't see this idea working at all. Sadly there is no such thing as a free lunch.

I'm good that the car will free wheel down the slope and that with a series of weights it could be brought back up the slope.

1: Lets say the run you suggest is 1 mile. Have you considered where you are going to route 1 mile of cable.

2: what happens to the car behind the first one - doesn't it get snagged up in car no 1's retrieval wire?

3: Exactly how much does 1 mile of cable weigh. You need energy to move the car but also to move 1 mile of cable.

4: How much energy is expended moving the pile of weights under the lift off point to bring the car no 1 back.

Nice in principle but as an engineer in my opinion the system is flawed.

 

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

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

But then again who knows?

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

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

Earl

 

[Jeff FV]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clever people those Victorians.

Jeff

 

[mm60103]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clever people those Victorians.

Jeff

The Victorians installed a cliff lift at Saltburn by the sea. 2 carriages running up tracks laid into the cliff side. As the carriage at the top starts to descend so it pulls the one at the bottom up. There is a counter balance required and in this case they use water to fill a tank fitted to the carriage. check on any of the search engines. Still in use today.

The idea as suggested at the beginning of this string is a total nonsense.

 

[MikeJ]

Funicular Railways.

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

 

[ORDERED WEB]

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

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

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

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

Here is the big issue with the numbers

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

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

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

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

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

"Every action has an equal and oposite reaction"

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

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

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

 

[ORDERED WEB]

The Victorians installed a cliff lift at Saltburn by the sea. 2 carriages running up tracks laid into the cliff side. As the carriage at the top starts to descend so it pulls the one at the bottom up. There is a counter balance required and in this case they use water to fill a tank fitted to the carriage. check on any of the search engines. Still in use today.

The idea as suggested at the beginning of this string is a total nonsense.

This works, becaue there is a free flowiung supply of water in the right place. Without this, you need to transport the water back up the hill

I.e. It is not a closed system, it is a efficent and clever system that rellies on the potential energy gained from the free flowing water

However - that energy was collected when the water warmed up, evaporated, and then rained down and ended up in its stream

 

[Highland Park]

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

 

[Jeff FV]

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

Brilliant!

Watch it - worth 3 mins of your time & might even put a smile on your face!

 

[Swisaw]

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

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



But then again who knows?

That doesn't mean you destroyed energy. You simply moved the energy from one medium to another. In this way you made one of them cooler and the other one hotter.

The same amount of energy in universe will always stay the same but if universe expands this energy also expands to spreed in a larger area. Obviously this may lead to obsolute zero after trilion x trilion years. But why we should bother about what happens after trilion x trilion years. Let us to bother about today to create green energy and cleaner environment.

 

[Swisaw]

Can't see this idea working at all. Sadly there is no such thing as a free lunch.

I'm good that the car will free wheel down the slope and that with a series of weights it could be brought back up the slope.

1: Lets say the run you suggest is 1 mile. Have you considered where you are going to route 1 mile of cable.

2: what happens to the car behind the first one - doesn't it get snagged up in car no 1's retrieval wire?

3: Exactly how much does 1 mile of cable weigh. You need energy to move the car but also to move 1 mile of cable.

4: How much energy is expended moving the pile of weights under the lift off point to bring the car no 1 back.

Nice in principle but as an engineer in my opinion the system is flawed.

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

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