General Business Forum Brought to you by Total Gas & Power

Nerissa Gliders

Discussion in 'General Business Forum' started by Swisaw, Jan 31, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MikeJ

    MikeJ UKBF Big Shot Free Member

    5,677 1,631
    Disproved. Still waiting for you to apologise for being wrong. (again).
     
    Posted: Mar 25, 2011 By: MikeJ Member since: Jan 15, 2008
  2. Swisaw

    Swisaw UKBF Ace Full Member

    1,824 149


    [​IMG]




    Pulleys and ropes in the figures are just for the sake of conveying the idea. They are not parts of Nerissa Gliders. To recover energy, Gliders of Nerissa Gliders glide over fixed wheels on the way. The wheels are coupled to water pumps to pump up water to certain heights, usually to a height higher than the departure point of gliders. At the arrival point, the accumulated water used as a counter weight to lift up the glider to the departure point.


    The gliders operate like the old scale. As long as a glider is heavier than the weight of the water pumped up, it continues moving and accelerating.
     
    Posted: Mar 26, 2011 By: Swisaw Member since: Sep 24, 2010
  3. vvaannmmaann

    vvaannmmaann UKBF Legend Free Member

    13,112 3,369
    I did ask you some time ago about running a branch line into Mid Wales so I could go to see my Mum.I have not seen your response.
    Please advise.
     
    Posted: Mar 26, 2011 By: vvaannmmaann Member since: Nov 6, 2007
  4. Swisaw

    Swisaw UKBF Ace Full Member

    1,824 149
    We completed the line to the door of the good old lady, your mum. We asked her permission to give you a free ride to visit her. Unfortunately she refused and stated categorically that she had nothing to do with you and she refused to recognise you as her son. We tried to reason with her but didn't help. We gave up. Nevertheless if you still want to go, a discounted ticket for £250.00 is available for you. Just deposit the money into my account to get your ride.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2011
    Posted: Mar 26, 2011 By: Swisaw Member since: Sep 24, 2010
  5. vvaannmmaann

    vvaannmmaann UKBF Legend Free Member

    13,112 3,369
    Shame really,seems like such a sensible transport solution.
     
    Posted: Mar 26, 2011 By: vvaannmmaann Member since: Nov 6, 2007
  6. paulears

    paulears UKBF Big Shot Full Member

    3,993 986
    Every time we think we're approaching the destination - the buffers get moved.

    Have you looked into pump efficiencies? Seen the size of the pumps that have to be used to transport fluids via pipelines? Total non-starter. The only place they could be used is when you need braking at the end, when the energy transfer could be used to recover the energy of the deceleration stage.
     
    Posted: Mar 26, 2011 By: paulears Member since: Jan 7, 2015
  7. MikeJ

    MikeJ UKBF Big Shot Free Member

    5,677 1,631
    Still waiting.
     
    Posted: Mar 26, 2011 By: MikeJ Member since: Jan 15, 2008
  8. Swisaw

    Swisaw UKBF Ace Full Member

    1,824 149
    You claim you have disproved the following post:
    But you have not given any reason or explanation for your claim. You just claim it is wrong. If it si so simple, I just say no it is right to disprove you. You said a counter weight of 100kg is not enough for a larger weight on a slope. I disproved you with a formula. O.K. do what I did, disprove me with a formula or two.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2011
    Posted: Mar 27, 2011 By: Swisaw Member since: Sep 24, 2010
  9. MikeJ

    MikeJ UKBF Big Shot Free Member

    5,677 1,631
    Start with 10,000kg at 100m

    How much weight do you end up with at the top of the slope at the end? It's less than 10,000kg, therefore there's no power gain.

    If you put 10,000kg on one end of a rope and 100kg on the other end, the 10,000kg is going to move down. Gravity points downwards, not "along" the slope.
     
    Posted: Mar 27, 2011 By: MikeJ Member since: Jan 15, 2008
  10. paulears

    paulears UKBF Big Shot Full Member

    3,993 986
    The point being missed is that these formulae do not prove or disprove anything because they do not take into account all the forces acting in the example. Most formulae can be simplified to a degree, removing the components considered unlikely to impact the result to a particular degree. In your case, the basic formula you use ignores many pretty important factors, so cannot provide a robust and reliable result. You've used the scales analogy previously, but the precision of the scale depends on the design. You can balance a plank on a wall, and put a bucket on each end - friction and the surface area of the pivot mean you could quite possible conclude that a weight of 10Kg on one end is a perfect balance with one of 10.5Kg on the other. It's obviously not, but not taking into account all the forces involved means the conclusion is flawed. As all of us, except one, believe the Nerissa Glider is an example of a misinterpreted conclusion.
     
    Posted: Mar 27, 2011 By: paulears Member since: Jan 7, 2015
  11. Swisaw

    Swisaw UKBF Ace Full Member

    1,824 149

    The only other factors influence the formula is the friction and the wind. The friction is negligible because it is lubricated. The wind may be with you or against you, which is not a big deal Simply you have to be ready to deal with it in case it comes against you. This is to bear in mind that Nerissa Gliders can have the most superior aerodynamics, superior than aerodynamics of NASA machines.
     
    Posted: Mar 28, 2011 By: Swisaw Member since: Sep 24, 2010
  12. paulears

    paulears UKBF Big Shot Full Member

    3,993 986
    If you are using the friction to pump the water, it cannot be excluded from the calculations, and a transport system that requires wind to be in anything other than 25% of the available potential directions is a bit unreliable. Sorry, your ticket is useless today, Nerissa Gliders are not running today because the wind is coming from the wrong direction!
     
    Posted: Mar 28, 2011 By: paulears Member since: Jan 7, 2015
  13. Set up a Company

    Set up a Company UKBF Newcomer Full Member

    44 6
    I'm thinking of writing a book of Swisaw quotes. This may be my favourite so far. Anybody else have a favourite?
     
    Posted: Mar 28, 2011 By: Set up a Company Member since: Jan 12, 2011
  14. KernowQueen

    KernowQueen UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    429 85
    i'm really hoping this might make an appearance sometime soon...


    "ok, you're all right & i'm wrong, bye!" :cool:
     
    Posted: Mar 28, 2011 By: KernowQueen Member since: Oct 21, 2010
  15. dannier

    dannier UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    48 3

    i just think so you are so great at physics,But the long way,there do waste so much energy.

    If that theory can available,that will be nice prosperity of the world but not good future for the Car Company,we will just need a vehicle or something like that to glide.That will amazing.

    but all the road should special made.

    Anyway,thanks for your shares and Hope your love will be eternal.

    Regards
     
    Posted: Mar 28, 2011 By: dannier Member since: Oct 12, 2010
  16. paulears

    paulears UKBF Big Shot Full Member

    3,993 986
    Better still it could become the basis of someone's dissertation for their degree, showing how molehills can become mountains if you mess the scale of the plan up!
     
    Posted: Mar 28, 2011 By: paulears Member since: Jan 7, 2015
  17. Swisaw

    Swisaw UKBF Ace Full Member

    1,824 149
    [​IMG]


    Off course gravity points downward. That is way things move downward on a slope. If the above figures didn't prove the concept to you nothing would ever prove it to you.


    On the first figure, both gliders are fully loaded on the departure point and ready to travel. Each has a gross weight of 10,100kgs. Recovery power tank is empty and reservoir tank is full.


    On figure 2, both gliders have reached to their destination, arrival point, at each end. Each one pumped 10,000kg of water into recovery power tank while gliding downward. Now the recovery power tank contains 20,000kg of water as recovered power. The gliders now empty and each one has an empty weight of 4,100kgs. Each gliders used 100kgs as a driving weight.


    On figure 3, empty gliders lifted up to departure points to start another journey. For the lifting, 4,100kgs of water from power recovery tank used as counter weight for each glider. So a total of 8,100kgs has been used as counter weight. The counter weight water gone back to the reservoir. Now power recovery tank still contains 11,800kg of recovered power.


    Assume this 11,800kgs also used to over come friction and wind. So still it is not bad. We got a green transportation system operating without the cost of power and co2. How about that? Did you get that?
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2011
    Posted: Mar 29, 2011 By: Swisaw Member since: Sep 24, 2010
  18. paulears

    paulears UKBF Big Shot Full Member

    3,993 986
    Nope. It's just vapour. You give some maths and then use the word 'assume'.

    Friction and wind. What calculations have you done to produce the data that covers this area.

    Assume makes an ass out of you and me is a very good starting point.

    Stand on skis on a gentle snow slope and you move downhill, stand on them in the summer and you don't. However, skiers will also tell you that the increase in friction from 10am snow to 3pm snow may indeed make some downhill slopes flat, for all intents and purposes. Your slope angle is flatter than many ski slopes - the gentle ones that are basically roads under the snow. You need downforce on your 'wheels' to operate the pumps, but this downforce could well be enough to stop the glider gliding. Earlier you extolled the lift capabilities of your aerodynamics, and now you are using the weight to operate pumps. You cannot have it both ways. As each objection is brought up to your physics mangling, you 'invent' a new chunk of the project, that ruins older info you provided.

    I think many of us suspect that the only success this project has had is to generate hundreds of posts on your chosen subject. For that, you are to be congratulated.
     
    Posted: Mar 29, 2011 By: paulears Member since: Jan 7, 2015
  19. roydmoorian

    roydmoorian UKBF Ace Full Member - Verified Business

    1,953 342
    May I add another theory to this thread ?

    Black is white and white is black and no-one can prove otherwise to me :D
     
    Posted: Mar 29, 2011 By: roydmoorian Member since: Nov 6, 2009
  20. MikeJ

    MikeJ UKBF Big Shot Free Member

    5,677 1,631
    You still end up with less energy than you started with. What you've lost is the energy you've used in overcoming frictionl, wind resistance, mechanical losses, and any inefficiencies in the mechanics. You've assumed these to be 200kg, but there's no scientific basis for this.

    Regardless, your maths is "original energy" - "lost energy" = "final energy". That's no different to any other system. The only reason you think your system is "green" is because you're assuming the load always wants to move down hill. If the load now wants to move back to the top of the slopes, you're going to have to add the energy back in to the system to overcome the losses.

    Now read this bit really slowly.....

    The total loss in moving the cargo on your system is the loss due to friction, wind resistance, innefficiencies etc. That's no difference to any other system in the world.
     
    Posted: Mar 29, 2011 By: MikeJ Member since: Jan 15, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.