i think you'll find that somewhere at the beginning of this thread the OP did explain that Nerissa was the name of his late wife...
Upvote
0
Nerissa Gliders
- Thread starter Swisaw
- Start date
i think you'll find that somewhere at the beginning of this thread the OP did explain that Nerissa was the name of his late wife...
G
gmoto
Sorry, missed this. Your van isn't powered by gravity.
A vehicle powered by gravity seemed to be the main selling point you were trying to push.
Try doing that journey in neutral gear.
Once you start putting a load of external power in, you merely have a train. If you put all the motors on the track rather than in the train it's self, you have a very, very, very expensive train.
Upvote
0
I love the theoretical speeds - 'of course, ignoring wind resistance'.
Any bikers on here? I've got an unfaired bike and at just 80mph, the force attempting to lob you off the back is considerable. To accelerate, you have to first apply a force greater than that, and then add some. Hence at a certain speed, no more 'spare' power to accelerate.
It does not matter if the power comes from gravity or a motor - you need more and more. It's why a 1000bhp car only goes three times faster than a 60BHP car. Massive energy required.
P.S. Did you think about getting the passengers to carry the water up in buckets?
Any bikers on here? I've got an unfaired bike and at just 80mph, the force attempting to lob you off the back is considerable. To accelerate, you have to first apply a force greater than that, and then add some. Hence at a certain speed, no more 'spare' power to accelerate.
It does not matter if the power comes from gravity or a motor - you need more and more. It's why a 1000bhp car only goes three times faster than a 60BHP car. Massive energy required.
P.S. Did you think about getting the passengers to carry the water up in buckets?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #207
Fair points but all these problems have engineering solutions. If you build aeroplanes and make it to fly with over hundred tones of gross weight or build magnetic trains to make it suspend in the air with hundreds of tones of gross weight surely you should be able to build also Nerissa Gliders and a lot better than aeroplanes and maglev trains. Maglev trains and modern aeroplanes need very expensive capitals skills and large capital investment. On the other hand you can build Nerissa Gliders with the application of classical physics, which needs very inexpensive capital skills. You can train quickly any one to build and run Nerissa Gliders. You have to train people for years to develop the skill to build and run aeroplanes and magnetic trains.
The reason trains and aeroplanes are heavy is because they have to carry engines, fuels, lubricant, wheels, gear boxes and 1001 other associated parts and because of the way they have to be constructed to carry loads and overcome and use air resistance. The gliders of Nerissa Gliders don't carry these major components and don't need to have any major moving parts except some thing like a fan for air conditions. When compared with aeroplanes body and carriage weight, the gliders of Nerissa Gliders could become ten times lighter for the same carriage.
Nerissa Gliders can be built with important aerodynamic advantages over aeroplanes and fast trains like bullet or maglev trains. Aeroplanes and fast trains need air help to move. Fast trains need aerodynamic designs to press the train against the rails to get a good traction. Aeroplanes need aerodynamic designs to help aeroplanes to fly. But all these designs obstacle the speed and cost more fuel and wear and tears. On the other hand, aerodynamic designs of Nerissa gliders made to get rid of air resistance as an obstacle to speed and to reduce wear and tears.
Gliders of Nerissa Gliders can be made like a cylinder in the middle with long cones at the back and front. This creates an aerodynamic shape, which makes air resistance almost negligible and could make Nerissa Gliders to cross terminal velocity or at least obtain very high terminal velocity. The wheels are not fixed to the gliders. They are fixed on the ground for the gliders to pass over them. To minimise wear and tears on the wheels, the gliders can include aerodynamic shapes to give them a bit of lift to minimise thrust on the wheels. This doesn't cause traction problem because the feet of gliders can be sandwiched between two driving wheels, one under the feet and the other on the feet, pressing the feet against each other.
Generally frictions have been made negligible on every applications with the use of lubricated bearings. So it is not a major issue with Nerissa Gliders.
Upvote
0
But you still have not answered the problem of wind resistance. It gets more - massively more - at higher speeds, requiring ever increasing energy to overcome.
Unless you are planning on making the vehicle one atom high (not much room for passengers), even the most aerodynamic model will have a terminal velocity.
The effective speed will be determined by the power available from the slope compared to the power needed overcome wind resistance to accelerate. Given the extremely shallow slopes, top speed is likely to be a few miles per hour, even assuming you can get a 100% lossless wheel system (which is also impossible, especially if you want them to run at high speeds).
Try it on a bike. Find a long, steady hill that's not very steep. Start at the top. You WILL accelerate at first, but then reach a stable speed. If you cant find a long enough hill, start at the expected speed, and do not pedal, and see if you accelerate. On the sort of extra shallow slopes you are talking about (like a 1 in 10,000) you top speed is going to be low - much lower than if you supplied extra energy by pedalling.
Some of the ideas you have - light weight, aerodynamic - work, but gravity is such a weak force on such a shallow slope its not going to help.
PS Building a model won't help, as air resistance has odd effects as different scales.
Unless you are planning on making the vehicle one atom high (not much room for passengers), even the most aerodynamic model will have a terminal velocity.
The effective speed will be determined by the power available from the slope compared to the power needed overcome wind resistance to accelerate. Given the extremely shallow slopes, top speed is likely to be a few miles per hour, even assuming you can get a 100% lossless wheel system (which is also impossible, especially if you want them to run at high speeds).
Try it on a bike. Find a long, steady hill that's not very steep. Start at the top. You WILL accelerate at first, but then reach a stable speed. If you cant find a long enough hill, start at the expected speed, and do not pedal, and see if you accelerate. On the sort of extra shallow slopes you are talking about (like a 1 in 10,000) you top speed is going to be low - much lower than if you supplied extra energy by pedalling.
Some of the ideas you have - light weight, aerodynamic - work, but gravity is such a weak force on such a shallow slope its not going to help.
PS Building a model won't help, as air resistance has odd effects as different scales.
Upvote
0
"cross terminal velocity or at least obtain very high terminal velocity"
You can't cross terminal velocity. It's terminal.
It's based on the aerodynamics of the shape. To take passengers, you are limited to certain shapes - Aeroplanes are pretty good, and look at the thrust needed to force them through even the less dense air at altitude.
Consider some military planes. The leading edge heats up to a couple of hundred degrees just due to air friction. That heat energy has to come from somewhere - and without significant amount of power, the plane would slow to a much lower speed.
You can't cross terminal velocity. It's terminal.
It's based on the aerodynamics of the shape. To take passengers, you are limited to certain shapes - Aeroplanes are pretty good, and look at the thrust needed to force them through even the less dense air at altitude.
Consider some military planes. The leading edge heats up to a couple of hundred degrees just due to air friction. That heat energy has to come from somewhere - and without significant amount of power, the plane would slow to a much lower speed.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Give it up guys. There are 2 sorts of people in this world that you can never talk sense to no matter how hard you try.
A drunk and a deluded chips as chips removal man who drives an old blue transit around North London with barely enough cash in his pocket to buy a pint of petrol dreaming about gliders that need no power at all to travel at the speed of light - apart that is from a squirt of water from a hose pipe.
Will someone then please try to put him out of his misery. Someone with an old Blue Peter video showing the amazing things that you can do with an empty bottle of fairy liquid and some cardboard perhaps. That should keep him busy for 20 years trying to make a prototype.
A drunk and a deluded chips as chips removal man who drives an old blue transit around North London with barely enough cash in his pocket to buy a pint of petrol dreaming about gliders that need no power at all to travel at the speed of light - apart that is from a squirt of water from a hose pipe.
Will someone then please try to put him out of his misery. Someone with an old Blue Peter video showing the amazing things that you can do with an empty bottle of fairy liquid and some cardboard perhaps. That should keep him busy for 20 years trying to make a prototype.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
J
Jeff Knows
.. Why would you have the vehicle pull up the weights in the first place? Why not just start with the thing at the bottom of the slope, long rope, bricks on the end and lob 'em off a cliff... pull the vehicle up.
Then untie the bricks and let it go back on it's own, pay some folks to carry the bricks back up.
Then untie the bricks and let it go back on it's own, pay some folks to carry the bricks back up.
Upvote
0
Guys, this is clearly a wind up - stop posting
Hi All
I'm not sure that the above is fair. I haven't read the full thread - I don't have time. However, there are definitely some patent applications pending (it seems some of the below are no longer pending):
(Journal 6245) GB0823175.5Applicant: Ahmad, Rahman Mawlood
Title: Gravity operated machines
Date Lodged: 19 December 200811 February 2009
(Journal 6247) GB0900510.9Applicant: Ahmad, Rahman Mawlood
Title: Gravity operated machine
Date Lodged: 14 January 200908 April 2009
(Journal 6255) GB0903071.9Applicant: Ahmad, Rahman Mawlood
Title: Force multiplier machine
Date Lodged: 24 February 200909 December 2009
(Journal 6290) GB0918421.9Applicant: Ahmad, Rahman Mawlood
Title: Linear electric generator force multiplier
Date Lodged: 21 October 2009
Priority: [GB0903071 24 February 2009]20 January 2010
(Journal 6296) GB0921507.0Applicant: Ahmad, Rahman Mawlood
Title: Sample collector
Date Lodged: 9 December 200910 February 2010
(Journal 6299) GB0921931.2Applicant: Ahmad, Rahman Mawlood
Title: Sample collector
Date Lodged: 16 December 2009
Addenda25 August 2010
(Journal 6327) GB1011744.8Applicant: Ahmad, Rahman Mawlood
Title: Mobile road
Date Lodged: 13 July 201020 October 2010
(Journal 6335) GB1014979.7Applicant: Ahmad, Rahman Mawlood
Title: Multi use
Date Lodged: 9 September 2010
Parent Filing Date: 21 October 2009
Priority: [GB0903071 24 February 2009]27 October 2010
(Journal 6336) GB1015548.9Applicant: Ahmad, Rahman M
Title: Multi use
Date Lodged: 17 September 2010
Parent Filing Date: 21 October 2009
Priority: [GB0903071 24 February 2009]05 January 2011
(Journal 6346) GB1019714.3Applicant: Ahmad, Rahman Mawlood
Title: Multi use
Date Lodged: 22 November 2010
Priority: [GB1011744 13 July 2010]
Without know the full details of the inventions disclosed in the applications I think it's impossible to comment on their merit - there may be some good idea there even if it isn't coming across on this thread. If planes had not been invented then if someone on UKBF said they had invented a flying machine the response may have been....well, unwelcoming.
I'm not at all saying that the inventor is correct about his assertions, just that we should perhaps keep an open mind....especially when you don't know exactly what he is trying to protect.
David
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #218
Let us to build Nerissa Gliders between Manchester and Liverpool to explore all options as an example of green and environmental machine. Manchester is 125.00metres over sea level and Liverpool is 70.00metres over sea level. This makes Manchester higher by 125.00 - 70.00 = 55.00metres than Liverpool. The distance between both points is 52.00Km from centre to centre. One option is to build it a long existing railway lines. This option should reduce the cost of fuel and wear and tear caused by unloaded major components and it should reduce travel time. For an assumed acceleration of 0.25m/s/s, it shouldn't take more than 15.00minutes.
Another option is to build a route along the existing railways but on an even level. In that case, we have to build the station in Liverpool 55.00metre high and outside the city. So passengers and cargoes in Liverpool have to go up 55.00metre, which produce CO2 and have a fuel cost but most of this cost can be recovered. Because potential energies of the vehicles take up passengers and cargoes can be recovered and the potential energy of what ever comes from Manchester can be recovered too. Because the gliders are travelling on an even level, they need a minimum amount of energy to run. The potential energy of cargoes and passengers coming from Manchester could be quite more than enough to run the gliders on both directions. With a few windmills build a long the route, we should have energy enough to run the gliders at any weather conditions at their usual speed. On the other thought, because Liverpool is on the sea, where wind power always available, windmills can be build near the sea to supply power to Nerissa Gliders Shuttling between Manchester and Liverpool.
Alternatively, we can build it between both points to depend on gravity power mainly. This is assuming we can get a straight or nearly straight route between both points. The stations has to be built outside the cities with an assumption distance of 40.00km or 40,000.00metres between both points. To get a gradient or a slope sharp enough for gravity, we use a height of at least 200.00metres in Manchester. But in Liverpool, we use the same height of 55.00metres to keep the even level route from Liverpool to Manchester.
The Gliders from Liverpool to Manchester move on an even level route. So they don't need a lot of energy. Cargoes and passengers in Liverpool go up 55.00metres in vehicles. This cost fuel and create CO2 over 55.00metres. But potential energy of vehicles going up can be recovered, when they come down, and stored for reuse later. In Manchester, cargoes and passengers have to go up 200.00metres, which cost fuel and create CO2. But potential energy of vehicles going up can be recovered, when they come down, and stored for reuse later.
The gross weight potential energy of gliders from Manchester to Liverpool can be recovered and stored for reuse later. Potential energy of cargoes and passengers coming from Manchester can be recovered at Liverpool station when they descent 55.00metres. The total energy recovered and stored should be more than enough to drive gliders from Liverpool to Manchester and lift up them 200.00metre in Manchester.
In this system, we operate a transportation system between Manchester and Liverpool possibly without any external energy input and with a negligible CO2 production. CO2 produced only on a route of 255.00metres, 200.00metre in Manchester and 55.00metre in Liverpool. But we eliminated CO2 production on 80,000metre route, 40,00.00metre per direction. Because the gliders don't carry major operating components, wear and tear almost become negligible. Accordingly no machine can be as green as and as environmental as Nerissa gliders.
http://thrilling.me.uk/
Another option is to build a route along the existing railways but on an even level. In that case, we have to build the station in Liverpool 55.00metre high and outside the city. So passengers and cargoes in Liverpool have to go up 55.00metre, which produce CO2 and have a fuel cost but most of this cost can be recovered. Because potential energies of the vehicles take up passengers and cargoes can be recovered and the potential energy of what ever comes from Manchester can be recovered too. Because the gliders are travelling on an even level, they need a minimum amount of energy to run. The potential energy of cargoes and passengers coming from Manchester could be quite more than enough to run the gliders on both directions. With a few windmills build a long the route, we should have energy enough to run the gliders at any weather conditions at their usual speed. On the other thought, because Liverpool is on the sea, where wind power always available, windmills can be build near the sea to supply power to Nerissa Gliders Shuttling between Manchester and Liverpool.
Alternatively, we can build it between both points to depend on gravity power mainly. This is assuming we can get a straight or nearly straight route between both points. The stations has to be built outside the cities with an assumption distance of 40.00km or 40,000.00metres between both points. To get a gradient or a slope sharp enough for gravity, we use a height of at least 200.00metres in Manchester. But in Liverpool, we use the same height of 55.00metres to keep the even level route from Liverpool to Manchester.
The Gliders from Liverpool to Manchester move on an even level route. So they don't need a lot of energy. Cargoes and passengers in Liverpool go up 55.00metres in vehicles. This cost fuel and create CO2 over 55.00metres. But potential energy of vehicles going up can be recovered, when they come down, and stored for reuse later. In Manchester, cargoes and passengers have to go up 200.00metres, which cost fuel and create CO2. But potential energy of vehicles going up can be recovered, when they come down, and stored for reuse later.
The gross weight potential energy of gliders from Manchester to Liverpool can be recovered and stored for reuse later. Potential energy of cargoes and passengers coming from Manchester can be recovered at Liverpool station when they descent 55.00metres. The total energy recovered and stored should be more than enough to drive gliders from Liverpool to Manchester and lift up them 200.00metre in Manchester.
In this system, we operate a transportation system between Manchester and Liverpool possibly without any external energy input and with a negligible CO2 production. CO2 produced only on a route of 255.00metres, 200.00metre in Manchester and 55.00metre in Liverpool. But we eliminated CO2 production on 80,000metre route, 40,00.00metre per direction. Because the gliders don't carry major operating components, wear and tear almost become negligible. Accordingly no machine can be as green as and as environmental as Nerissa gliders.
http://thrilling.me.uk/
Last edited:
Upvote
0
What this hapless wannabe garage inventor doesn't understand is the difference between wind and air. He is full of the first but obviously hasn't got a clue about the effects air resistance regardless of any wind. That the density of air is far higher at ground level and gets thinner the higher you go until you break through into space and there is none.
It stands to reason then that the nearer to the ground you are the more power you need to drive an object through the air. Gravity itself of course can provide a driving force but if you stuck a 747 at the top of a even a step hill it wouldn't travel more that a few metres when the road leveled out. To suggest that a few small water wheels would drive it forward is nonsense. You could stick a dozen fire engines behind with high pressure pumps and it wouldn't get up a 1 mph.
Fill the fuel tanks with the same amount of fuel as it would normally use for a Glasgow to London trip and send it down the M1 and I doubt it would pass Newcastle.
In fact the only way it can reach London would be to climb to 40,000 ft where the air is much thinner and where the fuel/air mixture can be turned from rich to lean greatly reducing the amount needed and even then about 150 miles out from London it is one long glide path from 40,000 ft high - not an bloody ant hill in Glasgow.
It stands to reason then that the nearer to the ground you are the more power you need to drive an object through the air. Gravity itself of course can provide a driving force but if you stuck a 747 at the top of a even a step hill it wouldn't travel more that a few metres when the road leveled out. To suggest that a few small water wheels would drive it forward is nonsense. You could stick a dozen fire engines behind with high pressure pumps and it wouldn't get up a 1 mph.
Fill the fuel tanks with the same amount of fuel as it would normally use for a Glasgow to London trip and send it down the M1 and I doubt it would pass Newcastle.
In fact the only way it can reach London would be to climb to 40,000 ft where the air is much thinner and where the fuel/air mixture can be turned from rich to lean greatly reducing the amount needed and even then about 150 miles out from London it is one long glide path from 40,000 ft high - not an bloody ant hill in Glasgow.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Do you think a F1 team, or train designer, or car designer hasn't poured millions into aerodynamics? The laws of physics still apply to them
What concerns me is that the moment someone questions the physics, you answer with Nerrisa Gliders "could" do this that and the other
Until you publish the maths, I cant take you seriously
Forget the lot, think about safety
How much ought a vehical weigh to ensure it is safe? There is a reason a Volvo weighs 2 tonnes. Dont bother answering with a "could" or "should" Answer with the Maths, backed up with the physics and equations
Remember, cars "could" be made out of Kevlar, but because of $$$ they are not. Trains and planes are in the same boat
I find it hard to believe you have the "magic bullet" when it comes to aerodynamics. Why do you think F1 teams use wind tunnels? because they need to test what the computer says in the real world
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #222
You have to recognise this fact: Cars especially F1, trains, aeroplanes and Nasa Shuttle need to use air, because of which they include aerodynamic designs. These aerodynamic designs cost fuel, more wears and tears and obstacle the speed. Cars especially F1 and trains need to use air to get good traction. Aeroplanes and Nasa shuttle need to use air to fly. But this is not so with Nerissa gliders, which are hanging gliders, don't need aerodynamic designs to use the air. But need aerodynamic designs to get rid of air. But the sort of aerodynamic designs you need with Nerissa Gliders help to reduce fuel and wear and tear cost. Because in the case of Nerissa Gliders aerodynamic designs used to get rid of air and wind resistance, not to use them. The nature of Nerissa Gliders aerodynamics doesn't add any extra weight or obstacles. This is a fact.
Nerissa Gliders is safer than the rest. Becuase no matter what happens, the gliders can not fall on their position, even on head to head collision, which is impossible.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #223
Propulsion:
The system may need two parallel propulsion arrangements to run gliders on both direction, each one can drive gliders on both directions in case one of them goes under service. The route also need a smaller service lane for emergency and services. So service gliders can continually service the route without causing shuttle disruption. Chinese German-made maglev collided with service wagon caused serious damages. Nerissa Gliders is going to be immune from this risk
Rollers:
Rollers on the country side are going to be protected from elements. The cost on the long term is going to be a lot cheaper. The gliders don't need major services because they don't have major moving parts a part from some thing like fans for air conditioning. Service gliders become like mobile depots to service rollers and associated parts.
Glider Path:
It doesn't have to be straight unless a sharp slope obtained to use gravity. Nothing can stop you to build an even level path when you can build the route, which is not straight. An even level route will cost more than a route, which is not level. But it is going to be very cheap on the long run.
So to conclude, Nerissa Gliders should become the preferred method to existing major transportation systems like trains and aeroplanes.
Upvote
0
Do a Google search for Nerissa Gliders - you will find the same initial post on many, many forums - some very obscure like physics ones, so I suspect the entire thing is some kind of viral attempt. If you notice some comment on it on forums inhabited by engineering/physics type people you'll find comments similar to ours where science poo-poos the entire thing, along the lines of perpetual motion.
The science, reading these posts, is 100% solid the energy calculations simply do not work. However, there does seem to be a personal reason for keeping the project talked about on the internet - the project is named after someone who was lost, and perhaps this is the intent. I can't be harsh, because it probably is comforting in some way to have a project like this being talked about so much - BUT, I fear it's getting out of proportion.
The science is flawed, the project is flawed, so perhaps the topic should be closed. World wide, the post count on this subject is immense - and post count, I suspect, is the reason for keeping it going.
On another forum, the same topic has this note with a link to this forum.
The science, reading these posts, is 100% solid the energy calculations simply do not work. However, there does seem to be a personal reason for keeping the project talked about on the internet - the project is named after someone who was lost, and perhaps this is the intent. I can't be harsh, because it probably is comforting in some way to have a project like this being talked about so much - BUT, I fear it's getting out of proportion.
The science is flawed, the project is flawed, so perhaps the topic should be closed. World wide, the post count on this subject is immense - and post count, I suspect, is the reason for keeping it going.
On another forum, the same topic has this note with a link to this forum.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
You consistently and conveniently skirt over the important bits.. until you come back with solid maths and physics, it is a dream.
Im out
Last edited:
Upvote
0
He is just an attention seeker and the more he gets the more he brags about it. He mentions on another forum for instance that his thread here has had 5,000 views.
What he DOESN'T say is of those 5,000 only a DOZEN or so members bothered to reply. Almost all pointing the very basic flaws fairy liquid rocket.
The rest - and that is virtually all that 5000 have read a sentence or two of blue van mad stupid claims obviously pisssssing themselves laughing at his ideas couldn't be bothered to reply - and now I am gone too.
Suggest you all do the same.
What he DOESN'T say is of those 5,000 only a DOZEN or so members bothered to reply. Almost all pointing the very basic flaws fairy liquid rocket.
The rest - and that is virtually all that 5000 have read a sentence or two of blue van mad stupid claims obviously pisssssing themselves laughing at his ideas couldn't be bothered to reply - and now I am gone too.
Suggest you all do the same.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #229
If you are claiming the science is flowed and the project is flowed at least explain why? If you claim some thing; you must also prove it. Otherwise your claims don't have any value. The project is working and it is unique. It is still patent pending. I don't have resources to hire patent attorney but can afford to pay for search and get published by patent office. UK business community need to rescue this project. It will generate millions of jobs in UK and can become a multi billion pound business. Otherwise foreign business will take it over for nothing and will export it back to UK. What a waste!!!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I think you are getting friction because we all feel the same sentiments. The problem you have is, when someone queries the physics, you leap into the world of "should" "could" "if"
There is a world of difference between an idea (even if it is a fantastic great idea) and the blunt coldness of reality
Just because something has a patent, doesn't mean it is correct, works, will work or should work
I think your ideas have some merit, but you need to get the fundamental physics right 100% first. Once you have done that, make-sure your experiments and mock-ups agree with the theory. Once you do that, get the idea peer reviewed.. There is a reason the rest of industry has a process of development..
Upvote
0
H
Highland Park
Thar's the Rub ... the OP doesn't get friction and friction is (one of) his biggest problem(s).
Please everyone, stop posting on this thread or would a Mod please move it to Time Out section
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #232
The whole concept is not as complicated as you think to grasp if working or not. It is a lot simpler than the concept of Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynton_and_Lynmouth_Cliff_Railway
When Baron Marks of Woolwich, designed the water powered railway, didn't make a working model and calculations. He rationalised the application of the concept according to the technologies and applications of his time. It was very simple, he was sure it would work. He took the gamble and built it. H didn't bother to think about it a lot. This explains why he missed the idea of using one track for both directions except for a short parallel track in the middle to let both cars pass each other. This would have saved a lot of time and construction cost.
Obviously today is different. Whoever builds Nerissa Gliders, will use a computer model as well as a working model to see every bits and pieces of it before they start the construction.
Upvote
0
As somebody who spoke to me mentioned today, even if the physics was sound, which it isn't - the fundamental flaw is the assumption the earth is a sphere. Sea level on the south coast is a very different true height than sea level in Scotland - so in effect the sea slopes anyway. So assuming there were no waves, and the sea froze - then a ski bob in one location should be able to glide to the other - which patently would not happen!
The physics in place here for us to study are GCSE level. By A Level, the flaws would emerge, and by university level, would have been thrown out as not worthy of further study.
What happens is that people in the forums all over the place are actually quite indignant that such a flawed idea is being hyped as fact, that's why we can't drop it - which I guess we really should, but won't - rather like a dog with a bone! There's nothing new left to talk about, but we just have to!
The physics in place here for us to study are GCSE level. By A Level, the flaws would emerge, and by university level, would have been thrown out as not worthy of further study.
What happens is that people in the forums all over the place are actually quite indignant that such a flawed idea is being hyped as fact, that's why we can't drop it - which I guess we really should, but won't - rather like a dog with a bone! There's nothing new left to talk about, but we just have to!
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #235
You are right. I, myself, do agree with you. Even sea level near Liverpool is different than sea level near Manchester. Isn't it?
On a serious thought!!! actually when it comes to application, sea level in the South Coast or North of Scotland doesn't make any difference. But gravity may be weaker around tropical circle than Southward or Northward. This is because the diametre of tropical circle is longer than the line across the core of earth between North and South Poles.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #236
Chinese Shanghai Maglev train can reach a speed of 430km/hour in 8 minutes. This means a maglev train between Glasgow and London needs a journey times of about an hour. Nerissa Gliders should do better than maglev trains and should be able to do the journey between London and Glasgow in under an hour because of aerodynamic advantages. Aerodynamic designs of Nerissa Gliders don't act as obstacle to speed, they act like a knife cutting into jelly. Pictures of the magleve trains indicate the trains include aerodynamic designs, which act as obstacles to the speed. The front design of the trains uses the air to press the train downward. This increases air resistance against the speed and cause a lot more fuel and wear and tear. The following link shows some details of Shanghai Maglev train:
http://www.galenfrysinger.com/maglev_train_shanghai_china.htm
http://www.galenfrysinger.com/maglev_train_shanghai_china.htm
Last edited:
Upvote
0
G
gmoto
Were you there? More importantly, perhaps, he presumably had knowledge about scientific fact, which it seems you are missing.
Aerodynamics is a VERY complex field.
Why do you think your 'glider' will be better aerodynamically than the trains you linked to.
Why do you think that you will be able to be more economic than those trains?
Why do you think that a magnetic LEVITATION train would need a lot of downforce?
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #238
It is elementary my dear gmoto. For the Baron, it was some thing very simple, nothing more than two things acting as counter weights to each other. Because he had water on the top, he knew with use of water he could make the car on the top always heavier than the one bellow to make the system working. So he didn't think any more about it. He straight went to draw the plan for two cars moving up and down as counter weights to each other, each on a separate rail. Had he made deep calculation or made a working model, the idea of one rail for both cars would have clicked in his mind.
The glider becomes more aerodynamic than trains because the glider doesn't need to use the air. But the train needs to use the air to press it down against the rails to get good traction.
The reason Nerissa gliders becomes more economical than trains is that because it doesn't carry the engine, fuel tank, wheels, gear box and 1001 associated parts, which save on fuel a lot and makes wear and tear almost negligible. Trains have to use air to get traction but it costs more fuel and wear and tear. Nerissa Gliders don't need to use air. Nerissa Gliders can be made a lot economical on fuel consumption and could be made to operate without external fuel. Additionally Nerissa Gliders doesn't need too much land and doesn't cause barriers like motorway and railway barriers.
I didn't say maglev trains need down load force but the pictures of the front of Shanghai maglev train show the front of the train, the way it is made, causes a lot of downward force for a fast trains like that. But I say that the drag under maglev trains is going to be very high, something which Nerissa Gliders is immune from. Because it is a bit high over the ground. Maglev trains almost touch the gropund.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Every single post shows the lack of proper physics - random, pointless statements with no evidence to support them.
The comment about trains and traction is a good example. Trains use their weight for traction. The danger of wheel slip is greatest accelerating from stationary - at higher speeds, inertia and momentum are more important factors - there is zero chance of wheel slip causing a loss of traction at 100mph! Better aerodynamics on a train reduces energy consumption - traction has nothing to do with aerodynamic efficiency.
The entire thing is flawed, and any arguments based on faulty physics. It's an obsession attempting to use science to support it!
I'm going to unsubscribe from this topic because the whole thing is generating momentum of it's own - which as I said earlier, is no doubt the entire point.
The comment about trains and traction is a good example. Trains use their weight for traction. The danger of wheel slip is greatest accelerating from stationary - at higher speeds, inertia and momentum are more important factors - there is zero chance of wheel slip causing a loss of traction at 100mph! Better aerodynamics on a train reduces energy consumption - traction has nothing to do with aerodynamic efficiency.
The entire thing is flawed, and any arguments based on faulty physics. It's an obsession attempting to use science to support it!
I'm going to unsubscribe from this topic because the whole thing is generating momentum of it's own - which as I said earlier, is no doubt the entire point.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #240
The picture of bullet train in the link bellow proves you are wrong and don't have a clue what you are talking about. The nose of the train designed to use air to press the front of the train downward. Further there are winglets under the nose. this winglets further increase air resistane downward against the train. You have nothing to substantiate your point. You have not been able to contribute anything useful to this thread, except naging. This thread will do a lot better without you.
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lataco.com/taco/wp-content/uploads/bullet_train.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.lataco.com/taco/bullet-train-in-jeopardy-la-sf&h=362&w=570&sz=41&tbnid=cjj6bqoN5CPHeM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=134&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbullet%2Btrain&zoom=1&q=bullet+train&usg=__LdNEo6yKG3S5ARMXDteRFhlkHPw=&sa=X&ei=1HpjTeDwCJSw8QP02eXyCA&ved=0CD8Q9QEwBA
Here is another:
http://www.freebestwallpapers.info/wallpaper/Bullet-Train-Ginza-District-Tokyo-Japan/
Here is another:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/travel/images/japanese_bullet_train.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/travel/bullet_train.htm&h=360&w=480&sz=53&tbnid=7aELnm1ZVfPflM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbullet%2Btrain&zoom=1&q=bullet+train&usg=__BELnrMhc2xTxrM7_ugW4xHH1F8Q=&sa=X&ei=1HpjTeDwCJSw8QP02eXyCA&ved=0CDsQ9QEwAg
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
Should you crowdfund? A framework for UK founders in 2026Three articles into a series on what crowdfunding actually costs, the...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The polls, the reframing, and the billion dollarsHow three letters from the early years of Star Citizen's development...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The values trap: what the Punks actually ownedWhy BrewDog's Equity for Punks investors were structurally locked out...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
When belief is the business modelWhat BrewDog's collapse and Star Citizen's billion-dollar climb are...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
AI, Virtual Influencers and the Copyright Minefield: What Entrepreneurs Need to KnowI'll be upfront: this article was written with the assistance of an AI...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
