Nerissa Gliders
- Thread starter Swisaw
- Start date
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 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.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #323
Good points but in the case of wind Nerissa Gliders has more advantages than aeroplanes. The wind is very heavy high in the sky and blows always.
On the other hand on the ground it is not always very heavy and doesn't exist always, if it exists it doesn't take too long to die down. Add to that Nerissa Gliders is more aerodynamic than aeroplanes. The wind can be with you or against you. If it is with you, in the case of Nerissa Gliders, its energy can be exploited. But this is not possible with aeroplanes.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #327
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.
Upvote
0
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
Last edited:
Upvote
0
So Swisaw has in fact invented gravity rollers for trains.
*SEAL CLAPS*
Well done mate!!!!! Well done.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #334
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.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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?
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?
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #338
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
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #340
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.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #342
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.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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?
Upvote
0
Please dont tell me you have reproduced. Because if you have that is Darwins theory of evolution shot down by you as well.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #350
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.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #352
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.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #354
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?
Upvote
0
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).
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).
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I bet you sniff Falujah Holly Dust.
And just what would a person's sexuality have to do with a mis-concieved physics "problem" ?:|
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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?
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #359
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.
Upvote
0
Just before you do that, read the 10 posts before this to realise Swisaw doesn't understand the basics of physics.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
Latest Articles
-
90,000 jobs are heading your way. Your rates bill might get there firstIf you run a business in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds or Bristol, you were probably told some...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 8 min read
-
How to Price a New Product or Service: We Asked UKBFOn 5 August, @Data Swami posted in the General Business Forum with a question that ought to have...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
70 years of director bans in six months: Companies House has stopped asking nicelyCompanies House published a release on August 6th 2026 that every company director should read...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
MTD for Income Tax: your first quarterly update is due 7 August.If you are a sole trader or landlord and your gross income from self-employment and property was...- maka
- Updated:
- 4 min read
-
Andy Burnham's Manifesto for Small Business, and How It Stacks Up Against Count BinfaceIf all goes to plan (or rather, to Labour's timetable), Andy Burnham will be sworn in as Prime...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 5 min read