Nerissa Gliders

[ORDERED WEB]

Certainly that is true. Obviously if the gliders have go so fast, they must be powered enough. Bear in mind the gliders are going to be the most aerodynamic like a pipe in the middle with long cones at the front and back. This shape slices air like knife slices jelly and suffers a minimum drag.

What coeficent of drag?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient

Pick a shape

With the internet, you dont even have to look that far

 

[Mpg]

I think I see whats going on here.

Does anyone remember an experiment where an unknown chess genius played 10 of the top players and beat most of them.

When in fact he wasn't a chess genius he just let the first player make a move then did that move to the next player and then went back to the first player with the counter move. And them moved onto the next so in fact all the top players were in fact playing each other.

Is this just an experiment to see if all the clever bods on here can troubleshoot your idea into a working platflorm.

I'm amazed after 32 pages this is still going.

 

[Swisaw]

What coeficent of drag?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient

Pick a shape

With the internet, you dont even have to look that far

I go for streamlined body although the back is not long enough to minimise the drag. The back should be at least as long as the front if not longer.

 

[ORDERED WEB]

Look - I'm really sorry, but I'm afraid he can grasp things better than you.

Im not sure the OP quite gasps the scale of things he needs to comprehend

I am a very science oriented person, and even so, I wouldnt even begin to think I could design a commercially usable bearing, aerodynamic shape, bridge or anything else. Nearly all of the tasks involved in the idea are so incredibly complex, that one would need many specialist engineers just to produce a proof of concept

Mythbusters is a valuable kids show, real science and engineering is a long hard slog

I am qualified enough for those engineers to explain detailed stuff to me (without getting too lost), but not experienced enough to produce the fine detailed stuff they are discussiung in the first place. I am qualified enough to know what question to ask, but usually not knoledgeable enough to produce the right answer. Esentailly, I just have the very basic building blocks in the box

I studdied once with the professor that designed the first Aspheric spectacle lens back in the 60's. Its an obvious concept, but in reality, the maths took him many years to perfect, and then many more years to translate that into a manufacturing process. I saw the original manuscripts - there is a room full of them. The point I am making is that I could (now retrospectivley) explain aspheric lenses to somone in seconds, but the reality is that there is a MASS of hardwork, experementation, and effort underpinning my simple explaination. Sit me back in the room with the guy today and I understand him, but he can turn on the wick so much that he can loose me in moments. Hell - he is only talking about curves on lenses - wrong - he is looking at distortions, aberations, vergances, the qualities of light passing through the lense, the material qualities. He jumps form simple curve algebra to fast fourier transformations and quantum physics faster than you can sip your coffee. This sort of project (if the base physics was even nearly right) would need people of this quality & experience to deal with allthe different aspects of it

My point to the OP is

- there are a lot of very tallented and highly experienced and very specialised engineers, aerodynamisists who are at the top of thier field, who wouldnt dream about trying to comment on another small subset of thier own field, let alone another field completly
- Nearly all of those same people have a similar base education to me, and that base education says the project wont work

I'm not so young - when I did O'level physics I (probrably) could have told you this
When I did A'level physics - I certianly could have told you this

I re-itterate..
All I have now is the ability to stand in the same room as a expert, and fall back on the basics and understand the principles of what is going on. Those principles say, this doesnt work. Any physisist, engineer, kid with a A'level, and most with a O'level will you this

 

[Highland Park]

This idea is a strong candidate for a Nobel Prize, the original Nobel prize that is ... dynamite

Last time I looked, the same thread on physicsforum.com had only posts by OP and a "read count" of few hundred - should tell us all something!! My own Physics Professor - the late, great Reginald Victor Jones - once told us that TRUE knowledge was an understanding of how little you knew.

My earlier request to move this to TimeOut seems to have been ignored or perhaps the Mods have long-since stopped reading the thread. Can't say I blame them.

What I'd like to see now is a best-estimate for how much time has been collectively wasted by the UK's business brains on this piece of utter nonsense.

 

[ORDERED WEB]

the original Nobel prize that is ... dynamite

I never knew that

 

[Highland Park]

Yes - it is said that he bequeathed part of his vast fortune out of enormous guilt for the amount of suffering that his invention had caused.

I think Oppenheimer slept badly too

 

[Swisaw]

Look - I'm really sorry, but

I'm afraid he can grasp things better than you. Are you seriously stating that somebody with an MSc (which is NOT the kind of qualification given away in a cereal box) as in a Masters Degree in SCIENCE can be discounted by a 'very crude experiment'.

Don't worry about him. He can speak for himself and I am sure he didn't ask you to speak for him.

Now the thing either works with gravity or with external power. In both cases when the conditions are right any thing can be made to move. So it is as simple as that. Did you get that? if yes, prove it doesn't work. Otherwise please don't spam my thread.

 

[Swisaw]

This idea is a strong candidate for a Nobel Prize, the original Nobel prize that is ... dynamite

Last time I looked, the same thread on physicsforum.com had only posts by OP and a "read count" of few hundred - should tell us all something!! My own Physics Professor - the late, great Reginald Victor Jones - once told us that TRUE knowledge was an understanding of how little you knew.

My earlier request to move this to TimeOut seems to have been ignored or perhaps the Mods have long-since stopped reading the thread. Can't say I blame them.

What I'd like to see now is a best-estimate for how much time has been collectively wasted by the UK's business brains on this piece of utter nonsense.

The thing either works with gravity or with external power. In both cases when the conditions are right any thing can be made to move. So it is as simple as that. Did you get that? if yes, prove it doesn't work. Otherwise please don't spam my thread.

 

[Bruvver]

.............please don't spam my thread.

Spam....spam .....spam.......spam.....or spam ?

 

[gmoto]

The thing either works with gravity or with external power. In both cases when the conditions are right any thing can be made to move. So it is as simple as that. Did you get that? if yes, prove it doesn't work. Otherwise please don't spam my thread.

Yes, it can be made to move with power. But the reality is you have developed a design LESS efficient and MORE costly than current designs.
Until you can provide the justified figures, it's no better than my vacuum tunnel train system (actually, quite a bit worst, I'd suggest .)

 

[Swisaw]

Yes, it can be made to move with power. But the reality is you have developed a design LESS efficient and MORE costly than current designs.
Until you can provide the justified figures, it's no better than my vacuum tunnel train system (actually, quite a bit worst, I'd suggest .)

Could you share details of your 'vacuum tunnel train' with us on this thread or with me confidentially. I will sign none disclosure agreement contract.

 

[Swisaw]

Look - I'm really sorry, but

I'm afraid he can grasp things better than you. Are you seriously stating that somebody with an MSc (which is NOT the kind of qualification given away in a cereal box) as in a Masters Degree in SCIENCE can be discounted by a 'very crude experiment'.

This very crude experiment was a revelation. Because I used a metal ruler, I thought it could have bended in the middle providing a sharper slope for the car to slide downward. During the experiment, the car moved all the way accelerating. When reached level surface, it continued moving a bit further away from the lower end of the ruler. This revelled the idea of ignition starter in my mind for Nerissa Gliders when driven by gravity.


Ignition starter is made up of a 100.00metre height and 1000.00metre slope length. This gives a gravity acceleration of 10 x (100/1000) =1.00metre/s/s, assuming gravity is 10.00metre/s/s.


Let us to apply ignition starter between Manchester and Liverpool, and between Glasgow and London. We assume the distance between Manchester and Liverpool is 40,000metres after ignition starter. Nerissa Gliders starts at a height of 200.00metre in Manchester. Ignition starter takes 100.00meter height. This leaves 100.00metre more height. Now the slope after ignition starter becomes 100/40,000= 1/400, which gives and a gravity acceleration of 10 x (1/400) = 0.025m/s/s.


Now on this road, Nerissa Gliders continue to accelerate at 0.025m/s/s after ignition starter. But we disregard this acceleration and use only 1.00m/s/s acceleration of ignition starter to see how long it takes for Nerissa Gliders to to cross 40,000metre distance. We us this formla: [FONT=arial, sans-serif]distance[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]=[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]0.5[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]*[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]acceleration[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]*t*t,[/FONT] which is 40,000 = 0.5 t * t, which makes time, t, to: 5.00 Minutes. This means Nerissa Gliders can travel under gravity from Manchester to Liverpool in 5 minutes. Frankly I myself don't believe it but that is what the formal says so.


For the same conditions, the travel Between London and Glasgow takes 5 x (500,000/40,000)= 62.5minutes. The distance is 500,000.00metrs.

 

[roydmoorian]

Aaaah I see - now we have a bent straight line

 

[ORDERED WEB]

you shouldn't have used a ruler, there is much better kit on the market

http://www.thetoyshop.com/Vehicles/CarsRacing/OtherCarsRacing/Revolution-Track-Set/EPN409441

 

[paulears]

But if your 'real' line length is scaled down to a ruler, you do not have a device capable of measuring the angle. We're talking about an angle so close to level that makes any practical experiment on something as short as a ruler, ridiculous. Everyone bar you can see this - you're selectively using a small part of the maths involved to bias results in your favour, yet ignoring all the others that say dead duck.

The fact that you are obsessive about it, and severely blinkered just reinforces our view that you are indeed seeking something that is so flawed as to be univestable, unworkable and just wrong!

 

[Swisaw]

But if your 'real' line length is scaled down to a ruler, you do not have a device capable of measuring the angle. We're talking about an angle so close to level that makes any practical experiment on something as short as a ruler, ridiculous. Everyone bar you can see this - you're selectively using a small part of the maths involved to bias results in your favour, yet ignoring all the others that say dead duck.

The fact that you are obsessive about it, and severely blinkered just reinforces our view that you are indeed seeking something that is so flawed as to be univestable, unworkable and just wrong!

Lets see if you are wrong or right. The ruler was 1.00m=100.00cm long. The height was 0.005m=0.5cm. This gives you a slope of 0.5/100, which is the same as 1/200. The experiment represnted the height of 200.00m in Manchester and a distance of 40.000m to Liverpool. This gives you a slope of 200/40,000=2/400=1/200.

 

[ORDERED WEB]

to quote your earlier post

"Liverpool is 70.00 metres above sea level and Manchester is 125.00metres, which means Manchester is higher than Liverpool by 55.00metres. There is a distance of about 50,000.metres between both points"

So, are you going to build something 245M high? derived from 200-55 +100M (apparently now needed to get the thing moving)

Secondly, how do you get the thing back? Does it start of from the bottom, or is it dropped down a slope that is elevated by 100M. If that is the case, how does the glider get up the slope? Additionally, how does it get back up to the top of the 245M pillar at the start point

What ever way you look at it
10+10 = 20
20-10-10 = zero

you cant have
10+10 = 30
or 20-10-10-10 = zero

You consistently fail to grasp that you cant take out more than you put in

You consistently fail to account for the fact that there are so many things taking energy out of the system

At the moment you have a hair brained idea that by utilising a minisule amount of energy, you can combat a large amount.

Even the kid knows that once the car has gone through the loop of flames at the bottom, that it doesn't have enough energy to get back to the start point, the kid has to pick it up and lift it up, and play the game again

I know your idea is that you collect energy from the vehicle as it moves from A-B, and that the vehicle is lighter on the way back up. At the moment, the maths says it wont get to point B, let alone back again

 

[Swisaw]

you shouldn't have used a ruler, there is much better kit on the market

http://www.thetoyshop.com/Vehicles/CarsRacing/OtherCarsRacing/Revolution-Track-Set/EPN409441

I wish I was this kid.

 

[paulears]

When you did your test, using a bit of Pythagoras, suggests your inclinometer needs to be quite accurate. Horizontal to 1 in 200 is a rather small incline to measure.

 

[Swisaw]

When you did your test, using a bit of Pythagoras, suggests your inclinometer needs to be quite accurate. Horizontal to 1 in 200 is a rather small incline to measure.

As I mentioned it the experiment was very difficult to set up. The height was only 0.50cm, which was a serious problme. I used a sort of modeling clay to create the height. After that, an even level became another a problem. Again with use of clay and spirit buble I overcome it.

Any way that is not an issue any more. Because the gliders start at the ignition starter, which has a sharp slope which can be 1/10 or 1/5. A slope of 1/5 or sharper is good for long distances like Glasgow and London. This slope gives you a gravity acceleration of 2.00ms/s

With this acceleration Nerissa Gliders Should reach London from Glasgow in under half an hour, provided it has extra power to compensate for wind resistance and friction.

 

[paulears]

Oh God! are you aware of how useless a bubble is for determining precise angles? Then you increase your slope angle, increase the distance and don't even consider how high the starting point has to be. Your project base changes as people show you the flaws. It started as a glider, now it needs power. You've ignored where this power comes from, and the weight the power source adds to the glider.

You perched a ruler on some clay, guessed the angle, and used this to support the conclusion the project was sound? So no proper test jig then, laser inclinometer and other quantifiable, repeatable experiment that produces data that is reliable and robust.

This must be some kind of viral exercise - it cannot be genuine.

 

[Swisaw]

Oh God! are you aware of how useless a bubble is for determining precise angles? Then you increase your slope angle, increase the distance and don't even consider how high the starting point has to be. Your project base changes as people show you the flaws. It started as a glider, now it needs power. You've ignored where this power comes from, and the weight the power source adds to the glider.

You perched a ruler on some clay, guessed the angle, and used this to support the conclusion the project was sound? So no proper test jig then, laser inclinometer and other quantifiable, repeatable experiment that produces data that is reliable and robust.

This must be some kind of viral exercise - it cannot be genuine.

It is not as complicated as you make it. Don't worry about the angle. All you need is an even surface. After that, use the clay to make a height of 0.5cm. Then let one end of the ruller on the height. That is all it takes. Nerissa Gliders is the same, nothing has been changed except the addition of ignition starter, which is something very important. Nerissa Gliders doesn't carry power or the engine. Both are used externally if needed..

 

[Swisaw]

to quote your earlier post

"Liverpool is 70.00 metres above sea level and Manchester is 125.00metres, which means Manchester is higher than Liverpool by 55.00metres. There is a distance of about 50,000.metres between both points"

So, are you going to build something 245M high? derived from 200-55 +100M (apparently now needed to get the thing moving)

..................................etc

I cannot make sense of this: 'So, are you going to build something 245M high? derived from 200-55 +100M'. Your post is about Manchester and Liverpool Nerissa Gliders Shuttle. So let us to talk about it again to clarify the meaning of some numbers.
"Liverpool is 70.00 metres above sea level and Manchester is 125.00metres, which means Manchester is higher than Liverpool by 55.00metres. There is a distance of about 50,000.metres between both points".
We build a station in Liverpool 55.00m high or 125 metres over sea level, the same height of Manchester over sea level. So if we move this station to Manchester, it goes to the ground level. But Manchester station is going to be 200.00metres high. So if we move Manchester station to Liverpool it will become 255.00m high.

 

[Barnie]

wow

your energy values are a bit out.

you need to split it into sideways and a down direction as some (alot) will be canceled out by opposite forces ie the ground andfrictional losses will almost certainly kill you

after this then you state using the first few rollers for pumps, due to lack of speed and not much natural forces, the force left for moving down hill i would doubt you would be able to move the pumps

 

[Swisaw]

wow

your energy values are a bit out.

you need to split it into sideways and a down direction as some (alot) will be canceled out by opposite forces ie the ground andfrictional losses will almost certainly kill you

after this then you state using the first few rollers for pumps, due to lack of speed and not much natural forces, the force left for moving down hill i would doubt you would be able to move the pumps

Not so my dear Barnie.
Take it as it is like the old weighing scale. The gliders acts as weights, force, and energy recovery acts as counter weights, opposite force. As long as the weight is heavier than the counter weight, the gliders continue moving and accelerating.

 

[Swisaw]

During my aerodynamic discussions with gmoto, I believe I came across some aerodynamic properties, which I have not seen anywhere applied. I believe they are new. I have already applied for a patent. I will soon write to some manufactures to test waters. After that I may disclose full technical details. I am not going to take it to the grave with me. I will disclose the name when the application recorded with patent office.

 

[Swisaw]

Spam....spam .....spam.......spam.....or spam ?

Do you always use your time reading spams? take my advice instead reading spams go to join the school of KernoQueen to learn how to change duvet cover.

 

[Katy Radcliffe]

I am so glad that I don't understand any of this.

Swisaw, my condolences on the loss of your wife.

 

[Swisaw]

I am so glad that I don't understand any of this.

Swisaw, my condolences on the loss of your wife.

You are very kind dear Katy.
Many thanks.

 

[JElder]

A slope of 1/5 or sharper is good for long distances like Glasgow and London.

532 KM straight line distance to Edinburgh from London

at a 1 in 5 slope that would work as you tested it (and yes, that would be enough to overcome friction and air resistance) your tower is....


Over 100KM tall!!

I hope your capsules are pressurised and radiation shielded. And you have Saturn V heavy lifter rockets to get them up there.

 

[Barnie]

As long as the weight is heavier than the counter weight, the gliders continue moving and accelerating.

your wrong, if it was a single pulley and both vertical it would (think of a lift), the closer you get to the horizontal the less force produced/required.

in the same way i can push my 1T car on a flat and on a tiny gradient i can stop it rolling and i am only 5% of the mass of my car.

the glider would have have to be not only a little bit lighter but a hell of alot lighter.

on the reverse getting it back up the hill it would be like a launch ramp and i dread to think how much past Glasgow it would end up.

for it to be perpetual motion you would have to store the energy of it going up hill not down if you the glider and the weight were the same mass

 

[Swisaw]

532 KM straight line distance to Edinburgh from London

at a 1 in 5 slope that would work as you tested it (and yes, that would be enough to overcome friction and air resistance) your tower is....


Over 100KM tall!!

I hope your capsules are pressurised and radiation shielded. And you have Saturn V heavy lifter rockets to get them up there.

Wrong. The distance between Edinburgh and London is 534.26Km.
Wrong again: The slope of my test was 1 to 200.

London, UK-0.1167
51.5000Edinburgh, UK-3.2000
55.9500Miles:331.98Kilometers:534.26Bearing:NW

 

[roydmoorian]

Wrong. The distance between Edinburgh and London is 534.26Km.
Wrong again: The slope of my test was 1 to 200.

Well even on your own figures you would need a 2.6713 km tall lift to get the passengers to the departure point even if you disregard the travelling capsule :|

 

[Swisaw]

Well even on your own figures you would need a 2.6713 km tall lift to get the passengers to the departure point even if you disregard the travelling capsule :|

You are wrong too.


Let use to build an ideal Nerissa Gliders between Edinburgh and London. The distance between both is 533.26km or 534260.00m from centre to centre. London is 27.00m above see level and Edinburgh is 41.00m above see level. So Edinburgh is higher than London by 17.00m. We build the stations outside the cities and keep a distance of500,000.00m between both points apart from ignition starter distance, in this case we make it 250.00m.


We build the departure point in Edinburgh 150.00m high and in London 167.00m high. This makes the arrival point in Edinburgh on the ground and in London 17.00m high. We allocate 50.00m height on the top as ignition starter height in each point. This leaves 100.00m high to give a slope of 100/500,000= 1/5000 or a a gravity acceleration of 1/500.00m/s/s, gravity assumed to be 10.00m/s/s. A slope of 50/250 for ignition starter gives a gravity acceleration of 2.00m/s/s. At this acceleration it takes for Nerissa Gliders to arrive in London from Edinburgh in under 10.00 minutes according to this formula: d=0.5xaxtt. This is assumed that the gliders have access to an external power and propulsion to compensate for any adverse conditions.

 

[MikeJ]

A jet plane takes about an hour.

You think you can do it in 10 minutes.

Idiot.

 

[Swisaw]

A jet plane takes about an hour.

You think you can do it in 10 minutes.

Idiot.

This is an ideal deduction but practically Nerissa Gliders can do it faster than your jet plane. Your failure to understand new concepts has not helped you to grasp practical application of Nerissa Gliders.

 

[paulears]

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.

 

[Swisaw]

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.

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.

 

[MikeJ]

This is an ideal deduction but practically Nerissa Gliders can do it faster than your jet plane. Your failure to understand new concepts has not helped you to grasp practical application of Nerissa Gliders.

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.