Nerissa Gliders

[KernowQueen]

come on, admit it! someone has created a parallel universe in this thread haven't they? :| it certainly feels like it

 

[Swisaw]

Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway is a proof that Nerissa Gliders concept works. To prove that we have to convert Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway to Nerissa Gliders.


Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway is made up of two cars, each acts as a counter weight to the other. Both linked with a cable a round a roller on the top. The cable is long enough to reach the ground from the top. This means when one of the cars reaches the top, the other reaches the ground. Each car has a water tank underneath. Both cars operate as counter weights to each other with the help of water weight, which is available on the top. On each round, either water added to the car on the top to make it heavier than the car down on the ground or water discharged from the car down on the ground to make it lighter than the car on the top. When the gross weight of the car on the top becomes heavier than the gross weight of the car down on the ground, it glides downward under gravity and pulls the other car upward. Both cars carry passengers and loads on both directions but always the gross weight of ascending car is lighter than the gross weight of descending car. The gross weight per car includes the total weight of the car + passengers + loads + water in the tank.


Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway works only because of availability free source of water on the top. To convert it to Nerissa Gliders operated by gravity, we have to stop using water on the top and use it only to bring loads and passengers downward, from the top to the ground. Each time when the gross weight of the car on the top becomes heavier than the gross weight of the lower car, which includes empty weight of the car, cable weight and friction, the upper car slides downward and pulls the lower car to the top without any extra energy.


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

 

[MikeJ]

To convert it to Nerissa Gliders operated by gravity, we have to stop using water on the top and use it only to bring loads and passengers downward, from the top to the ground.

Ok, so your system only works if people want to travel downhill? I'm sure I've seen that somewhere else.

 

[MikeJ]

Got it. Google "Gravity". I'm afraid someone beat you to it.

 

[Swisaw]

Got it. Google "Gravity". I'm afraid someone beat you to it.

the concept of Nerissa Gliders is not about gravity, it is about minimisation of energy use and wear and tears.

 

[paultnl]

the concept of Nerissa Gliders is not about gravity, it is about minimisation of energy use and wear and tears.

Until you explain exactly how it works no one will take you seriously. I suspect the reason is because you can't.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway is a proof that Nerissa Gliders concept works. To prove that we have to convert Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway to Nerissa Gliders.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynton_and_Lynmouth_Cliff_Railway

Yes, I've travelled on it. There's a reason why it travels at about 5mph, despite a steep incline.

 

[oldeagleeye]

I can't believe that this thread is still going after 175 posts during which the OP has made one stupid claim after the other. As for any patent. There is none. It is all spam. He is trying to find a mug to put up the money.

Fair enough. He has been sussed but what we have here is much more than a spammer. Rahamnd is obviously utterly delusional and yet drives a van around north London which in one of his latest posts (152) he insists is 24 metres ABOVE sea level despite the Thames being a tidal river.

Given that he will be expecting to plunge 75 ft to his death when he hits Stratford I think that Cornish Steve ought to report the OP to the police and have him sectioned under the mental health act because he is a danger to all motorists entering London who he thinks are 24 metres BELOW him.

Now then chaps. How about a whip round to buy Rahamnd some coloured pencils and a sketch pad for when they come to take him away to the mental hospital.

 

[Swisaw]

Yes, I've travelled on it. There's a reason why it travels at about 5mph, despite a steep incline.

I assume you mean 5 miles per hour speed. That is a practicable speed for the sharp slope and the technology used to control it. Baron of Woolwich, when he designed the track, could have used only one track for both cars with a bit of extra parallel track in the middle to help both cars pass each other. This would have reduced construction cost almost by half.

 

[Swisaw]

Ok, so your system only works if people want to travel downhill? I'm sure I've seen that somewhere else.

Actually Lynton_and_Lynmouth_Cliff_Railway , as Nerissa Gliders, could be used to take loads upward as well but it is not going to be a lot because of the weight of the cable, which needs a lot of weight to counter weight it. To get rid of the cable substitute the tracks with rollers to operate water pumps to pump up water to the top for use to make the upper car always heavier than the lower one.

 

[MikeJ]

It'll only carry loads uphill if there's a greater load wanting to move downhill. The weight of the cable isn't relevant.

 

[Swisaw]

It'll only carry loads uphill if there's a greater load wanting to move downhill. The weight of the cable isn't relevant.

Off course but the full weight of the cable remains a serious waste of energy. Half way, the weight of the cable becomes neutralised but it doesn't help at all, it is useless. To move the cable, when streched fully, you must use on the top a counter weight equal to the weight of the cable and friction.

 

[MikeJ]

Right. So you've now finally accepted that it only works if you want to move a nett weight downhill?

If you've got 100kg at the top, and 50kg a the bottom, it works
If you've got 50kg at the top, and 100kg at the bottom, it doesn't?

 

[gmoto]

Linking to furnicular railways is all well and good - but note one of the characteristics of them is they work on steep hills. For the last one linked to - 58% gradient it says.
That's going to require a rather tall tower in London.

However, make that and while people will still be laughing at your transport ideas, they will be welcoming your space-elevator development!

Oh and don't suppose any of your other plans involve in a 'Tesla generator', if not, you might want to look in to them too - be interesting to see your thoughts .

 

[Swisaw]

Right. So you've now finally accepted that it only works if you want to move a nett weight downhill?

If you've got 100kg at the top, and 50kg a the bottom, it works
If you've got 50kg at the top, and 100kg at the bottom, it doesn't?

There is nothing new for me to accept. This is what I have been trying to prove since this thread started. It seems we were talking the same thing but there was misunderstanding.

 

[Swisaw]

For fear of repeating myself

The water that is freely available at the top of the said railway, has potential energy

That potential energy starts with the sun heating it up, evaporation it, turning it into clouds, and making it rain, at which point gravity pulls it downwards into streams and rivers etc... that potential enerrgy is then realised as mechanical kinetic energy

For sake of repeating myself, I pose the same question I asked you over 100 posts ago

If the punters/load needs to be elevated UP to the railway start point, then you are essentially using the potential energy that they have when they/it gets on the train. How do you intend to elevate the load to the train?

There is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to energy

Even if we forget the wild claims about efficiency, aerodynamics, lack of weight (think safety/crash), reclaiming the energy as the glider moves (think Newtons second law), If you cant get past the above, this is a FAIL

Nerissa Gliders is a wonder machine, with superior advantages over trains and aeroplanes. It can travel faster than any one of them at a lot lot lower cost. For example it doesn't cost a fraction of the cost of magnetic trains, maglev trains, to build it and run it. You need very high expensive capital skills and huge investments to build and run maglev trains and only very rich nations can afford it. On the other hand you can train any one quickly to create an inexpensive capital skill to build and run Nerissa Gliders, which any nation can afford.


Besides, it is green and environmental with almost negligible wear and tear costs. The gliders don't have any major moving parts fixed to them to become a heavy load to cost fuel and cause wear and tears. The engine, the fuel, the wheels, the gear box and any other associated parts are fixed externally if any one of them needed. If the glider entirely depends on the gravity to move, even it doesn't need an external engine and fuel, and if it is gravity-operated it can recover and reuse its gross weight potential energy to become almost free fuel cost-operated.


As a wonder machine, it is up to you how to exploit it. You can build it to operate on a slope by gravity to minimise or possibly to eliminate fuel costs or drive it against a slope or on an even level route. In each case, it is going to be a lot cheaper than other means of transportations to build it and run it. On the other hand, you can build it for entertainment as roller coaster to thrill more than any other roller coasters in the world. You can build it like small trains to amuse children at amusement parks.


Let us to build Nerissa Gliders between Manchester and Liverpool to explore all options. 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 acceleration of 0.25m/s/s, it shouldn't take more than 15.00minutes.


Another option is to build another route and 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 have a fuel cost but 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. Because the gliders are travelling on an even level, they need a minimum amount of energy to run them. The potential energy of cargoes and passengers coming from Manchester could be quite more than enough to run the gliders on both direction. With a few windmills built a long the route, we should have energy enough to run the gliders at any weather conditions at their usual speed. This option could be more viable than any other options.

 

[Splashy]

Swisaw or whatever, when you understand this diagram and know what COF is come back to the forum with an intellectual discussion based on fact and not ramblings, I don't like being rude but there is a reason you move furniture in a knackered old Luton van. There is a difference between science and science fiction !

 

[oldeagleeye]

WHERE OH WHERE does this removal van man get his crap figures from.

First we are told London is 24 Metres ABOVE sea level. It is obvious that he has never seen the Thames a tidal river.

Now we are being told that Liverpool on the banks of the Mersey is 75 metres ABOVE sea level. That Manchester is another 55 metres even higher.

Jesus - Joesph & Mary. This guy makes even DWP look like the Einstein of their ward in the mental hospital.

 

[MikeJ]

Wikipedia (which is NEVER wrong) says Liverpool is 70m above sea level. Guess it depends on which bit you choose.

 

[Swisaw]

Swisaw or whatever, when you understand this diagram and know what COF is come back to the forum with an intellectual discussion based on fact and not ramblings, I don't like being rude but there is a reason you move furniture in a knackered old Luton van. There is a difference between science and science fiction !

Insult me but don't insult my van. It is my bread and better.

 

[Working First Aid]

 

[popunder]

This guy has the intelligence of a physics professor spuriously coupled with the naivety of a 10 year old boy.

No-one is ever going to build these gliders anywhere ever. Lots of sane people have told you this. Please go and invent something else.

 

[gmoto]

52km in 15 minutes would be an AVERAGE of around 130mph.

Now, do you REALLY believe you can have a passenger carrying vehicle which can have <.25m/s/s in drag at 130mph?
If you do and you want money, patent the design and sell it now.

A quick calculation suggests that the acceleration due to gravity in an entirely friction free situation, complete vacuum, etc would be 0.01m/s/s - this is for your Manchester to Liverpool route.
So, after 15 minutes, in this ideal-better-than-reality-situation, you'd be doing around 20mph. Not got very far in that time, I suspect!

 

[Swisaw]

52km in 15 minutes would be an AVERAGE of around 130mph.

Now, do you REALLY believe you can have a passenger carrying vehicle which can have <.25m/s/s in drag at 130mph?
If you do and you want money, patent the design and sell it now.

A quick calculation suggests that the acceleration due to gravity in an entirely friction free situation, complete vacuum, etc would be 0.01m/s/s - this is for your Manchester to Liverpool route.
So, after 15 minutes, in this ideal-better-than-reality-situation, you'd be doing around 20mph. Not got very far in that time, I suspect!

My van, when fully loaded, can reach a speed of 60.00Miles/hours very quickly on an even level road. So on an even level road I should be able to travel between Manchester and Liverpool with my van in less than half hour if I don't slow down for any reason.

 

[Swisaw]

This guy has the intelligence of a physics professor spuriously coupled with the naivety of a 10 year old boy.

No-one is ever going to build these gliders anywhere ever. Lots of sane people have told you this. Please go and invent something else.

If you are given a £10.00 million contract to build a transportation system at a speed of at least 150 miles/hour between two points, you will choose Nerissa Gliders as your preferred choice. Because for example when you do your research, you discover only magnetic trains, [FONT=arial, sans-serif]magnetic levitation[/FONT] trains, and Nerissa Gliders can reach 150mph on this route. M[FONT=arial, sans-serif]agnetic levitation[/FONT] trains cost you around £9.00 millions and Nerissa Gliders cost you around £5.00millions. In this situation, you have to choose Nerissa Gliders over [FONT=arial, sans-serif]magnetic levitation[/FONT] trains. It guarantees you to make some profit.

 

[oldeagleeye]

With respect Swisaw. Do you even know what Nerissa means. In fact Shakesphere invented the name for the serving wrench in a local tavern and went on to describe her as an old hag. That is what it means then

Later the name was adopted by a fiction writer who created a fantasy figure called the wicked Queen Narissa. It is now blatantly obvious that you live in this fantasy world.

Stick to the day job chum and save up for a Logo set to indulge your fantasy theories.

Rob

 

[Swisaw]

With respect Swisaw. Do you even know what Nerissa means. In fact Shakesphere invented the name for the serving wrench in a local tavern and went on to describe her as an old hag. That is what it means then

Later the name was adopted by a fiction writer who created a fantasy figure called the wicked Queen Narissa. It is now blatantly obvious that you live in this fantasy world.

Stick to the day job chum and save up for a Logo set to indulge your fantasy theories.

Rob

You hurt me a lot. You don't need to insult a dead person. You welcome to insult me as much as you want. what ever her name means, I wish I was at her place and she she was at my place now.

 

[gmoto]

They will look at your design, and realise that even if we took all the air out of the Earth's atmosphere and created a roller outside the realms of physics, it would only do 20mph. And then, you would still have to have a dead straight track that doesn't follow the land scape. This would no doubt cost BILLIONS.

52km in 15 minutes would be an AVERAGE of around 130mph.

Now, do you REALLY believe you can have a passenger carrying vehicle which can have <.25m/s/s in drag at 130mph?
If you do and you want money, patent the design and sell it now.

A quick calculation suggests that the acceleration due to gravity in an entirely friction free situation, complete vacuum, etc would be 0.01m/s/s - this is for your Manchester to Liverpool route.
So, after 15 minutes, in this ideal-better-than-reality-situation, you'd be doing around 20mph. Not got very far in that time, I suspect!

Please address these points.

Further, if you like £10m is a likely contract figure for a rail system, I'd suggest you do some REAL research.

Oh and finally - plenty of trains these days can do well over 150mph using, pretty much, existing tracks and technology.
Hell, in the 1930s trains were hitting over 125mph!

 

[oldeagleeye]

You hurt me a lot. You don't need to insult a dead person. You welcome to insult me as much as you want. what ever her name means, I wish I was at her place and she she was at my place now.

Haven't a clue what this gibberish is about. I do know we can't take anything you say seriously and now you have gone from being a joke to utterly boring.

For that reason. I am gone. Beam me up Sottie. Shove a few more kilos of brussel sprouts down the cows neck and then wrap 9. Whoooooosh.

 

[popunder]

Haven't a clue what this gibberish is about.

You need to read the very first sentence of this thread

 

[KernowQueen]

Haven't a clue what this gibberish is about. I do know we can't take anything you say seriously and now you have gone from being a joke to utterly boring.

For that reason. I am gone. Beam me up Sottie. Shove a few more kilos of brussel sprouts down the cows neck and then wrap 9. Whoooooosh.

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...

 

[gmoto]

My van, when fully loaded, can reach a speed of 60.00Miles/hours very quickly on an even level road. So on an even level road I should be able to travel between Manchester and Liverpool with my van in less than half hour if I don't slow down for any reason.

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.

 

[thetime22]

Do i get an award for being the first person to reply to this thread?

 

[Podge]

I think you would get a big round of applause if you were the last.

 

[thetime22]

I think you would get a big round of applause if you were the last.

hahaha good point.

 

[JElder]

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?

 

[Swisaw]

|

Well. I wish I had a wonder bank account - unfortunately mine is governed by simple principles - you cant take out what isnt there in the first place. If I get a loan it costs me. The laws of physics are very similar, and unfortunately, if you ignore them you end up broke or at least out of energy or resource

I asked some straight forwards questions, questions that are petty much at 'O'level standard and below, and you reply by telling me you have a wonder machine

My car is a wonder machine (if you asked a person from the 1900) HOWEVER, IT STILL NEEDS ENERGY TO MOVE IT. You make some wild assumptions about aerodynamics, friction, weight, mass, acceleration, and recapturing energy. Yet you ignore the most basic of facts. The joke is is that acceleration, friction, weight, mass are pretty much basics

Forget the lot. Dwell on this one question.. To make the device safe, safe enough to withstand a crash at lets say a moderate 40MPH - how heavy does it need to be. Remember, you need to protect what you crash into as well as the contents. There is a reason trains, planes and cars are heavy

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.

 

[JElder]

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.

 

[JElder]

"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.

 

[Working First Aid]

Guys, this is clearly a wind up - stop posting