Nerissa Gliders

[oldeagleeye]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Swisaw]

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.

well, wind can be with you or against you. Obviously you have to be ready in advance in case wind comes against you. But putting the simple obvious superior aerodynamic shape of gliders into consideration, makes wind resistance almost negligible.

 

[David Warrilow]

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

 

[Working First Aid]

... I haven't read the full thread ...

Do this first, then see what you think.

 

[FM1000]

I normally love these threads as it gives me a giggle or two but not when it gets to this many posts. Its simple too much to read

 

[Swisaw]

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

Thank you for being fair and reasonable.

 

[Swisaw]

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/

 

[oldeagleeye]

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.

 

Dear Swisaw

If this is a wind up, well done - you've topped DWP for the longest thread.

I, as I fear, you are serious, please step back and take heed of the constructive comments on here; don't pour valuable time & monney into this project!

 

[Swisaw]

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

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.

 

[Swisaw]

Propulsion -
Have a propulsion system that spans 300km is going to be incredibly costly and not very efficent. If there's a problem propulsion area, it'll be a lot of effort to get to the problem system and fix it.
A better way that won't add that much weight at all in proportion to the load carried, but will really simplify things and make it a hell of a lot cheaper will be to have a small electric motor on the 'glider'. You could add a means to get power to it with a continuous conductor along the track. Where you get the power from is up to you.

Rollers -
Actually, you'll find rollers left out in the country side will need fairly regular maintenance to keep them in good condition I expect. Even if they didn't, it'd be a hell of a lot cheaper to have just one set on the glider. I think as a feasible idea, you'd have to go for this cost saving. Maintenance is also a hell of a lot easier, as you don't have to travel the whole distance of the country to do it - you only have one depot. The weight increase doesn't have to be that much as it's proportional to the load carried and generally fairly small.

Glider 'path' -
You want it to be straight and level. Something train lines have always desired. They'll cut through hills and bridge over gaps. But unfortunately in the UK there are limits the public will allow things to be disrupted, even more so when people's property is in the way of your project. And of course the cost of a bridge or a 'cutting' can be quiet immense just for one.
The only realistic way I could see you achieving this is if you tried to LOWER the level and do it all underground. Otherwise you WILL have to wind over things, go down through valleys and avoid large urban areas.

So, to conclude. For your idea to be successful in this country, you have basically invented the London Underground. Congratulations!

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.

 

[roydmoorian]

So to conclude,

Inshallah.

 

[MikeJ]

indeed


(stupid rule needing 10 characters in each post)

 

[paulears]

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.

I have already put the following post
at this thread on UK Business Forum. This thread so far has been
viewed by over 5000 times.

 

[oldeagleeye]

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.

 

[Swisaw]

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.

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!!!

 

[Highland Park]

I think you are getting friction

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

 

[Swisaw]

You consistently and conveniently skirt over the important bits.. until you come back with solid maths and physics, it is a dream.

Im out

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.

 

[paulears]

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!

 

[Swisaw]

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!

You are right. I, myself, do agree with you. Even sea level near Liverpool is different than sea level near Manchester. Isn't it?

 

[Swisaw]

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.

 

[Swisaw]

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

 

[gmoto]

When Baron Marks of Woolwich, designed the water powered railway, didn't make a working model and calculations.

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?

 

[Swisaw]

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?

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.

 

[paulears]

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.

 

[Swisaw]

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 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

 

[Swisaw]

A picture of a wing, train, curve, isnt aerodynamics. Understanding the maths, physics, and then modelling and fine tuning the result to get the desired effect is aerodynamics

What people are saying is that you want to say that you can go from a-Z when you ignore b,c,d,e,f,g etc.. In addition to that, showing us Z from another product/design idea doesn't mean your final result will be as effective

Physics and maths are precise fields. Those of us who have had involvement with it know there is a definate process, and skipping bits, or ignoring the maths / documentation / experimentation / is a definate no no

Without stumping up the b,c,d,e,f,g... and the maths and the physics, no one will take you seriously

If these wings and curves are not aerodynamic means, they will cause a lot of extra wear and tears and fuel consumption unnecessarily. At high speeds, these curves and wings increase the weight of the front by many times and cause air drag underneath. This not only causes unnecessary wear and tear and fuel consumption, it also reduces speed.

The concept is not so complicated. It is a lot simpler than the concept of Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway: http://www.cliffrailwaylynton.co.uk/ , in the case of which you didn't have any choice, except to follow the dictation of the natural environment to build it. In the case of Nerissa Gliders, you can dictate on the natural environment, not the other way around, when build it. Obviously any one builds Nerissa Gliders, will have first to make a working model to discover every bits and pieces of it.

The objections you have raised are practical engineering problems, which have engineering solutions on applications.

 

[roydmoorian]

The objections you have raised are practical engineering problems, which have engineering solutions on applications.

And the project would be a PRACTICAL project - not twisted theory

 

[gmoto]

Go on then - show us what you believe would be the ultimate aerodynamic shape for such a vehicle?

I still rather remain unconvinced that a 'mag leg' train would put a lot of effort in to making their design giving lots of downforce - when they are using a decent chunk of energy to levitate it.
Your concept, now that you've adimtted it will need to be powered seems to be pretty much a copy of the maglev train; a small proportion of the energy is used to lift the train in maglev - but that entirely saves on mechanical friction and the requirement for a large number of moving parts to transfer the energy to the train. So, overall I'd suggest you just build a maglev train, which it seems should have cheaper running and maitenance costs.

Aerodynamics near the ground are far from simple.

 

[MikeJ]

Please, please stop replying to this. It's just spam.

 

[Swisaw]

Please, please stop replying to this. It's just spam.

So why do you spam around

 

[Swisaw]

Go on then - show us what you believe would be the ultimate aerodynamic shape for such a vehicle?

I still rather remain unconvinced that a 'mag leg' train would put a lot of effort in to making their design giving lots of downforce - when they are using a decent chunk of energy to levitate it.
Your concept, now that you've adimtted it will need to be powered seems to be pretty much a copy of the maglev train; a small proportion of the energy is used to lift the train in maglev - but that entirely saves on mechanical friction and the requirement for a large number of moving parts to transfer the energy to the train. So, overall I'd suggest you just build a maglev train, which it seems should have cheaper running and maitenance costs.

Aerodynamics near the ground are far from simple.

An ultimate dynamic shape of gliders of Nerissa Gliders would be a cylindrical shape in the middle with long cones at the front and back. The back cone could have dimpleds on the surface and made longer than the front one if it didn't cause practical problems. The links bellow show an ideal car aerodynamic shapes and dimpleds.


I have nothing to admit. I have always said you needed to power it if it didn't have a slope sharp enough to make it to move under gravity. Obviously if it moved under gravity you could recover a large chunk of the gravity-generated energy to drive gliders.


Nerissa Gliders have commercial value. Maglev trains don't have commercial value. Shanghai magleve train cost US$1.33billion on a route of 30.00km. This is the value of the year of 2000 when this train built. You think it doesn't consume too much power. Actually it consumes so much power, this train even may not be able to recover the cost of fuel, don't mention the cost of running and maintenance. You have to write off the investment cost and you have to subsidise it.


You can build Nerissa Gliders between Glasgow and London at possibly less than one third of the investment of Shanghai Maglev Train. To build a maglev train between both these two points, will cost over US$22.00 trillion. This is only an estimate based on the cost of Shanghai maglev train on 2000.


To build Nerissa Gliders, all you need is the skill of construction and usual mechanical engineer. After that you can train any one with the education of a school leaver to run and maintain it. Every country, every nation and every major cities can afford to build Nerissa Gliders.




Aerodynamic details:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/ultimate-aerodynamic-car-dave-clouds-dolphin-13142-12.html


http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2697/4036960016_dbaed8a904_o.png&imgrefurl=http://perfectcube.wo


http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://ilovebacteria.com/Images/golf_ball_dimples.png&imgrefurl=http://ilovebacteria.com/golf.htm&h=220&w=475&sz=21&tbnid=ZqxgTH4A3OylDM:&tbnh=60&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgolf%2Bball%2Baerodynamic&zoom=1&q=golf+ball+aerodynamic&usg=__3ejnuFaGpMMcEsUCzUvV_T3Sv_o=&sa=X&ei=9eBlTZGNJ4KDhQftit3qDQ&ved=0CEEQ9QEwBA


Magleve details:


http://www.smtdc.com/en/gycf3.asp


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

 

[roydmoorian]

Straight from one of the links - Doh :redface:

So why not make race cars and planes dimpled? Well, race cars are designed to allow the air to flow around them rather than sticking to the surface as drag would slow them down. With a smooth, aerodynamic car, the air flows around the shape and the wake behind is not so big any way. The difference is that a golf ball is not very aerodynamic to start with. Sticking dimples in a car would increase the drag without altering the degree of air separation by much, so it isn't used.

 

[Swisaw]

Straight from one of the links - Doh :redface:

So why not make race cars and planes dimpled? Well, race cars are designed to allow the air to flow around them rather than sticking to the surface as drag would slow them down. With a smooth, aerodynamic car, the air flows around the shape and the wake behind is not so big any way. The difference is that a golf ball is not very aerodynamic to start with. Sticking dimples in a car would increase the drag without altering the degree of air separation by much, so it isn't used.

We will soon see race cars and aeroplanes dimpled. They are not dimpled now because up to now no one knew if dimples on race cars and aeroplanes were useful. The following link is a video about an experiment of mythbusters on a dimpled car, which made 29.65m/g against 26m/g when not dimpled. The video is 45 minutes. Use your mouse to move the video to28 minute past. After that the experiment on the dimpled car starts.


http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/22/mythbusters-golf-ball-like-dimpling-mpg/#continued

 

[gmoto]

Haven't watched it, but what myth busters seem to have done is taken an aerodynamically good-shaped car and made it better with dimpling. Probably a model that had very little thought of aerodynamics in it's design, such as, say, a golf ball.
So yes, it might help on a local commuter train.
But, they haven't tested in cars designed to have strong aerodynamic design.

Personally, I suspect that creating non-laminer flows is never going to be as efficient as creating a good simple smooth laminer flow.

 

[Swisaw]

We will soon see race cars and aeroplanes dimpled. They are not dimpled now because up to now no one knew if dimples on race cars and aeroplanes were useful. The following link is a video about an experiment of mythbusters on a dimpled car, which made 29.65m/g against 26m/g when not dimpled. The video is 45 minutes. Use your mouse to move the video to28 minute past. After that the experiment on the dimpled car starts.


[URL="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/22/mythbusters-golf-ball-like-dimpling-mpg/#continued"]http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/22/mythbusters-golf-ball-like-dimpling-mpg/#continued[/URL]

This mythbuster dimpled car could have done a lot more than 29.65m/g. The part of the car front directly against the engine, didn't need dimpled. The rest of car body could have been dimpled including wind screens at the front and back. Drages take place because of the separation of wind from car body at high speed. This separation can happen between wind screen and top of the bonet at front and at the back. Separation is not possible directly infront of the engine. So dimpling wind screen at the front and back should help to reduce the drag a lot. Obviously dimpling sind screen creates practical problems of cleaning them with wipers.

 

[Swisaw]

Haven't watched it, but what myth busters seem to have done is taken an aerodynamically good-shaped car and made it better with dimpling. Probably a model that had very little thought of aerodynamics in it's design, such as, say, a golf ball.
So yes, it might help on a local commuter train.
But, they haven't tested in cars designed to have strong aerodynamic design.

Personally, I suspect that creating non-laminer flows is never going to be as efficient as creating a good simple smooth laminer flow.

The aerodynamic of the car doesn't have any bearing because the same car used twice. First the car covered with a special mud and tested. It recorded 26m/g. After that the mud on the body of the car dimpled. Whatever amount of mud, removed during dimpling, put back inside the car to keep the same weight. The car tested again. This time, it recorded 29.65m/g. They didn't believe it would be case.

 

[gmoto]

Yes, it does.
The reason the dimples work on golf balls is because they are an unaerodynamic shape in the first place.

Had they used an already aerodynamic shaped car, it would have probably made it worse. But on a car which does not already have a good smooth laminer air flow, a turbulent airflow will no doubt help.

 

[OurManInBrazil]

An open mind is one thing. But it isn't useful to have a mind so open that your brains fall out.

That actually made me laugh. As I don't have a 'signature' for my posts, I hope you won't mind if I use it?