Nerissa Gliders

[paulears]

This is exactly where your simplifications show your lack of knowledge. Pulleys and rope are fine methods of connection and diversion - but are not in any sense loss-less. There are in everyday use some good examples of how the missing elements interact.

Theatres

It is century old technology to suspend items above stages and have them move in and out by the application of man(woman) power. The idea is simple. a bar over a stage might need to have 250Kg of equipment suspended. The cables go up to the grid above the stage, they then move sideways, diverted by pulleys, and then down again. On this end is cradle with 250Kg of weight in it. By the application of hand power, a heavy weight can be moved up and down very simply. However, with the brakes off, it's is quite amazing how much extra weight can be added or removed without the bar starting to run on it's own. Frictional losses in the pulleys are the main issue. The rigidity of the wire rope, the friction of the pulley bearings all conspire against exactly what you need in your design, overcoming inertia and managing momentum.

 

[Swisaw]

Just before you do that, read the 10 posts before this to realise Swisaw doesn't understand the basics of physics.

If he needs your view he will give it to you.

 

[MikeJ]

In the figure bellow the vehicle has a gross weight of 10,000kg and slides on a slope of 1/100. A counter weight of 10,000kg x (1/100) = 100kg will stop the vehicle rolling downward. Reduce the counter weight to less than 100kg, the vehicle will slide down ward and accelerating. In this case the vehicle should recover at least 9000kg of its counter weights. Assume the unladen weight of the vehicle is 400Kg, which you need to lift the vehicle 1oom. This leaves you with 500kg x g power gain, not bad. Now you disprove this one.

Disproved. Still waiting for you to apologise for being wrong. (again).

 

[Swisaw]

This is exactly where your simplifications show your lack of knowledge. Pulleys and rope are fine methods of connection and diversion - but are not in any sense loss-less. There are in everyday use some good examples of how the missing elements interact.

Theatres

It is century old technology to suspend items above stages and have them move in and out by the application of man(woman) power. The idea is simple. a bar over a stage might need to have 250Kg of equipment suspended. The cables go up to the grid above the stage, they then move sideways, diverted by pulleys, and then down again. On this end is cradle with 250Kg of weight in it. By the application of hand power, a heavy weight can be moved up and down very simply. However, with the brakes off, it's is quite amazing how much extra weight can be added or removed without the bar starting to run on it's own. Frictional losses in the pulleys are the main issue. The rigidity of the wire rope, the friction of the pulley bearings all conspire against exactly what you need in your design, overcoming inertia and managing momentum.

Pulleys and ropes in the figures are just for the sake of conveying the idea. They are not parts of Nerissa Gliders. To recover energy, Gliders of Nerissa Gliders glide over fixed wheels on the way. The wheels are coupled to water pumps to pump up water to certain heights, usually to a height higher than the departure point of gliders. At the arrival point, the accumulated water used as a counter weight to lift up the glider to the departure point.


The gliders operate like the old scale. As long as a glider is heavier than the weight of the water pumped up, it continues moving and accelerating.

 

[vvaannmmaann]

I did ask you some time ago about running a branch line into Mid Wales so I could go to see my Mum.I have not seen your response.
Please advise.

 

[Swisaw]

I did ask you some time ago about running a branch line into Mid Wales so I could go to see my Mum.I have not seen your response.
Please advise.

We completed the line to the door of the good old lady, your mum. We asked her permission to give you a free ride to visit her. Unfortunately she refused and stated categorically that she had nothing to do with you and she refused to recognise you as her son. We tried to reason with her but didn't help. We gave up. Nevertheless if you still want to go, a discounted ticket for £250.00 is available for you. Just deposit the money into my account to get your ride.

 

[vvaannmmaann]

Shame really,seems like such a sensible transport solution.

 

[paulears]

Every time we think we're approaching the destination - the buffers get moved.

Have you looked into pump efficiencies? Seen the size of the pumps that have to be used to transport fluids via pipelines? Total non-starter. The only place they could be used is when you need braking at the end, when the energy transfer could be used to recover the energy of the deceleration stage.

 

[MikeJ]

Disproved. Still waiting for you to apologise for being wrong. (again).

Still waiting.

 

[Swisaw]

Still waiting.

You claim you have disproved the following post:

In the figure bellow the vehicle has a gross weight of 10,000kg and slides on a slope of 1/100. A counter weight of 10,000kg x (1/100) = 100kg will stop the vehicle rolling downward. Reduce the counter weight to less than 100kg, the vehicle will slide down ward and accelerating. In this case the vehicle should recover at least 9000kg of its counter weights. Assume the unladen weight of the vehicle is 400Kg, which you need to lift the vehicle 1oom. This leaves you with 500kg x g power gain, not bad. Now you disprove this one.

But you have not given any reason or explanation for your claim. You just claim it is wrong. If it si so simple, I just say no it is right to disprove you. You said a counter weight of 100kg is not enough for a larger weight on a slope. I disproved you with a formula. O.K. do what I did, disprove me with a formula or two.

 

[MikeJ]

Start with 10,000kg at 100m

How much weight do you end up with at the top of the slope at the end? It's less than 10,000kg, therefore there's no power gain.

If you put 10,000kg on one end of a rope and 100kg on the other end, the 10,000kg is going to move down. Gravity points downwards, not "along" the slope.

 

[paulears]

The point being missed is that these formulae do not prove or disprove anything because they do not take into account all the forces acting in the example. Most formulae can be simplified to a degree, removing the components considered unlikely to impact the result to a particular degree. In your case, the basic formula you use ignores many pretty important factors, so cannot provide a robust and reliable result. You've used the scales analogy previously, but the precision of the scale depends on the design. You can balance a plank on a wall, and put a bucket on each end - friction and the surface area of the pivot mean you could quite possible conclude that a weight of 10Kg on one end is a perfect balance with one of 10.5Kg on the other. It's obviously not, but not taking into account all the forces involved means the conclusion is flawed. As all of us, except one, believe the Nerissa Glider is an example of a misinterpreted conclusion.

 

[Swisaw]

The point being missed is that these formulae do not prove or disprove anything because they do not take into account all the forces acting in the example. Most formulae can be simplified to a degree, removing the components considered unlikely to impact the result to a particular degree. In your case, the basic formula you use ignores many pretty important factors, so cannot provide a robust and reliable result. You've used the scales analogy previously, but the precision of the scale depends on the design. You can balance a plank on a wall, and put a bucket on each end - friction and the surface area of the pivot mean you could quite possible conclude that a weight of 10Kg on one end is a perfect balance with one of 10.5Kg on the other. It's obviously not, but not taking into account all the forces involved means the conclusion is flawed. As all of us, except one, believe the Nerissa Glider is an example of a misinterpreted conclusion.

The only other factors influence the formula is the friction and the wind. The friction is negligible because it is lubricated. The wind may be with you or against you, which is not a big deal Simply you have to be ready to deal with it in case it comes against you. This is to bear in mind that Nerissa Gliders can have the most superior aerodynamics, superior than aerodynamics of NASA machines.

 

[paulears]

If you are using the friction to pump the water, it cannot be excluded from the calculations, and a transport system that requires wind to be in anything other than 25% of the available potential directions is a bit unreliable. Sorry, your ticket is useless today, Nerissa Gliders are not running today because the wind is coming from the wrong direction!

 

[Set up a Company]

Nerissa Gliders can have the most superior aerodynamics, superior than aerodynamics of NASA machines.

I'm thinking of writing a book of Swisaw quotes. This may be my favourite so far. Anybody else have a favourite?

 

[KernowQueen]

I'm thinking of writing a book of Swisaw quotes. This may be my favourite so far. Anybody else have a favourite?

i'm really hoping this might make an appearance sometime soon...


"ok, you're all right & i'm wrong, bye!"

 

[dannier]

In honour of my beloved departed wife, Nerissa, I rename my transportation invention 'Gliding Bridges' in her name to 'Nerissa Gliders' and disclose technical details of the invention to make her name immortal as I believe this invention will become one of the main means of transportation in future. For full technical details please click the link bellow:
[URL="http://www.thrilling.me.uk/nery.html"]http://www.thrilling.me.uk/nery.html[/URL]

i just think so you are so great at physics,But the long way,there do waste so much energy.

If that theory can available,that will be nice prosperity of the world but not good future for the Car Company,we will just need a vehicle or something like that to glide.That will amazing.

but all the road should special made.

Anyway,thanks for your shares and Hope your love will be eternal.

Regards

 

[paulears]

Better still it could become the basis of someone's dissertation for their degree, showing how molehills can become mountains if you mess the scale of the plan up!

 

[Swisaw]

Start with 10,000kg at 100m

How much weight do you end up with at the top of the slope at the end? It's less than 10,000kg, therefore there's no power gain.

If you put 10,000kg on one end of a rope and 100kg on the other end, the 10,000kg is going to move down. Gravity points downwards, not "along" the slope.

Off course gravity points downward. That is way things move downward on a slope. If the above figures didn't prove the concept to you nothing would ever prove it to you.


On the first figure, both gliders are fully loaded on the departure point and ready to travel. Each has a gross weight of 10,100kgs. Recovery power tank is empty and reservoir tank is full.


On figure 2, both gliders have reached to their destination, arrival point, at each end. Each one pumped 10,000kg of water into recovery power tank while gliding downward. Now the recovery power tank contains 20,000kg of water as recovered power. The gliders now empty and each one has an empty weight of 4,100kgs. Each gliders used 100kgs as a driving weight.


On figure 3, empty gliders lifted up to departure points to start another journey. For the lifting, 4,100kgs of water from power recovery tank used as counter weight for each glider. So a total of 8,100kgs has been used as counter weight. The counter weight water gone back to the reservoir. Now power recovery tank still contains 11,800kg of recovered power.


Assume this 11,800kgs also used to over come friction and wind. So still it is not bad. We got a green transportation system operating without the cost of power and co2. How about that? Did you get that?

 

[paulears]

Nope. It's just vapour. You give some maths and then use the word 'assume'.

Friction and wind. What calculations have you done to produce the data that covers this area.

Assume makes an ass out of you and me is a very good starting point.

Stand on skis on a gentle snow slope and you move downhill, stand on them in the summer and you don't. However, skiers will also tell you that the increase in friction from 10am snow to 3pm snow may indeed make some downhill slopes flat, for all intents and purposes. Your slope angle is flatter than many ski slopes - the gentle ones that are basically roads under the snow. You need downforce on your 'wheels' to operate the pumps, but this downforce could well be enough to stop the glider gliding. Earlier you extolled the lift capabilities of your aerodynamics, and now you are using the weight to operate pumps. You cannot have it both ways. As each objection is brought up to your physics mangling, you 'invent' a new chunk of the project, that ruins older info you provided.

I think many of us suspect that the only success this project has had is to generate hundreds of posts on your chosen subject. For that, you are to be congratulated.

 

[roydmoorian]

May I add another theory to this thread ?

Black is white and white is black and no-one can prove otherwise to me

 

[MikeJ]

On the first figure, both gliders are fully loaded on the departure point and ready to travel. Each has a gross weight of 10,100kgs. Recovery power tank is empty and reservoir tank is full.


On figure 2, both gliders have reached to their destination, arrival point, at each end. Each one pumped 10,000kg of water into recovery power tank while gliding downward. Now the recovery power tank contains 20,000kg of water as recovered power. The gliders now empty and each one has an empty weight of 4,100kgs. Each gliders used 100kgs as a driving weight.


On figure 3, empty gliders lifted up to departure points to start another journey. For the lifting, 4,100kgs of water from power recovery tank used as counter weight for each glider. So a total of 8,100kgs has been used as counter weight. The counter weight water gone back to the reservoir. Now power recovery tank still contains 11,800kg of recovered power.


Assume this 11,800kgs also used to over come friction and wind. So still it is not bad. We got a green transportation system operating without the cost of power and co2. How about that? Did you get that?

You still end up with less energy than you started with. What you've lost is the energy you've used in overcoming frictionl, wind resistance, mechanical losses, and any inefficiencies in the mechanics. You've assumed these to be 200kg, but there's no scientific basis for this.

Regardless, your maths is "original energy" - "lost energy" = "final energy". That's no different to any other system. The only reason you think your system is "green" is because you're assuming the load always wants to move down hill. If the load now wants to move back to the top of the slopes, you're going to have to add the energy back in to the system to overcome the losses.

Now read this bit really slowly.....

The total loss in moving the cargo on your system is the loss due to friction, wind resistance, innefficiencies etc. That's no difference to any other system in the world.

 

[Swisaw]

Nope. It's just vapour. You give some maths and then use the word 'assume'.

Friction and wind. What calculations have you done to produce the data that covers this area.

Assume makes an ass out of you and me is a very good starting point.

Stand on skis on a gentle snow slope and you move downhill, stand on them in the summer and you don't. However, skiers will also tell you that the increase in friction from 10am snow to 3pm snow may indeed make some downhill slopes flat, for all intents and purposes. Your slope angle is flatter than many ski slopes - the gentle ones that are basically roads under the snow. You need downforce on your 'wheels' to operate the pumps, but this downforce could well be enough to stop the glider gliding. Earlier you extolled the lift capabilities of your aerodynamics, and now you are using the weight to operate pumps. You cannot have it both ways. As each objection is brought up to your physics mangling, you 'invent' a new chunk of the project, that ruins older info you provided.

I think many of us suspect that the only success this project has had is to generate hundreds of posts on your chosen subject. For that, you are to be congratulated.

No, certainly not. Assumption is a fundamental to convert ideas into applications. Well, my assumption doesn't make an ass out of any one. Because I have been very conservative in my assumption. I assumed all recovered spare power used on friction and wind when possibly you may not need more than a quarter of that as the friction is negligible and the wind is not always against you.


Let us to do some formulas to support the concept. In the figures it is assumed the slope to be 1/100 and the gross weight of a glider to be 20,100.00kgs. We assume 100.00kgs as a driving weight. So we need to recover only 20,000.00kgs/glider of water to a height of 100.00metres as counter weight and spare power. A counter weight of a glider of gross weight 20,000.00kg on a slope of 1/100 is 20,000 x (1/100) = 200.00kg. In other words a glider of 20,100kgs has to pump up 200kg of water to a height of 100metres for each 100metre glide. So what sort of cross sectional area pipe we need?


200.00kg of water = 200,000.00grams=200,000.00 cubic centimetre volume


Convert this volume to a pipe of 100m long, high. To do that use the following simple formula:


volume = height x cross sectional area
200,000.00 = 10000 x cross sectional area
20.00CM Sq = Cross sectional area.

 

[Swisaw]

i just think so you are so great at physics,But the long way,there do waste so much energy.

If that theory can available,that will be nice prosperity of the world but not good future for the Car Company,we will just need a vehicle or something like that to glide.That will amazing.

but all the road should special made.

Anyway,thanks for your shares and Hope your love will be eternal.

Regards

Many thanks for your kind words, which made me to cry again.


Actually Nerissa Gliders can benefit car companies a lot especially in the third world. Any country of the third world can build Nerissa Gliders because it doesn't cost expensive investment and needs the usual capital skills available every where especially in third world countries. When a third world country builds Nerissa Gliders between its major cities, it will lead to an economic boom in this country because of the cheap transportation of goods and passengers. Consequently people of this country become well off and go for cars as luxury and family necessity. The same thing is true in developed countries.

 

[Swisaw]

I'm thinking of writing a book of Swisaw quotes. This may be my favourite so far. Anybody else have a favourite?

It is a fact that Nerissa Gliders can be made to have a best aerodynamic properties than any other machines because it doesn't depend on air like other rmachines like trains aeroplanes or Nasa flying machines, which all need external fittings to get help from the air. All these external fittings add weights, which cost more fuel, and wear and tear.

The aerodynamic properties of Nerissa Gliders are not to use the air but to get rid of it as some thing obstructive. Nerissa gliders can be made in the shape of a tube with the shape of chesil tip or cone at the back and front. This shape is a best possible aerodynamic shape.

 

[paulears]

This is the best statement for ages

Nerissa Gliders can be made to have a best aerodynamic properties than any other machines because it doesn't depend on air

You cannot have aerodynamic properties that don't depend on air!

As for the third world and no expensive investment? They can[t afford food let alone the workforce and materials to do this crazy scheme.

The reality is it won't work, has the aerodynamic properties of a brick, costs far more than it will ever generate and is a lovely idea when spoken about in a restaurant, but none of it stands scrutiny in any way at all!

 

[MikeJ]

More to the point, Swisaw is now just posting every 24 hours to bring this thread back to the top of the board. That must be against the rules?

 

[Swisaw]

This is the best statement for ages

You cannot have aerodynamic properties that don't depend on air!

As for the third world and no expensive investment? They can[t afford food let alone the workforce and materials to do this crazy scheme.

The reality is it won't work, has the aerodynamic properties of a brick, costs far more than it will ever generate and is a lovely idea when spoken about in a restaurant, but none of it stands scrutiny in any way at all!

It depends how you put it or phrase it. Nerissa Gliders doesn't need air. A fast train needs air to get good traction. An aeroplane needs air to fly across and change direction. But in the case in Nerissa gliders it is ony an obstruction. So the aerodynamic in this case doesn't add anything to cost fuel or wear and tears.

For example you can make the front and back of the gliders in the shape of chesil tip and use them for some thing inside.

 

[paulears]

Please - do at least try and be scientific in terminology and explanation.

An aeroplane needs air to fly across and change direction.

No it doesn't - it needs lift, greater lift upwards than gravity exerts downwards. Changing direction needs imbalanced lift - that's all.

 

[Swisaw]

Please - do at least try and be scientific in terminology and explanation.

No it doesn't - it needs lift, greater lift upwards than gravity exerts downwards. Changing direction needs imbalanced lift - that's all.

Yes! it does. It can not do it without air.

 

[paulears]

yes - but neither than the passengers. It's rather like saying cars need roads.

I keep meaning to drop out of this one, but I can't with each new ridiculous comment.

You know your glider works, we know it doesn't. To almost quote Douglas Adams, your glider will hang in the air in the same way bricks don't.

 

[Swisaw]

This thread, which led me to develop the concept of wingless flying car, has led me to develop another concept, a better cookware. My 'A Better Cookware' has two advantages over existing cookwares. It is energy efficient and environmentally friendly. On the basis of a simple common sense, it shouldn't use more than 70% of the energy used by existing cookwares, we find in our kitchens today. It is environmentally friendly in a sense that it has the potential to recycle important disused household items as a free part of these 'A Better Cookware's or as a new business. A patent has already been applied

 

[MikeJ]

He's back!

The patent office must love you.

 

[Esk247]

*repeatedly bangs head on desk*

 

[Swisaw]

*repeatedly bangs head on desk*

Not so my dear not so. Support is already building up. Just wish me good luck.