Nerissa Gliders

[Londoner]

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:

http://www.thrilling.me.uk/nery.html

[Londoner]

I have just put the post bellow on this forum, UK business forum:

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forum ... p?t=192697

In this post, I am going to rebuild Woolwich Ferry as Nerissa Gliders and answer most of the points so far have been raised.

Nerissa Gliders could cross terminal velocity or at least to have a very high terminal velocity with a proper aerodynamic design to slice into air and eliminate the drag. It can be made to have a better aerodynamic advantages than aeroplanes and Nasa Shuttle by building the glider like a cylinder in the middle with long cone shape at the back and the front. Fit the feet to each side in the middle. In this way, the glider should slice air like knife slices jelly and almost make the drag negligible. This should at least double terminal velocity if not crossing it. Now with confidence, I can say that Nerissa Gliders can shuttle between Glasgow and London in under two hours.

The route, supports or pillars, for Nerissa Gliders between two points should be a lot cheaper than building a two lane A-class road between the same two points. The length of each lane on the road, has to be approximately equal to the distance between both points. Each lane, total pillar lengths, on the route of Nerissa Gliders can be made to be less than half of the distance between both points. This is provided the distance between each two pillars is longer than the height of the departure point. It is easier and quicker to build supports of Nerissa Gliders than building roads. The supports can be prefabricated and taken to their places, which can be prepared in advance quickly.

To recover potential energy of gross weight of Nerissa Gliders, the pumps don't have to pump up water higher than the departure point. The following imaginary rebuilding of Woolwich Ferry as Nerissa Gliders makes this point clear:

Woolwich Ferry takes about 6.00 minutes per crossing and can take up to 30.00 cars. Assume the gross weight of each car is one tone, this makes a load of 30.00 tones or 30,000.00Kg ferried per crossing. We set a height of 20.00metres and and a distance of 200.00metres for the shuttle between both sides of the river. This creates a slope of 20/200=1/10 which is sharp enough for the glider to slide under gravity at an acceleration of (1/10)10=1.00m/s/s. At this acceleration the glider should do the crossing in under half minute theoretically. This is faster than the existing crossing time by over ten times.

Energy recovery and reuse:

Assume the glider caries the same load, 30 cars or 30,000.00kg load. Assume the weight of the glider is 1/3rd of the load, which is 10,000.00kg. So the gross weight becomes 40,000.00kg. This makes the potential energy of the gross weight to be 40,000.00 x 20 x 10= 8.00MJ. Potential energy=weight x height x gravity. We adjust water pumps to pump up a volume of water equal to the weight of cars on the glider to the height of departure, which is 20.00metres high. We leave the weight of the glider to drive the glider. The weight of pumped water gives a potential energy of 30,000.00 x20 x 10=6.00MJ. At the arrival point, vehicles leave the glider empty. To lift up the glider to the departure point, we use 10,000.00kg of pumped water on the top as counter weight to lift up the glider to the departure point. This leaves 20,000.00kg of pumped up water on the top with potential energy value of 2.00MJ, which can be used for other things. Here you have it; Nerissa Gliders as a vehicle ferry and energy generator.

[Londoner]

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.

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forum ... 97&page=22

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.

[Barış]

Kak Londoner, I think what you mentioned is great. It makes good sense and also is possible to do the such. So carry on, imo...

[Londoner]

Kak Londoner, I think what you mentioned is great. It makes good sense and also is possible to do the such. So carry on, imo...

Thank you for your encouragement brother.

[Londoner]

My latest post at UK Business Forum on page 26 of Nerissa Gliders thread is about a new aerodynamics shape conceptualised by myself:

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forum ... 97&page=26

You seem to be very well informed about aerodynamics. Please tell me how aerodynamic is the following conceptual shape:

This shape is a horizontal rectangular cubic body. But the top has moved forward along the longer side of the rectangle to cause the front side to make an angle of around 135 degree more or less with the bottom of the triangle and the side at the back to make an angle of 45 degrees more or less with the bottom of the triangle

On the basis of simple common sense, I could say this shape is the most aerodynamic than any other shapes. Because at high speed it get lifted from the front and at the back. So far I have not seen this shape in any applications.