Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: _Stefan_ on 14/07/2007 13:47:58
-
What are your thoughts about gravity as an energy source? Are there ways of extracting energy from the Earth's gravity that have been shown to work?
-
Not exactly sure what this means in practice?
To extract energy from something is to imply that it will have less of that energy after you have finished with it than before you started with it.
Gravity is an attribute of mass, and is indivisible from it; thus to reduce gravity is to reduce mass, thus is not extracting energy from gravity the same thing as extracting energy from mass? If this is this is the case, then the only significant success in this matter to date has been nuclear energy, although it only extracts a very small portion of the available energy.
-
I can think of a way to indirectly get energy from gravity. If you set up a device near a black hole that will intercept incoming particles, then that could be turned into energy. Whether you'd get enough for it to be practical, I don't know. Maybe Ian or someone of that ilk could tell us.
-
I can think of a way to indirectly get energy from gravity. If you set up a device near a black hole that will intercept incoming particles, then that could be turned into energy. Whether you'd get enough for it to be practical, I don't know. Maybe Ian or someone of that ilk could tell us.
But how would you get that energy back to us without having to climb the same energy gradient that was used to impart kinetic energy into the particle you intercepted (i.e. the net energy gain of an optimal system, once you have got the energy away from the black hole, would still be zero).
-
I can think of a way to indirectly get energy from gravity. If you set up a device near a black hole that will intercept incoming particles, then that could be turned into energy. Whether you'd get enough for it to be practical, I don't know. Maybe Ian or someone of that ilk could tell us.
But how would you get that energy back to us without having to climb the same energy gradient that was used to impart kinetic energy into the particle you intercepted (i.e. the net energy gain of an optimal system, once you have got the energy away from the black hole, would still be zero).
I'll leave those sort of minor details to other people [:D]
-
There is no practical way of extracting energy from a gravitational field but it provides a very convenient way of storing electrical energy when it is cheap and recovering it when it becomes more valuable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage
-
I thought the gravitational potential energy stored in the millions of tonnes of water behind a dam provided an example of the use of the Earth's gravity. What puzzles me - and I can't understand this - is why gravity is strong and weak at the same time? We are held on to the Earth by gravity, yet I can easily throw a ball in the air. Or has this been answered by another_s?
-
Gravity is by far the weakest of the 4 natural forces of nature - electromagnetism, the weak & strong nuclear forces being the other 3.
It has long been a puzzle to physicists why gravity should be so much weaker than the other 3 forces but recent models have suggested reasons. There may be evidence of the models within the next few years from the new LHC collider at CERNE.
-
We regularly extract energy from gravity in hydroeolectric power stations. This is really energy extracted from the sun because the heat of the sun has eveporated the water from the ocean and sent it inland to rain on a mountaintop whewre the strams run down and are collected in a hydroelectric dam and used to turn a generator.
-
Besides Hydroelectric dams Scientists have tried to use gravity and Helium filled balloons to try for perpetual motion. The idea is to use the Helium balloons to carry a small mass contained inside a vacuum up to an height then release it. The Helium balloon is not inside the vacuum itself and so rises being lighter than the sourounding air.
When the mass gets to a certain height, the Helium balloon is detached from the mass and it comes to Earth hitting a power generator on the way down. The Helium balloon then has to get back down to Earth to attach itself to the mass again so it can pick it up and lift it to the top again.
This is done by using part of the power generated to deflate the Helium balloon using an electrical decompressor inside the balloon. When the balloon gets back to Earth the electrical device then recompresses the helium inside the balloon using the same helium which it decompressed. It then picks up the mass and starts again.
To drive the generator there are hundreds of these mass-helium devices working in sink.
The idea is a good one but the problem is generating enough force to drive the electrical compressors which they didn't do. But with a tweak to the idea these days you never know!
..maff
-
Hydo dams are not using gravity as a primary source of energy. As Ian rightly mentioned, the Sun is the ultimate source of energy for them, and gravity is merely a transient storage mechanism.
Besides Hydroelectric dams Scientists have tried to use gravity and Helium filled balloons to try for perpetual motion. The idea is to use the Helium balloons to carry a small mass contained inside a vacuum up to an height then release it. The Helium balloon is not inside the vacuum itself and so rises being lighter than the sourounding air.
When the mass gets to a certain height, the Helium balloon is detached from the mass and it comes to Earth hitting a power generator on the way down. The Helium balloon then has to get back down to Earth to attach itself to the mass again so it can pick it up and lift it to the top again.
This is done by using part of the power generated to deflate the Helium balloon using an electrical decompressor inside the balloon. When the balloon gets back to Earth the electrical device then recompresses the helium inside the balloon using the same helium which it decompressed. It then picks up the mass and starts again.
To drive the generator there are hundreds of these mass-helium devices working in sink.
The idea is a good one but the problem is generating enough force to drive the electrical compressors which they didn't do. But with a tweak to the idea these days you never know!
..maff
I am trying to understand how this is supposed to work.
The vacuum has to be contained in something, and that thing has to be able to withstand the force of the external atmosphere, and so is likely to be heavy. But even if you could devise a very strong material with almost zero mass, it seems to be suggesting that the energy required to compress the helium to bring the balloon back to earth would be less than the energy gained by taking the mass up to a given altitude, and I cannot see how this is so.
The vacuum chamber seems to be a bit a red herring, but I am not sure exactly what you expect it to do. If the idea of the vacuum chamber is to create a place in which to suck in the helium, then the problem still arises that you need energy to create the vacuum (this is no less than the energy required to compress the helium, which will be no less than the energy gained by floating the helium balloon).
-
What are your thoughts about gravity as an energy source? Are there ways of extracting energy from the Earth's gravity that have been shown to work?
What about earth gravitational field on the Moon? It's possible to extract energy from the sea tidal movement.
-
I believe the mass was inside a tube where the air had been sucked out creating a vacuum. The helium balloon was on the outside and attached to the mass via magnets. When the mass got to a certain height the magnets became parted via a sheild of somekind on the tubing allowing the mass to drop. The Helium in the balloon was then compressed into a cylinder contained within the balloon (electrically). This allowed the balloon to sink to Earth and attach the magnets again. The compressed Helium in the cylinder was then pushed back into the balloon making the whole job lot rise again. Don't shoot the messenger guys it didn't work because they couldn't generate enough electricity to drive the Helium compressors. But personally I liked the concept.
..maff
-
water mills do it.
-
What are your thoughts about gravity as an energy source? Are there ways of extracting energy from the Earth's gravity that have been shown to work?
What about earth gravitational field on the Moon? It's possible to extract energy from the sea tidal movement.
The energy is being extracted from the orbital energy of the moon, not from its gravitational field - gravity is merely a means of transmitting the orbital energy. The tides slow down the orbit of the moon, thus clearly indicating that they are using orbital energy; they do not reduce the gravitational pull of the moon, and so don't consume gravitational energy.
-
water mills do it.
Water mills are no different from hydroelectric plants mentioned above.
-
I believe the mass was inside a tube where the air had been sucked out creating a vacuum. The helium balloon was on the outside and attached to the mass via magnets. When the mass got to a certain height the magnets became parted via a sheild of somekind on the tubing allowing the mass to drop. The Helium in the balloon was then compressed into a cylinder contained within the balloon (electrically). This allowed the balloon to sink to Earth and attach the magnets again. The compressed Helium in the cylinder was then pushed back into the balloon making the whole job lot rise again. Don't shoot the messenger guys it didn't work because they couldn't generate enough electricity to drive the Helium compressors. But personally I liked the concept.
..maff
The point is that if they had generated enough electricity, they would have found the electricity they had to generate exceeded the energy they could extract from the system - hence no perpetual motion, and no extraction of energy from gravity.
Now, if we could ever find a way of receiving those elusive gravity waves, then we might be able to use them for energy.
-
water mills do it.
Welcome to the forum Lord Tawny! Glad to see you participating! Enjoy!
-
I understand that the Sun converts about 4 million ton of mass into energy per second.
If mass and gravity are equated is this not the extraction of energy from gravity
-
I understand that the Sun converts about 4 million ton of mass into energy per second.
If mass and gravity are equated is this not the extraction of energy from gravity
That is what I suggested earlier, that nuclear energy is the closest approximation we have to date of extracting energy from gravity (and you might I suppose argue that solar energy is nuclear energy by proxy).
-
What are your thoughts about gravity as an energy source? Are there ways of extracting energy from the Earth's gravity that have been shown to work?
What about earth gravitational field on the Moon? It's possible to extract energy from the sea tidal movement.
The energy is being extracted from the orbital energy of the moon, not from its gravitational field - gravity is merely a means of transmitting the orbital energy. The tides slow down the orbit of the moon, thus clearly indicating that they are using orbital energy; they do not reduce the gravitational pull of the moon, and so don't consume gravitational energy.
Ok, but slowing down the Moon's orbital speed makes it jump down to a closer orbital distance, that is, the Moon's gravitational energy decreases. So the energy of the tides has actually come from this variation of gravitational energy of the Moon.
-
Ok, but slowing down the Moon's orbital speed makes it jump down to a closer orbital distance, that is, the Moon's gravitational energy decreases. So the energy of the tides has actually come from this variation of gravitational energy of the Moon.
Except that, as I understand it, the Moon is drifting away from us.
In any case, all of the orbital energy of the Moon itself derives from the processes that created the Moon (if the theory that the Moon was created by an impact between the Earth and another body, then the orbital energy of the Moon derives from the kinetic energy of that impact).
-
Ok, but slowing down the Moon's orbital speed makes it jump down to a closer orbital distance, that is, the Moon's gravitational energy decreases. So the energy of the tides has actually come from this variation of gravitational energy of the Moon.
Except that, as I understand it, the Moon is drifting away from us.
I sincerely don't know if the Moon drifts away or the opposite. If it drifts away, it loses kinetic energy but acquire gravitational potential energy. The sum of the two, that is the Moon's total energy, increases with increasing distance:
T = kinetic energy = 1/2GmM/R
V = potential energy = -GmM/R
E = total energy = T + V = -1/2GmM/R
where G = gravitational constant; m = Moon's mass; M = eart's mass; R = distance Eart-Moon.
So, in that case, the Moon have to subtract energy from Earth in some way (maybe from earth's spinning energy?).In any case, all of the orbital energy of the Moon itself derives from the processes that created the Moon (if the theory that the Moon was created by an impact between the Earth and another body, then the orbital energy of the Moon derives from the kinetic energy of that impact).
If you have two bodies with non-zero mass, non-zero tangential relative speed that are approaching, they can form a system planet-satellite where the lighter one orbit around the heavier one. The parameters describing the orbit: distance R and orbital speed V, are defined by the initial parameters of the two bodies: positions and speeds. So you don't need to look for particular ways of generating the orbital kinetic energy.
-
It is not possible for two bodies that are approaching each other from a great distance under their mutual gravitational attraction to go into a stable orbit around each other without the intervention of an additional energy loss in the form of a collision or the inervention of a third gravitiating object.
All two body orbits from a distance are hyperbolic or at best parabolic like a new comet.
-
It is not possible for two bodies that are approaching each other from a great distance under their mutual gravitational attraction to go into a stable orbit around each other without the intervention of an additional energy loss in the form of a collision or the inervention of a third gravitiating object.
Yes, infact it's for this reason I wrote "...they can form a system planet-satellite..." instead of writing "...they form...". Anyway, I would say that the Moon's orbital kinetic energy comes from the Moon's gravitational potential energy in the earth's grav. field and not from the kinetic energy of the impact. Do you agree?
-
This is ameans of gravity giving us usable energy.
As for as the tidal energy, I would have to say that it comes from the two
gravitational fields pulling on the seas, as the moon goes by it pulls a bulge in the
sea and when it passes the earth's gravity pulls it back. It is a real tug-of-war that
creats energy.
Ed
-
In New Scientist 7 July 07 "Robots of ancient Greece".' A Greek engineer called Hero built a 3 wheeled machine to entertain audiences in Alexandria'. A vertical tube is set on a 3 wheeled platform. A weight,attached to a 2 cords descends in this tube. Its descent is slowed by wheat grains.
The cords extend down to be wound around the axles of the front 2 wheels. With pins and loops carefully placed on the axles the device could be programmed to move in certain ways. The earliest example of programming?
-
i have a gravity turbine and motor that use all the pwoer of the its mass - 5% for rotating , and the new theory convert any kind of potantiol energy like gravity to kinetic energy using all its pwoer.if you use 1 ton of mass at noe side of a wheel without any other mass at the other sid wheel you will generat energy = 950 kg of that ton . you can use any amount of mass at any kind maybe sand it depends on your design and you can calculate the amount of energy and power you can get with this free wheel .
( it's selfrotating no fuel no external power as u know)
i sow a lot of this gravity motor and gravity wheel at many sites but non of them use my complete theory and some of them were close to catch it and i don't know why they didn't.
so, because i'm not specialist and don't think that i'm genius more than our scientists, and the theory is very simple , i'm sure that there are many them know this facts and this freepwoer and free-energy , but don't know why they keep silance all this time maybe becuase it will effects the energy industry or the source of political power or something like that , i don't know the true reasons ,but what i'm sure of that i have the gravity turbine and just a time to become for all uses and nations. so every one can hold its own free- generator and energy and its free-land and whatever need energy ,
i hope that.
my gravity turbine not like anyone af what i found at those sites and patents
sure it's more powerful , simple and economic .
gravity.electricport.com/
http://www.fuellesspower.com/6_Gravity2.htm
http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Gravity_Motors
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6817180-claims.html
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/328724.html?c=on#c136644
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=5637
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:gy5nw3k6riMJ:keelynet.com/+gravity+energy+generat&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/
http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/conference/Weinfelden/
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/hfrnrgen.htm
http://www.keelynet.com/davidson/npap1.htm
http://www.rexresearch.com/tewari/tewari.htm
http://www.allanstime.com/UnifiedFieldTheory/gravity.htm
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2006107313
http://www.allanstime.com/UnifiedFieldTheory/gravity.htm
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7134283.html
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/2depalma.html
http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Gravity.html
http://www.free-energy.ws/
http://www.eagle-research.com/fenergy/gravity.html
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:cSEN9n9_o0YJ:www.fuellesspower.com/CD_list33plans.htm+free+energy+gravity&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLJ_enEG232EG232&q=gravity+motor
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Andy_Gravity-Magnet_Motor
http://www.fuellesspower.com/gravity2.html
http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/newclaims/GravityMotor/gravity_motor.htm
http://www.evert.de/eft786e.htm
http://www.gravitymotor.net/
http://www.skdynamics.com/gravitymotor/index.htm
sorry for my bad english
thank u for time
-
So i take it you have built your fully working version have you.
So many websites for something which cant work.
-
When I was eight I had a vehicle powered by gravity, when you sat on it the elevated seat was drawn down by your weight pulling on a rope that turned the rearwheels.
after you had moved about 10 meters you had to get off to allow it to reset.
-
usamasalah.
If it works then can you provide a working example or supply accurate details or plans?
Its a pity as no one seems to be able to show any working examples or supply the proper diagrams for one to be built.
As it says on one of the above sites that they are "only claims, which have not been validated in our day" Which probably explains a lot.
Bee
-
sure i will do that , just it take some time
-
It wont work
-
but mine is work
-
If that were the case you would become a trillionaire.
-
All the simple orbital calculations assume point masses / spherical, uniform objects.. As soon as the objects become 'real', the simple formulae for gravitational potential fall down and you can transfer energy into or out of the energy of the orbit. Natural processes take it out and the orbit will decay.
You have to put energy INTO a satellite, to make it go into a higher orbit and, on re-entry, a spacecraft loses a lot of orbital energy (transferred into heat).
I don't think there is a reason for the Moon to get further away if it's only the Earth and Moon involved. There could be an effect from other planets or the Sun but could it be a great as tidal energy loss?