Gravity as an energy source?

[swansont]

Using an orbiting body to collect energy just means the energy comes out of the orbit, so you have to expend more energy boosting the body back into its orbit.

[finster]

Sorry if this has already been posted, but this has been bugging me for a while and a search didn't turn up anything. We keep talking about alternative energy sources everywhere when there is a constant energy around us all the time. What I want to know is, could gravity be used as a feasible source of energy?

 

 

 

 

[GlassPilot]

My thoughts on gravity being used to generate power.

Start with an object in a geosynchronous orbit...but with a very slight elliptical component.

Now physically connect the object in orbit to the earth. Now you have the connecting medium moving slowly up and down as viewed from earth. Tie that rod to a generator and poof...gravity as an energy source.

[Klaynos]

My thoughts on gravity being used to generate power.

Start with an object in a geosynchronous orbit...but with a very slight elliptical component.

Now physically connect the object in orbit to the earth. Now you have the connecting medium moving slowly up and down as viewed from earth. Tie that rod to a generator and poof...gravity as an energy source.

 

And as you extract energy the orbit will slowly decay. Any energy you used putting it there and then fixing the decaying orbit will always be more than you can extract.

[vampares]

The force is applied by the static suspension in conjunction with the "active" magnet. The upward movement of the ball just creates potential energy. Gravity is only involved because the energy is recoverable. You would have to pull the ball off the magnet but there would be the assistance of the gravitational potential energy.

Edited October 29, 2012 by vampares

[hyperion1is]

Hi,

I'm new to this forum and I'm an amateur regarding science but passionate about it.

I see that this topic continued since 2006 and I hope it hasn't got "cold" now.

I have a question, unclarity which, how other users stated, "it's driving me nuts".

 

The topic is Gravity as an energy source, and for me the Swing is such an example. I didn't read all the posts in this topic, and I'm sorry about it, but I skimmed through. If I'm not mistaking Gravity is referred as potential energy and for me the Swing is an example in which the the potential energy of gravity is transformed into kinetic energy.

If you take a person and you place it in a swing you have a system. At first it may seem that the energy of the human is powering the swing(imprints momentum) but since this can be done without the "human" touching the earth from my point of view no external energy is injected into the system.

A person and a swing creates a system made up by two subsystems (if this is a correct expression) in which one can find it's self in opposition with the other related to the center of gravity of the system. After the momentum has been created if you eliminate air friction and ball bearing friction I guess you have a Perpetuum mobile in which energy is conserved but my point is that energy can build up in the system and that is trough gravity.

I thought about it and from my point of view not the energy in the human is powering up the swing but the algorithm which the human brain can devise.

I'm not sure because I'm not a scientist but any energy attributed to the human is for the human (the subsystem) to position him self in opposition to the swing according to an algorithm which created an asynchronism between the system center of gravity related to the earth gravitational center.

My assumption is that any energy the human uses gets back to him and if that is not done entirely the energy can get back through collecting (friction from ball bearing) and the collected energy will be higher than any invested energy. Note: the idea is that any other object can be used in this example instead of the human as long it can assure the algorithm.

 

I hope it makes sense to someone what I wrote here and maybe you can tell me if this is a false assumption or not so I can "rest easy" in either case.

[Klaynos]

If you could remove all the resistive forces, which you can't then any energy increase would be from the human turning chemical energy into kinetic energy in the system.

[hyperion1is]

Thanks for your reply. I don't want to contradict you but I think this is a false assumption that we are tempted to make. Any chemical energy turned into kinetic energy if for the person to move his legs and arms in relation to him self and that energy is returned to the human. If you stretch your legs, switch your center of gravity and then move your legs in symmetry you collect the invested energy back. I haven't done the math but I think this is why this can be done effortlessly by any person who learned how to do it right and any fatigue comes from muscle weariness.

 

I don't know how to make my point about this but when I say that the energy is coming back to the human I refer to a principle which applies here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_brake

I don't know if this is to the point.

 

Later edit: sorry for any inconvenience from my lack of grasping the English language. English is not my native language.

Edited March 20, 2013 by hyperion1is

[Klaynos]

You are moving your legs at different parts of the swing, creating something similar to a driven double pendulum system. If you do the maths you'll find any increase in energy is due to the energy expended at moving limbs at different parts of the swing not being equal.

 

Your English is very good.

[hyperion1is]

Thanks, if my English is good on the other hand I'm lacking technical notions to make my point. So I will try in my own words referring to the basics.

 

You are right about that, I'm not saying that you don't (especially without technical notions to support any contrary point), what I'm saying is that IF "we" accounted for everything in the case of the human-swing system. And you are right, it can be compared to a double pendulum system. You stated "If you do the maths you'll find any increase in energy is due to the energy expended" this means that is equal? Expended energy= the "increase" in energy? If this is true we have a starting point.

 

In the "human-swing" system you have a system in which the law of conservation of mass and energy applies, if you make abstraction to an element that I stated earlier: the algorithm.

So let me try this approach with you. The algorithm that the human body uses (as an simple object) is external to the human-swing system. This algorithm makes the resultant of gravity to be outside the system thus increasing momentum. (if this is correctly stated). Anyhow, "take" a double pendulum system, study his movement and you will notice a pattern which if this is not a mistake can be described by an algorithm. Now you can come with another algorithm in contrast with the algorithm of the double pendulum system which creates an asynchronism. When I say that you came with something "external" might be confusing because we may refer to 2 systems in which the elements might be harder to be isolated.

 

But not to complicate things, from my point of view, the swing-human find itself un-centered, in a state out of equilibrium, at a certatin point (from a static point of view) and tries to re-balance through the law of physics. The human comes up with an algorithm (a new state) which prevents the system to re-establish equilibrium. The question is that if exists such an algorithm which will always will leave the system out of equilibrium and this "out of equilibrium" in correlation with gravity generates momentum with higher and higher values. I don't know if this makes sense

Edited March 20, 2013 by hyperion1is

[Klaynos]

I understand what you're describing but it requires an energy input each time you readjust to ensure you don't end up in equilibrium. That energy in the case of the human on the swing comes from their muscles.

[hyperion1is]

That might be the case and the analysis ends here. If that's not the case you might have something else. I don't know what, intuitively I can say that you have a localized form of extracting (collecting) energy from the Universe through a local method of "lack of balance" (this what the dictionary gave me).

 

I think that the "use" of human in this analysis might distract us (those who study this system) because of the chemical energy. Others like you understand this but for me to be certain will require to "replace" the human with another subsystem and you will have 2 subsystems, one of which can apply an algorithm to ensure "you don't end up in equilibrium" like you stated and a way to transform kinetic energy into electrical kind. In such a theoretical (and maybe practical) system you can register the input and the output of energy to draw the conclusion. If I'm not mistaken in such an example you have a "minimal" input of energy in the sense that you need energy only for "readjustment" which in theory (in my head-not very scientifically I know) will be lower than the harnessed energy.

 

Thanks for your input, and I'm not trying to be difficult but I think this a case in which when you don't have the proper knowledge (me) your are not sure that the things add up.

[Klaynos]

If you remove the human you have a driven double pendulum. These are well understood. It's a nice idea, but it won't give you any energy, sorry.

 

If you remove the human and replace it with some mechanism you have a driven double pendulum. These are well understood. It's a nice idea, but it won't give you any energy, sorry.

[hyperion1is]

Revising this topic, I thought about the logic of your statements, in the above context (I hope is not offensive):

If you remove the human you have a driven double pendulum. These are well understood. It's a nice idea, but it won't give you any energy, sorry.

 

If you remove the human you remove the (applied) algorithm and you are left with "a driven double pendulum. These are well understood." I agree even if I don't understand them (fully) my self.

If you remove the human and replace it with some mechanism you have a driven double pendulum. These are well understood. It's a nice idea, but it won't give you any energy, sorry.

 

"some mechanism" ? Which has an (pre-thinked) algorithm in his MO or not?

 

 

Note: the idea is that any other object can be used in this example instead of the human as long it can assure the algorithm.

 

 

And I theorized about:

 

The question is that if exists such an algorithm which will always will leave the system out of equilibrium and this "out of equilibrium" in correlation with gravity generates momentum with higher and higher values.

 

 

Also I think is a thing of Emergence? The input energy in a PC is the same as the energy used. Improper formulation. I mean that it's respects the law of conservation of mass and energy. What about the result? A human inputs an algorithm (programing), inputs data, leaves (it doesn't interact with the system anymore) and when comes back collects a new set of processed data. Work has been done for him.

A monitor (let's say Lcd) follows the same laws concerning energy, but with the proper algorithm outputs an image. The specific image (not random pixels-and that is not a coincidence) being an emergent.

 

Regarding my proposal on a driven double pendulum on which you apply an algorithm: input energy + algorithm = output energy? IE being equal with OE?

I don't contradict what you said earlier only clarifying the interpretation.

[roger4464]

If you could remove all the resistive forces, which you can't then any energy increase would be from the human turning chemical energy into kinetic energy in the system.

 

If you could remove all the resistive forces, which you can't then any energy increase would be from the human turning chemical energy into kinetic energy in the system.

 

This will be obscure, to you, may be: The resisting force is clock wise and do not carry a momentum ; in fact it is half of the generator for possible positive momentum=linear displacement: (the inertia of the system, one of those resistive forces , at its contact point with the track, is no concern, for the moment !)

Edited August 8, 2013 by roger4464

[Klaynos]

Meaningless word salad, for this to create more energy than you put in requires magic.

[roger4464]

Yes___;energy source ''Force of Gravity'' go to Google ''write..............(..Roger Dynamic Motion models)

Edited August 8, 2013 by roger4464

[Phi for All]

Yes___;energy source ''Force of Gravity'' go to Google ''write..............(..Roger Dynamic Motion models)

 

!

Moderator Note

Someone else's thread is no the place to advertise your own thread or idea. No hijacking, please!

[roger4464]

My thoughts on gravity being used to generate power.

Start with an object in a geosynchronous orbit...but with a very slight elliptical component.

Now physically connect the object in orbit to the earth. Now you have the connecting medium moving slowly up and down as viewed from earth. Tie that rod to a generator and poof...gravity as an energy source.

Wrong metaphor______ Roger Dynamic Motion

Not that I have any idea of the method required, or if it's even possible, although I would assume theoretically it is...

 

You would need to create a singularity. Something so dense that it has a large gravitational force assosciated with it. Of course creating this would require alot of energy - and unless you somehow got hold of some strange space rock with enourmous density the only way to even think about going close would be to collide 2 things (lets start with particles) AKA Hadron Collider. Assuming you could cause these 2 particles to fuse and retain the huge amount of energy generated by colliding high density particles at high speed after accellerating them to ludicrous speed then I believe you could create some semblence of a singularity.

 

Once you have that the next problem is working out how to generate power from it...Maybe some kind of perpetual motion..The main problem with power is that batteries at present are terrible at storing power, capacitors are not as terrible but are short term storage devices. So then the problem of not only capturing but then storing the power arises...You just have to look at photovoltaic cells and batteries they charge to see how bad the losses are from this...

 

I think calling gravity a weak force is underestimating it's potential tho - yes pun intended...

 

The force of gravity is proportional to the mass of an object and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the objects

 

Of course this is ALL speculative

Don't make it so complicated--- G.f...can be synthesize !

Meaningless word salad, for this to create more energy than you put in requires magic.

You're right; the.....'' Dynamic energy Generator''~~~ kicks in when, it rpm has been reached .It will generate up to its potential energy put in, designed for; only !

Edited August 8, 2013 by roger4464

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

roger4464,

Stop hijacking this thread with your own theories. You already have other places on this forum to discuss your own theories.

 

Please note that you were warned before, and we will not keep warning you indefinitely. Failing to listen to these moderator notes will have consequences.

 

If you have any comments about this warning, take it up with the staff by using the report function at the bottom of each post.

[roger4464]

Before; one can think of using Gravitational field as a source of energy potential and transform it to Motion_ knowledge in ( classical mechanics) (classical physics) (space time phenomena_ ''dilatation'' and ''contraction'')........ Roger D......M...../ .

[Eddie @ 10kOxygen]

Gravity as source of energy should be in the list because it is a great one and always present inside the planet.

 

The acceleration is with seconds squared, so that's nice! And, Nature use it frequently in the water cycle.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Eddie @ 10kOxygen

[Klaynos]

Yo need to do work against hairy to get into a position where you can use it though (hydroelectric is a good example where the sun does the work).

[swansont]

Yo need to do work against hairy to get into a position where you can use it though (hydroelectric is a good example where the sun does the work).

 

Autocorrect?

[Klaynos]

 

Autocorrect?

Yes... Gravity*