Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Gravitational energy

FEBA - 8-4-2004 at 08:56

I am looking some no-traditional forms of using the gravitational energy , transforming this to other energy forms (example: mechanical energy) or use it directly.

Please communicate your suggestions.

Note: These searches don’t related with homework.

Hydro power

motrin - 8-4-2004 at 10:16

is the only form of gravity utilized in any real way.

And even that is really solar energy.

Other than that, gravity is pretty much a one way street.

Geomancer - 8-4-2004 at 16:15

What do you mean by "gravitational energy"?

Esplosivo - 9-4-2004 at 12:18

I think he meant gravitational potential energy.

FEBA - 9-4-2004 at 15:16

Quote:
Originally posted by Esplosivo
I think he meant gravitational potential energy.


Gravitational energy is the same the gravitational potential energy.

Gravitational potencial energy

FEBA - 9-4-2004 at 15:18

Quote:
Originally posted by Geomancer
What do you mean by "gravitational energy"?


Gravitational energy is the same the gravitational potential energy.

Geomancer - 9-4-2004 at 17:00

OK, so we're talking about taking mass that's high up, and lowering it. Since gravity's such a weak force, in order to have any usefulness, you need to lower an enormous mass (since the vertical distance available is limited). About the only waely to easily handle such a large mass is for it to be a liquid, and the only liquid common enough to be worth considering is water. In terms of effeciency, room for improvement is limited in large systems: effeciency (I believe) is already well over 90% in state of the art devices. The only radical approach I can think of is MHD, but I'd be impressed if you could get reasonable effeciencies (>20%) there. For low flow rates you could try using pistons as opposed to turbines. I believe this has been propesed for tidal plants.

What mean MHD?

FEBA - 9-4-2004 at 17:53

Quote:
Originally posted by Geomancer
OK, so we're talking about taking mass that's high up, and lowering it. Since gravity's such a weak force, in order to have any usefulness, you need to lower an enormous mass (since the vertical distance available is limited). About the only waely to easily handle such a large mass is for it to be a liquid, and the only liquid common enough to be worth considering is water. In terms of effeciency, room for improvement is limited in large systems: effeciency (I believe) is already well over 90% in state of the art devices. The only radical approach I can think of is MHD, but I'd be impressed if you could get reasonable effeciencies (>20%) there. For low flow rates you could try using pistons as opposed to turbines. I believe this has been propesed for tidal plants.


Thank you for your answer.
What mean MHD?

Geomancer - 9-4-2004 at 18:24

MagnetoHydroDynamics. When charged particles move in a direction not parallel to a magnetic field, they experience a force perpendicular to both the direction of movement and the magnetic field. The force is proportional to the charge of the particle, so positve charges get pushed in the opposite direction as negative ones. Therefore, if you run a fast flowing stream of seawater through a magnetic field, a voltage develops across the stream, and so you can tap off power.

Sigh.....

Hermes_Trismegistus - 10-4-2004 at 16:37

If only there existed streams of seawater....:P

chemoleo - 10-4-2004 at 17:24

I think in part this has been covered before:
Check this
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=753

Not that I am trying to cut the discussion short, I think that's a very interesting question!

unionised - 12-4-2004 at 15:24

Do tides count as streams of seawater?
At any rate there are tidal power systems.

Outta scope?

IvX - 14-4-2004 at 02:23

I sugested this once I think, basically a huge version of a convensional generator.the magnetised part is on a stalite and the whole thing is in orbit.

Geomancer - 14-4-2004 at 13:30

With a satellite, the only energy you get out is going to be what you put in while launching the thing. Also, you don't want the satellite to be the magnetized bit. The Earth is already magnetic, just put a big bit of wire in orbit to get a generator. This idea has actually been experimented with, as a handy way of making a spacecraft's orbital energy (provided by the rocket launch) available as electric energy.
Err, wait. I think I misread your post. You want both bits in orbit? Whatever for?

Hermes_Trismegistus - 14-4-2004 at 14:10

Big wire in orbit spinning to produce electrical enery, good idea except for one thing.
Electrical generators transmute kinetic energy into electrical.

How would the wire be spun? after all it takes more energy to spin the wire than it would generate by spinning.

Also, when you spin a wire in a magnetic field there is physical resistance proportional to the strength of the field, so you would begin to change the rotational velocity of the earth!

If you left the wire stationary, and expected the earth to spin within it, it would, and the earth would slow down, while the wire began to move, until the velocity and direction of spin were to match.

Sorry, can't get away from the law of conservation of energy, no matter what.

Also, if you were to look at what forces should be used for energy production in general, gravity has got to be near the bottom, gravity is an extraordinarily weak force in comparison to electromagnetism, a good place to look for new sources of energy is within the atom, fusion and fission.

Geomancer - 14-4-2004 at 15:35

Please re-read my post. I am aware of where the energy comes from, and (I thought) I took great pains to make this clear. Also, note that in LEO a physical loop of wire is not needed, as the circuit can be completed using the Earth's ionosphere. The technique is thought to be useful for power generation, braking, and, with a power source, propulsion. The main relevant experiment is TSS-1R (Tethered Satellite System 1 Reflight), flown on STS-75. Additionally, the rotational energy of the earth is not relevant. Momentum is transfered to the earth, but this is parallel to the satellite's motion. Very little momentum change (of the Earth+satellite system) would actually occur, though, since the exhaust of the launching rocket would not reach escape velocity.

wasn't really replying to you...see prior post (TvX)

Hermes_Trismegistus - 14-4-2004 at 20:11

but could you provide some background info, don't really know what the hell you're talking about, but sounds intruiging.

IvX - 15-4-2004 at 02:03

Uhh not quite but hey exceltn ideas.Mine was the querr version as in it was just suposed to spin on its own axis.Gay I know :(

Brief backgraund

FEBA - 15-4-2004 at 04:27

Quote:
Originally posted by Hermes_Trismegistus
but could you provide some background info, don't really know what the hell you're talking about, but sounds intruiging.


Brief background:
I am civil engineer and MBA. I have interest for many years to develop a new and efficient gravitational generator.
I had the US Patent 6,070,712 called High efficiency mechanical transducer called HEMT. You can study in the aforementioned US Patent in the homepage " United States Patent and Trademarks Office" called http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and search my patent number 6,070,712.

The modifications in my Patent basically consist will is eliminating in it all motors (power takeoff) indicated as: 80, 82, and 70 as shown in my patent.
I have also presented before 2 projects related to the topic exposed, without success, to the Us Department of Energy.

Best Regards

Fernando Baez

I really have to quit expectin people to read my mind.

Hermes_Trismegistus - 15-4-2004 at 09:53

Geomancer, I know nothing about TSS-1R (Tethered Satellite System 1 Reflight), flown on STS-75, could you please provide background information on this, or point me in the right direction. That is what sounds intruiging.

Got a link

IvX - 16-4-2004 at 03:05

This is all I could come up with.

So basically your cutting the earth's EM field with the tether?

Lot smarter than the MHD idea I was about to put up.

[Edited on 16-4-2004 by IvX]

Geomancer - 16-4-2004 at 11:12

Regarding tethered satellites, all I know is what Google tells me. I remembered reading about the experiment a few years ago, but not any details.

FEBA: This looks a lot like the classical "overbalanced wheel", no? You're not likely to get many people to believe in your device unless you have a working model (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). Fortunately, your design seems to be constructable at home. I would suggest using either a rubber belt (like those in car engines, etc.) or bicycle chain. Visit http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/test-pm.htm for helpful advice on the means and pitfalls of testing such devices.

The mother site to the above is an great resource for anyone who is interested in physics.

IvX - 17-4-2004 at 02:05

The overbalanced wheel idea does seem feasible.Though not an actual PMM but harnesing gravitational energy.Perhaps newer deviced with insly low friction will pull it of(or a planet with mor gravety).:)

Hermes_Trismegistus - 17-4-2004 at 05:27

Quote:
Originally posted by IvX
The overbalanced wheel idea does seem feasible.


Perhaps it does seem that way, many men have wasted whole lives in the pursuit of that foolish dream.

It is the Philosophers Stone of the machine age. And just as futile a quest, it will be regarded with as much disdain by future generations of physicists as the quest for trasmution of lead to gold is by chemists today.

P.S. you sound as if you were drifting off at the end of that last post......were you being overcome by Gravety? :P

Geomancer - 17-4-2004 at 20:01

To my eyes, overbalanced wheels are the most convincing of the classical mechanical PMMs. Regarding friction, etc. , the effect that supposedly makes them work is not subtle, so if they were to work at all, they'd work well enough for that not to be a major issue.

The convincingness of the concept is manifest in the fact that, all rational knowledge to the contrary, people still build these things, with minimal modifications from their inception centuries ago (the earliest known description of an overbalanced wheel is from c. 1159).

more biochemical

IvX - 20-4-2004 at 02:39

Obviosly given the lack of succes I do see how its not something we can put together in the back yard but among all the idea this one looked to me at the time(and still doeS)as the possible one.

Yes ofcourse there is friction but who knows one day there may be 'super lubircants'(like superconducters).

OTOH none of these are actually any more of a PMM than a motor ttached to a solar panel :P