- #1
gcn3030
- 5
- 0
This idea has really been bugging me lately. It all started with a thought, where does the energy that drives hydroelectric turbines come from? Well you could say the kinetic energy of falling water right? Well then where does this energy come from? You could then say well the potential energy of the water of course! But that merely begs the question, how does this water get this potential energy? Surely there is an answer.
So I began to think about how water gets transported to such great heights? I thought about it a lot and I think I found the answer (though I still have questions), consider the following scenario.
Step 1: liquid water molecule on the surface of the Earth is heated by the sun and thus becomes a vapor.
Step 2: This vapor rises due to buoyancy, because its density is less than the surrounding air, the greater gravitational pull on the air causes the water vapor to be displaced upward.
Step 3: At some height the surrounding air becomes sufficiently cool so as to cause the water molecule to reject the heat it obtained in step 1, thus it condenses and becomes liquid.
Step 4: This liquid water molecule rains down into a reservoir and its potential energy is converted to kinetic energy.
Step 5: This liquid water molecule's kinetic energy helps turn a hydroelectric turbine thus producing some amount of electrical energy.
The only conclusion I can come to based on this scenario is that gravity, with the help of some heat input from the sun (which remember was rejected in the upper atmosphere, heat in was equal to heat out, otherwise it would have condensed earlier), the air as a lifting fluid, the water molecule's two phase changes, and the temperature differential from the lower to upper atmosphere which allowed for heat rejection, has essentially been utilized to perform useful work contrary to the prevailing notion of gravity as a conservative force which can do no net work.
Am I wrong? If so please show me where I made my mistake and explain to me how the water molecule gains potential energy in this process.
The reason this has been bugging me so much is that the ramifications of this discovery, if true, are quite frankly in my mind, Earth shattering. If my conclusion is correct it means that gravity can be used to perform work, similar to the way in which wind, geothermal, and solar are used to perform work.
For example if my conclusion is correct it would be a relatively simple matter (compared to the awe-inspiring technological feats of our day) to construct a machine which could heat some low boiling point fluid into a vapor using geothermal or some other heat source, which would rise through a really tall insulated (to prevent condensation on the way up) pipe (the amount of useful energy obtained in the hydroelectric stage of this process would be proportional to the height, and the temperature decrease with increasing altitude would allow for heat rejection) filled with some dense gas (which does not condense in the temperatures of this process) which would serve to cause vapor to rise due to the density differential, this rising vapor would then be run through a turbine just like in a standard Rankine cycle, after exiting this turbine, the vapor could be channeled into a condenser where heat could be rejected via heat exchangers, the vapor would condense and become liquid with potential energy, this liquid would fall and its fall could be directed into a hydroelectric turbine after which it would go back in the sump to repeat the process. This is but one way to take advantage of gravity if my conclusion is correct there are certain to be a host others.
Please try to prove me wrong, I am obsessed with this! I cannot stop thinking that this process could help alleviate our world's energy problems. I am a chemical engineering student at the University of Washington and I am seriously considering designing a simple experiment as a project to test my hypotheses.
One question that this leaves me with however is even if my conclusion is true, which I think it is based on the evidence I have seen, how does this fit in with the first law of thermodynamics, where does this energy come from? I don't know exactly but perhaps the first law is wrong, after all it is only right because it has never been disproven, just as is any scientific law. Maybe a more likely scenario is that our current knowledge of the nature of gravity is insufficient to say where the energy in this process comes from.
Regardless I am very interested to hear what you all have to say, please be respectful in your responses; oh and don't just say that my hypotheses is incorrect because gravity is conservative or because it violates the laws of thermodynamics (which it may or may not that's debatable) that would be circular reasoning, we are talking about a real world phenomena that is observed everyday (everyone has seen rain) so all responses should, if they believe my hypotheses is wrong, present an alternate scientifically plausible scenario as to how the water molecule obtains potential energy.
Thank you I look forward to hearing your replies
So I began to think about how water gets transported to such great heights? I thought about it a lot and I think I found the answer (though I still have questions), consider the following scenario.
Step 1: liquid water molecule on the surface of the Earth is heated by the sun and thus becomes a vapor.
Step 2: This vapor rises due to buoyancy, because its density is less than the surrounding air, the greater gravitational pull on the air causes the water vapor to be displaced upward.
Step 3: At some height the surrounding air becomes sufficiently cool so as to cause the water molecule to reject the heat it obtained in step 1, thus it condenses and becomes liquid.
Step 4: This liquid water molecule rains down into a reservoir and its potential energy is converted to kinetic energy.
Step 5: This liquid water molecule's kinetic energy helps turn a hydroelectric turbine thus producing some amount of electrical energy.
The only conclusion I can come to based on this scenario is that gravity, with the help of some heat input from the sun (which remember was rejected in the upper atmosphere, heat in was equal to heat out, otherwise it would have condensed earlier), the air as a lifting fluid, the water molecule's two phase changes, and the temperature differential from the lower to upper atmosphere which allowed for heat rejection, has essentially been utilized to perform useful work contrary to the prevailing notion of gravity as a conservative force which can do no net work.
Am I wrong? If so please show me where I made my mistake and explain to me how the water molecule gains potential energy in this process.
The reason this has been bugging me so much is that the ramifications of this discovery, if true, are quite frankly in my mind, Earth shattering. If my conclusion is correct it means that gravity can be used to perform work, similar to the way in which wind, geothermal, and solar are used to perform work.
For example if my conclusion is correct it would be a relatively simple matter (compared to the awe-inspiring technological feats of our day) to construct a machine which could heat some low boiling point fluid into a vapor using geothermal or some other heat source, which would rise through a really tall insulated (to prevent condensation on the way up) pipe (the amount of useful energy obtained in the hydroelectric stage of this process would be proportional to the height, and the temperature decrease with increasing altitude would allow for heat rejection) filled with some dense gas (which does not condense in the temperatures of this process) which would serve to cause vapor to rise due to the density differential, this rising vapor would then be run through a turbine just like in a standard Rankine cycle, after exiting this turbine, the vapor could be channeled into a condenser where heat could be rejected via heat exchangers, the vapor would condense and become liquid with potential energy, this liquid would fall and its fall could be directed into a hydroelectric turbine after which it would go back in the sump to repeat the process. This is but one way to take advantage of gravity if my conclusion is correct there are certain to be a host others.
Please try to prove me wrong, I am obsessed with this! I cannot stop thinking that this process could help alleviate our world's energy problems. I am a chemical engineering student at the University of Washington and I am seriously considering designing a simple experiment as a project to test my hypotheses.
One question that this leaves me with however is even if my conclusion is true, which I think it is based on the evidence I have seen, how does this fit in with the first law of thermodynamics, where does this energy come from? I don't know exactly but perhaps the first law is wrong, after all it is only right because it has never been disproven, just as is any scientific law. Maybe a more likely scenario is that our current knowledge of the nature of gravity is insufficient to say where the energy in this process comes from.
Regardless I am very interested to hear what you all have to say, please be respectful in your responses; oh and don't just say that my hypotheses is incorrect because gravity is conservative or because it violates the laws of thermodynamics (which it may or may not that's debatable) that would be circular reasoning, we are talking about a real world phenomena that is observed everyday (everyone has seen rain) so all responses should, if they believe my hypotheses is wrong, present an alternate scientifically plausible scenario as to how the water molecule obtains potential energy.
Thank you I look forward to hearing your replies
Last edited: