Free Energy from the Earth's Rotation

[aeroseek]

Is it possible to generate energy from the Earth's rotation? Imagine a Foucault Pendulum attached to a dynamo shaft?

http://www.google.com/patents/US8299636

 

[A.T.]

In a sense, tidal power plants use the difference between Earth's rotation and the Moon orbit rates. This energy source will be dissipated when Earth and Moon become tidally locked.

 

[Nugatory]

In principle, yes. But at one rotation every 24 hours the rate of power generation is too small to be useful in practice. A more promising approach is tidal power generation.

 

[aeroseek]

Well, that's interesting, because if you use a weight that is sufficiently heavy, it may just be able to generate significant power.

I wonder what the mathematics looks like for deriving the energy stored in the cable of such a pendulum if it is suspended from a rigid point attached using a cable that twists as the Earth rotates?

I guess you would need a practical experiment - and frictionless (magnetic?) bearings.

 

[jbriggs444]

A Foucault pendulum can never be a source of power, no matter how big you make the mass and how perfect you make the bearings. It does not act like an fixed rotation-free anchor against which you can apply a continuing torque. If it did act like such an anchor, then angular momentum would not be conserved.

Tidal power generation requires the presence of the moon which acts as an anchor against which you can apply a continuing torque. Angular momentum is conserved because the Earth's angular momentum is dumped into the moon.

 

[aeroseek]

Theoretically after x number of years the tides will slow the moon down and it will crash into the Earth?

 

[Dale]

No. The moon is getting further away as tidal effects slow the rotation of earth.

 

[Nugatory]

Well, that's interesting, because if you use a weight that is sufficiently heavy, it may just be able to generate significant power.

I wonder what the mathematics looks like for deriving the energy stored in the cable of such a pendulum if it is suspended from a rigid point attached using a cable that twists as the Earth rotates?

I guess you would need a practical experiment - and frictionless (magnetic?) bearings.

Another thread on this subject https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=558836

No, you don't need a practical experiment - the back of the envelope calculation is sufficient to tell us what the math looks like. (and this is after setting aside jbrigg's objection).

 

[aeroseek]

Thanks Nugatory for the other thread - will follow that one.

 

[Buckleymanor]

A Foucault pendulum can never be a source of power, no matter how big you make the mass and how perfect you make the bearings. It does not act like an fixed rotation-free anchor against which you can apply a continuing torque. If it did act like such an anchor, then angular momentum would not be conserved.

Tidal power generation requires the presence of the moon which acts as an anchor against which you can apply a continuing torque. Angular momentum is conserved because the Earth's angular momentum is dumped into the moon.

It swings in one direction only and therefore force or torque can be applied against the direction of swing.
A moveing body will continue to travell in same direction unless a force is used to change it's direction.Depending on the magnitude and direction of the force it will either change it's direction or add to it's swing.

 

[jbriggs444]

It swings in one direction only and therefore force or torque can be applied against the direction of swing.
A moveing body will continue to travell in same direction unless a force is used to change it's direction.Depending on the magnitude and direction of the force it will either change it's direction or add to it's swing.

Think about that a bit, please. You have a Foucault pendulum subjected to an unbalanced net torque. You claim that it will not rotate under this torque. Where does the angular momentum go?

Can you prove that a Foucault pendulum will not rotate under an external applied torque.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Think about that a bit, please. You have a Foucault pendulum subjected to an unbalanced net torque. You claim that it will not rotate under this torque. Where does the angular momentum go?

Can you prove that a Foucault pendulum will not rotate under an external applied torque.

Actualy your original statement with regards the size of the mass and no matter how large, or how perfect the bearings will never be a source of power gets to the nub of the question.Well hurracaines seem to have all the attributes of stringless pendulumes with large masses and perfect bearings.Powered by the speed of the Earths rotation the seem to have plenty of power.Also if you fired a cannon ball from south to north across the equator of the Earth would it's impact on the ground be purely that of the ball's velocity or would there allso be the component of the turning of the Earth and it's speed that would have to be added to the speed of collision and hence a source of extra power.These are just extensions of the Foucault pendulum though not so obviouse.

 

[jbriggs444]

Actualy your original statement with regards the size of the mass and no matter how large, or how perfect the bearings will never be a source of power gets to the nub of the question.Well hurracaines seem to have all the attributes of stringless pendulumes with large masses and perfect bearings.Powered by the speed of the Earths rotation the seem to have plenty of power.

The above is completely incorrect. Hurricanes are not powered by the Earth's rotation. They are powered by the sun.

Also if you fired a cannon ball from south to north across the equator of the Earth would it's impact on the ground be purely that of the ball's velocity or would there allso be the component of the turning of the Earth and it's speed that would have to be added to the speed of collision and hence a source of extra power.

The above is completely incorrect. The Coriolis pseudo-force acts at right angles to the direction of travel, does no work and accordingly adds no energy.

These are just extensions of the Foucault pendulum though not so obviouse.

No. That's completely incorrect as well.

 

[Buckleymanor]

The above is completely incorrect. Hurricanes are not powered by the Earth's rotation. They are powered by the sun.


The above is completely incorrect. The Coriolis pseudo-force acts at right angles to the direction of travel, does no work and accordingly adds no energy.



No. That's completely incorrect as well.

An unorganised group of thunderstorms (caused by or powered by the sun) needs the coriolis force to turn them into a rotating mass of thunderstorms and ultimately a tropical cyclone or hurricane.
Quote.
The Coriolis force is required for a cyclone to form into a tropical cyclone or hurricane. The force causes a greater deflection of the air (right in the northern hemisphere and left in the southern) and the correct speeds for the tropical cyclone to form.
Hence why tropical cyclones do not form at or within 5 degrees of the equator, and cease to exist at around 35 degrees north, or 15 degrees south.
If the coriolis force did not add any energy the storm would remain just a non- rotateing storm or group of storms.
The practical impact of the "coriolis effect" is mostly caused by the horizontal component produced by horizontal motion.
When horizontal motion causes this effect on hurricanes "cylones" or the like it must be imparting force or they would not turn.

 

[jbriggs444]

An unorganised group of thunderstorms (caused by or powered by the sun) needs the coriolis force to turn them into a rotating mass of thunderstorms and ultimately a tropical cyclone or hurricane.

Yes, agreed. The original claim was that the Earth's rotation powered such storms. That is the claim that was incorrect.

[Edit: had that typoed for a few minutes]

If the coriolis force did not add any energy the storm would remain just a non- rotateing storm or group of storms.

The Coriolis force provides no power. It does no work. It cannot because it always acts at right angles to the direction of motion.

When horizontal motion causes this effect on hurricanes "cylones" or the like it must be imparting force or they would not turn.

It imparts momentum (in the rotating frame). It does not impart energy.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Yes, agreed. The original claim was that the Earth's rotation powered such storms. That is the claim that was incorrect.

[Edit: had that typoed for a few minutes]


The Coriolis force provides no power. It does no work. It cannot because it always acts at right angles to the direction of motion.



It imparts momentum (in the rotating frame). It does not impart energy.

If no energy is imparted then how come the Earth's rotation slows down or speeds up when there is or is not storms where has that energy come from or gone.
If you spin up a top or any device using right angled motion it requires energy to make the top turn or if the rain or wind is made to change direction it also requires a force it does not do it by magic.
The momentum has to come from somewhere.

 

[A.T.]

If no energy is imparted then how come the Earth's rotation slows down when there is storms

Is there net slowdown of Earth's rotation over time because of storms? Where would the Earth's angular momentum go? Into the storms that spin faster and faster and never die?

 

[jbriggs444]

If no energy is imparted then how come the Earth's rotation slows down when there is storms where has that energy gone.

Reference, please. (Not that I disbelieve this, mind you).

There is a sense in which the Earth's rotation can be seen to impart energy to, for instance, a rotating top. However, to make that interpretation work, you must first adopt a non-rotating frame of reference. Which means you must discard the Coriolis force entirely.

If you spin a top in a same direction that the Earth is spinning then it obtains a total spin that is equal to its apparent spin (in the Earth-centric rotating frame) plus an extra contribution of approximately one rotation per day. Since the rotational energy of a spinning object scales as the square of the rotation rate, the increase in energy as you spin up such a top is greater than if you had spun it up in the opposite direction. The excess comes from the Earth's rotation.

This is not a source of free energy. As the top comes to a stop, the excess energy bleeds back into the Earth. You cannot harvest it with an Earth-anchored device.

In the same way, even if a storm did pick up extra energy from the Earth's rotation, you can't harvest the excess using an Earth-anchored device.

The same effect applies if you hold a 100 meter race at the equator. If you set up the track running from west to east, each runner gets a massive energy boost from the rotational velocity of the Earth as they jump off the starting blocks. If you set up the track running from east to west the runners actually lose kinetic energy as they jump off the starting blocks. But this is just an artifact of the choice of coordinates. Again, it is not a useful free energy source. You can't harvest it using an earth-anchored device.

If you want to launch a rocket, the effect becomes important, of course.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Reference, please. (Not that I disbelieve this, mind you).

There is a sense in which the Earth's rotation can be seen to impart energy to, for instance, a rotating top. However, to make that interpretation work, you must first adopt a non-rotating frame of reference. Which means you must discard the Coriolis force entirely.

If you spin a top in a same direction that the Earth is spinning then it obtains a total spin that is equal to its apparent spin (in the Earth-centric rotating frame) plus an extra contribution of approximately one rotation per day. Since the rotational energy of a spinning object scales as the square of the rotation rate, the increase in energy as you spin up such a top is greater than if you had spun it up in the opposite direction. The excess comes from the Earth's rotation.

This is not a source of free energy. As the top comes to a stop, the excess energy bleeds back into the Earth. You cannot harvest it with an Earth-anchored device.

In the same way, even if a storm did pick up extra energy from the Earth's rotation, you can't harvest the excess using an Earth-anchored device.

The same effect applies if you hold a 100 meter race at the equator. If you set up the track running from west to east, each runner gets a massive energy boost from the rotational velocity of the Earth as they jump off the starting blocks. If you set up the track running from east to west the runners actually lose kinetic energy as they jump off the starting blocks. But this is just an artifact of the choice of coordinates. Again, it is not a useful free energy source. You can't harvest it using an earth-anchored device.

If you want to launch a rocket, the effect becomes important, of course.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/23degrees/2011/03/can_an_earthquake_shift_the_ea.html
Sorry about the late reply.
When you say you can't harvest extra energy from storms what exactly do you imply because windmills obviously harvest energy and slow down the Earth's rotation.

 

[A.T.]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/23degrees/2011/03/can_an_earthquake_shift_the_ea.html

The Earth and the atmosphere exchange angular momentum back and forth. But you cannot continuously slow down both to extract energy, without external torques.

When you say you can't harvest extra energy from storms what exactly do you imply because windmills obviously harvest energy and slow down the Earth's rotation.

Where is the "extra energy from Earth's rotation" here? Does the windmill produce less shaft power if the wind turns 180° keeping the same speed, so the windmill now accelerates the Earth's rotation?

 

[bahamagreen]

Extracting energy from Earth's rotation will result in slowing down the rotation (very slightly).

The most efficient power producing method I can think of is by doing it indirectly through Earth's magnetic field by using a pair of satellites, one in a high orbit one in a low orbit, with a set of cables between them. The cables will complete a full cut through magnetic lines of force around Earth each orbital period - about every 90 minutes or so.

Since the high orbit end will lag and the low orbit end will lead, the angle will increase the amount of cable in the field... already a lot since the ends can be 10-100 or so miles apart and you can use lots of parallel cables...

A bonus is that the orbital altitude may be adjusted by discharges from the ends of the affair, allowing one to move the whole thing higher or lower as desired.

 

[jbriggs444]

When you say you can't harvest extra energy from storms what exactly do you imply because windmills obviously harvest energy and slow down the Earth's rotation.

Windmills harvest energy that originated from the sun. They do not slow down the Earth's rotation.

There is an elementary problem that you are up against when you try to harvest "free" energy from the rotational kinetic energy of an isolated system.

[Waving my hands a bit here and using formulas that apply for rigid planar rotation] (*)

Energy is conserved. If you want to get energy out, you have to reduce rotational kinetic energy. That's Iω²/2. Angular momentum is conserved. That's Iω. So how do you reduce Iω²/2 without changing Iω? Obviously you need to reduce ω. But angular momentum is still conserved. How do you reduce ω without reducing Iω? Obviously you need to increase I.

And there it is. The basic rule is that you can only extract energy from the rotation of an isolated system by increasing its moment of inertia. The only way you can keep extracting more energy is to keep increasing the moment of inertia further. Storms won't do it. Windmills won't do it. Cannonballs fired across the equator won't do it. Satellites in orbit dangling wires into the magnetic field won't do it either. (Unless I'm missing something). No transient process that leaves the size and shape of the isolated system more or less unchanged can ever work.

There are a couple of approaches that will do the job. One way is to launch a moon and use the tides. You harvest tidal energy and the resulting torque on the moon moves it farther and farther away. As expected, this results in a continual increase in the moment of inertia of the system. Another way is to use a beanstalk, paying energy to lift dirt and rocks up to geosynchronous orbit and then harvesting more energy as the soil and rocks are dropped down the cable on the far side. Again, this has the general effect of continually increasing the moment of inertia of the system.

(*) A non-rigid system may have different pieces rotating at different rates. It will normally be possible to harvest energy from those differences. For instance, it is easy to harvest the energy in a pair of counter-rotating rings. Once that energy is harvested or if one starts with a system that is rotating at one consistent rate in one plane, I maintain that the above argument holds water and that the general result applies, even for non-rigid systems.

 

[Dale]

windmills obviously harvest energy and slow down the Earth's rotation.

No, they don't. If you count the atmosphere as part of the Earth then there is no change in angular momentum whatsoever. If you separate the Earth from the atmosphere then at most they put back angular momentum that was exchanged by the formation of the weather.

 

[Buckleymanor]

No, they don't. If you count the atmosphere as part of the Earth then there is no change in angular momentum whatsoever. If you separate the Earth from the atmosphere then at most they put back angular momentum that was exchanged by the formation of the weather.

They put back some angular momentum that was exchanged but not all of it .The prime objective of a modern windmill is to produce electrical power which dissipates eventualy as heat.

 

[jbriggs444]

They put back some angular momentum that was exchanged but not all of it .The prime objective of a modern windmill is to produce electrical power which dissipates eventualy as heat.

Angular momentum is conserved. Even if you use rotational kinetic energy (which is not the same thing as angular momentum) to produce electricity, the amount of angular momentum lost in the process is exactly zero.

 

[Dale]

They put back some angular momentum that was exchanged but not all of it .The prime objective of a modern windmill is to produce electrical power which dissipates eventualy as heat.

You are confusing energy and angular momentum. There is a net transfer of energy. There is not a net transfer of angular momentum.

 

[A.T.]

They put back some angular momentum that was exchanged but not all of it . The prime objective of a modern windmill is to produce electrical power which dissipates eventualy as heat.

Angular momentum cannot be dissipated as heat, it's always conserved as angular momentum. A windmill cannot change the total angular momentum of Earth+atmosphere. The energy it harvest was put in by the Sun into the Earth+atmosphere system, also without changing the total angular momentum of Earth+atmosphere.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Angular momentum cannot be dissipated as heat, it's always conserved as angular momentum. A windmill cannot change the total angular momentum of Earth+atmosphere. The energy it harvest was put in by the Sun into the Earth+atmosphere system.

A tree blowing in the wind I can see that the total amount of energy is conserved which was put in by the sun.The wind blows one way and it pushes on the tree in the direction of the Earth's rotation and the Earth speeds up slightly.It does the same thing in the other direction and the Earth slows down.Over time the wind blows in both directions the same amount so taking everything into considerstion the is no gain in speed in either direction so energy from the sun is conserved in the Earth+atmosphere.
The diference between a tree and a electrical generating windmill though is the windmill converts the energy into heat, which can escape the Earths atmosphere into space, where it came from in the first place, via the sun.
If you were to extend the cables from the generators into space and produce heat at the end of them, energy would be lost into space from Earth+atmosphere system in effect that's what happens more efficiently at night by generating heat energy using windmills.

 

[A.T.]

The diference between a tree and a electrical generating windmill though is the windmill converts the energy into heat,

That is not a difference, but something that happens in both cases:

- The tree converts the kinetic energy into turbulence which ends up as heat.
- The windmill converts the kinetic energy into electricity which ends up as heat.

If you were to extend the cables from the generators into space and produce heat at the end of them, energy would be lost into space from Earth+atmosphere system

The heat generated by the tree from wind also leaves the Earth+atmosphere system through radiation.

 

[jbriggs444]

A tree blowing in the wind I can see that the total amount of energy is conserved which was put in by the sun.The wind blows one way and it pushes on the tree in the direction of the Earth's rotation and the Earth speeds up slightly.It does the same thing in the other direction and the Earth slows down.Over time the wind blows in both directions the same amount so taking everything into considerstion the is no gain in speed in either direction so energy from the sun is conserved in the Earth+atmosphere.
The diference between a tree and a electrical generating windmill though is the windmill converts the energy into heat, which can escape the Earths atmosphere into space, where it came from in the first place, via the sun.

This above picture is wrong in several ways.

A tree dissipates wind energy. It is not energy-neutral. It slows the wind down relative to the earth, converting the relative motion between the two into heat. Just like the windmill does in the end.

A tree does not do this equally in all directions. Where I live the prevailing wind is from the west. Trees around here slow down more west wind than they do east wind for the simple reason that there is more west wind to slow down.

Nonetheless, trees around here do absolutely nothing to change the angular momentum of the Earth. Every bit of westward force they apply to the wind with their leaves is balanced with an equal eastward force applied by their roots to the soil.

Angular momentum and rotational kinetic energy are different things. You've been told this many times now. Do you understand the distinction? Can you tell us what the distinction is?

 

[Dale]

The diference between a tree and a electrical generating windmill though is the windmill converts the energy into heat, which can escape the Earths atmosphere into space, where it came from in the first place, via the sun.

As A.T. mentioned this is not a difference. Turbulence and drag converts KE in the fluid to thermal energy. Furthermore, that is relevant to energy, not angular momentum. You again appear to be confusing energy and angular momentum.

This is very simple. If windmills slowed down the Earth's rotation then they would be taking net angular momentum out of the ground, since angular momentum is conserved the windmills would have to put that angular momentum into the air. In order for the air to hold that angular momentum it would have to spin faster. This would mean a steady change in the global mean wind velocity in the direction of rotation which is proportional to the amount of wind power being generated globally. Since we don't observe that we can conclude that angular momentum is not being drawn out by windmills.

 

[Buckleymanor]

That is not a difference, but something that happens in both cases:

- The tree converts the kinetic energy into turbulence which ends up as heat.
- The windmill converts the kinetic energy into electricity which ends up as heat.


The heat generated by the tree from wind also leaves the Earth+atmosphere system through radiation.

So what you are saying is a tree blowing in the wind which has evolved converts kinetic energy into heat as efficiently as a wind generator which has been designed whith that in purpose to do so.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Angular momentum and rotational kinetic energy are different things. You've been told this many times now. Do you understand the distinction? Can you tell us what the distinction is?

One is the amount of momentum a rotateing object has (angular)and the other is the total amount of kinetic energy a rotateing object has.

 

[Buckleymanor]

As A.T. mentioned this is not a difference. Turbulence and drag converts KE in the fluid to thermal energy. Furthermore, that is relevant to energy, not angular momentum. You again appear to be confusing energy and angular momentum.

This is very simple. If windmills slowed down the Earth's rotation then they would be taking net angular momentum out of the ground, since angular momentum is conserved the windmills would have to put that angular momentum into the air. In order for the air to hold that angular momentum it would have to spin faster. This would mean a steady change in the global mean wind velocity in the direction of rotation which is proportional to the amount of wind power being generated globally. Since we don't observe that we can conclude that angular momentum is not being drawn out by windmills.

It does look that way I failed to add that trees produce heat via turbulance though it did cross my mind at the time. The point remains that they do not do that as efficeintly as a turbine which was why this was not mentioned.

 

[jbriggs444]

One is the amount of momentum a rotateing object has (angular)and the other is the total amount of kinetic energy a rotateing object has.

Saying that angular momentum is the amount of momentum that a rotating object has (angular) is not an adequate characterization of angular momentum.

Saying that rotational kinetic energy is the total amount of kinetic energy a rotating object has is outright incorrect.

 

[A.T.]

So what you are saying is a tree blowing in the wind which has evolved converts kinetic energy into heat as efficiently as a wind generator which has been designed whith that in purpose to do so.

Windmills are not designed to covert kinetic energy into heat, but into electrical energy. They do convert some of the KE into heat, which is considered an inefficiency.

But using your inverted idea of "efficiency", a tree is far more "efficient" in converting KE into heat, because it converts all of the KE it takes from the wind into heat, not just some of it like a windmill.

The point remains that they do not do that as efficeintly as a turbine which was why this was not mentioned.

Please define precisely what you mean by "efficiency" here. And explain how it is relevant to the topic, which is reducing the Earth's rotational KE to generate usable power with an Earth bound device.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Windmills are not designed to covert kinetic energy into heat, but into electrical energy. They do convert some of the KE into heat, which is considered an inefficiency.

But using your inverted idea of "efficiency", a tree is far more "efficient" in converting KE into heat, because it converts all of the KE it takes from the wind into heat, not just some of it like a windmill.



Please define precisely what you mean by "efficiency" here. And explain how it is relevant to the topic, which is reducing the Earth's rotational KE to generate usable power with an Earth bound device.

The difference between the amount of KE converted into heat over time.
A tree might well convert all of the KE it takes from the wind into heat and a windmill is designed to make electrical energy which ends up through use also into heat.
So the tree is more efficeint at produceing heat (converting KE into heat) though the amount of heat a 15M high tree produces is a lot less than a 60M windmill over the same period.
So the more windmills built the more KE taken from the Earth's rotation and turned into heat which is lost in space.
An albatros can probably convert fish into flight more efficiently(or heat) than a jumbo jet can turn aviation fuel into flight or heat.The jumbo though uses a lot more fuel and produces a lot more heat crossing the atlantic.

 

[jbriggs444]

The difference between the amount of KE converted into heat over time.
A tree might well convert all of the KE it takes from the wind into heat and a windmill is designed to make electrical energy which ends up through use also into heat.
So the tree is more efficeint at produceing heat (converting KE into heat) though the amount of heat a 15M high tree produces is a lot less than a 60M windmill over the same period.

So you are abandoning your previous irrelevant claim about efficiency. That is good. We can dispense with that argument then.

You are making a new irrelevant claim about size. Fine. Windmills are bigger than trees. One windmill affects the wind more strongly than one tree.

So the more windmills built the more KE taken from the Earth's rotation and turned into heat which is lost in space.

That assumes that one windmill takes KE from the Earth's rotation and turns it into heat.

You have not provided any support for that assumption.

 

[A.T.]

So the more windmills built the more KE taken from the Earth's rotation

What makes you think that windmills slow down the Earth's rotation? Your own reference says that slowing down the winds (as windmills do) makes the Earth spin faster:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/23degrees/2011/03/can_an_earthquake_shift_the_ea.html

This happens because the northern hemisphere winds slow down in the summer and the momentum they lose - half the momentum of the atmosphere - is transferred to the Earth. This increase in momentum makes the Earth spin faster and our days become slightly shorter by 1-2 milliseconds.

 

[Buckleymanor]

What makes you think that windmills slow down the Earth's rotation? Your own reference says that slowing down the winds (as windmills do) makes the Earth spin faster:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/23degrees/2011/03/can_an_earthquake_shift_the_ea.html

Because all of the momentum from the wind is no longer transferred back to the Earth some of it is transferred to heat via the windmill and then lost to space.

 

[Dale]

Because all of the momentum from the wind is no longer transferred back to the Earth some of it is transferred to heat

This doesn't make sense. Heat is energy, not momentum. You are confusing the two again.

 

[A.T.]

Because all of the momentum from the wind is no longer transferred back to the Earth some of it is transferred to heat via the windmill and then lost to space.

As DaleSpam said, learn the difference between momentum and energy. Windmills transfer all of the momentum they extract from the atmosphere to the earth. No momentum at all is lost to space due to windmills. To lose angular momentum to space you need to apply an external torque from space.

 

[Buckleymanor]

As DaleSpam said, learn the difference between momentum and energy. Windmills transfer all of the momentum they extract from the atmosphere to the earth. No momentum at all is lost to space due to windmills. To lose angular momentum to space you need to apply an external torque from space.

So when the Earth spins faster due to a gain in momentum there is no increase in it's KE as the total system ie Earth atmosphere energy is conserved.
If that is the case then why all the bother about GW as this would indicate a gain in KE.

 

[jbriggs444]

So when the Earth spins faster due to a gain in momentum there is no increase in it's KE as the total system ie Earth atmosphere energy is conserved.
If that is the case then why all the bother about GW as this would indicate a gain in KE.

Without a net torque from outside, the Earth never spins faster due to a gain in angular momentum.

 

[A.T.]

the total system ie Earth atmosphere energy is conserved.

No, that is exactly backwards. Total angular momentum of Earth+atmosphere is conserved (ignoring the Moon's tidal torque). Total KE of Earth+atmosphere is being increased by the Sun powering the winds, and reduced by trees, windmills and other obstacles.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Without a net torque from outside, the Earth never spins faster due to a gain in angular momentum.

I don't understand, when you say without a net torque from outside, the Earth never spins faster due to a gain in angular momentum, do you mean space like A.T. mentioned.
If I pick up a rock from the top of a mountain and throw it to the floor won't the Earth's angular momentum be changed and the Earth will spin slightly faster?

 

[jbriggs444]

I don't understand, when you say without a net torque from outside, the Earth never spins faster due to a gain in angular momentum, do you mean space like A.T. mentioned.

Yes, by "outside", I mean outside the atmosphere, i.e. space.

If I pick up a rock from the top of a mountain and throw it to the floor won't the Earth's angular momentum be changed and the Earth will spin slightly faster?

The total angular momentum of the rock, the mountain and the rest of the Earth is unchanged by that action. Yes, this action will cause the Earth (including mountain and rock) to spin slightly faster. But it does not affect the total angular momentum.