Gravitational Potential Energy

AI Thread Summary
Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE) is debated as a renewable energy source, but its classification depends on energy boundary rules and the conservation of energy principle. While GPE can be harnessed in systems like hydroelectric dams, it cannot serve as a continuous power source without an external energy input to recharge it. The discussion emphasizes the need for a clear understanding of energy boundaries and the laws of physics governing energy input definitions. There is a call for expert investigation into the operational logic of GPE systems to accurately label them within renewable energy discussions. Ultimately, the classification of GPE hinges on its ability to conform to established physical laws.
zeoblade
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I want to propose that Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE) is a renewable energy input source but I feel maybe GPE might not be accepted as part of the surroundings acting upon the energy boundary of a system.

What are the rules of the energy boundary that umpire what is allowed and disallowed? If you know a reliable textbook or article, please let me know
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

The concept you need to look into is conservation of energy. Just like with a spring, GPE can't be a continuous source of power: use it once and it's gone unless you use some other source of energy to recharge it.
 
But it could be a renewable source, depending on what you're actually talking about. Gravitational Potential Energy is a bit general and we already take advantage of that principle in some forms.

Hydroelectric dams, for example. You're taking advantage of the change in potential energy of water when it's transported to high elevations by snow and rain and then flows downhill again in the rivers.

The trick is to have some naturally occurring cycle that you can take advantage of since transporting it to a higher gravitational potential energy level yourself would use up more energy than you reap when it comes back down (due to the inefficiency of our means - if we had perfectly efficient machines, we would break even instead of lose on the deal).
 
I want to use a larger opposing GPE to renew the expended GPE so my energy input is GPE. I can't find any energy boundary rules that forbid me from using GPE as an energy input
 
Again,(worded differently...) GPE is not an energy input, it is an energy capacity. So the rule you appear to be breaking is conservation of energy.
 
if i can describe my process in a way that is within the constraints of conservation of energy, may i ever define GPE as energy input?

in other words, as long as i am within the laws of physics that govern this universe, can i ever describe a process with GPE as energy input?

are there no energy boundary rules except the rules of classical physics?

i am wanting some rules like quantum mechanic selection rules, rules that umpire fair play

my superior will present about renewable energy and there is a lot of angst in what label we must use just for completeness. with all the trouble just for a label/name, maybe it is better to invite experts to investigate and discuss the matter after the machine is mass manufactured and deployed. then we all can contribute to accurately define a label as time progresses where there is no time constraint

this way the system can be accurately described to everyone because its operational logic is really important to see how the GPE is renewed

GPE can be equated by displacement of force, so I want to say Gravitational Force displacement (GFd) because F = ma = mg and multiplied by displacement GFd has units kg.m2.s-2 = N.m = Joules of energy
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top