Harnessing kinetic energy from impact of rain water

AI Thread Summary
Generating energy from rainwater impact is less efficient than using collected water in turbines due to the low kinetic energy of falling raindrops, which typically reach terminal velocities of only 1 to 10 m/s. The mass of rain falling during a shower is often insufficient to produce significant energy when harnessed directly. In contrast, collecting large volumes of water in reservoirs allows for more effective energy generation through turbines. The discussion highlights that while raindrops may seem to have high kinetic energy from height, the actual energy available is minimal compared to the potential from wind energy or large-scale water collection. Overall, the technology for harvesting rain energy has not proven viable, leading to a preference for alternative energy sources.
piisexactly3
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
I read in a science magazine that you would be able to generate more energy by collecting a mass of water and tipping it through a turbine than from generating energy from the impact of that mass of water as individual raindrops. Now this may simply be to do with the technology we have that can't collect enough useful energy from the impact of rainwater as opposed to turbines

But what confused about this is that that mass of water as rain has fallen from a great height where it has reached terminal velocity and so should have much more kinetic energy than merely being tipped from a small height.

I should mention that I do not have or am doing a degree in physics so I apologise if I'm being dumb, but was just very curious.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you are actually hoping to make use of the kinetic energy of the rain as it falls onto a receiver of some kind, you should consider just how little actual energy is involved. Raindrops reach a terminal velocity of no more than 10m/s for the largest drops ( mostly, we're talking 1 or 2 m/s) and the actual mass of rain falling in a shower could be only a few grammes on a paddle wheel or equivalent.
I think there would be much more energy available from the wind in most locations. The clue is that (ifaik) there are no serious installations for harvesting 'rain energy' and people have really tried most things where there is a chance of success.

The terminal velocity of large, massive objects is high (say 50 m/s) but there are very few of these around (just as well).
 
piisexactly3 said:
But what confused about this is that that mass of water as rain has fallen from a great height where it has reached terminal velocity and so should have much more kinetic energy than merely being tipped from a small height.
Compare the surface area of the biggest turbine we can build, with the surface area that collects water into a reservoir from a dam. Even if rain would have more energy per liter, it is so much simpler to collect huge amounts with less energy density and put them through a smaller, simpler to build turbine.
 
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