I know there must be a reason this wouldn't work

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gnophos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reason Work
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of harnessing gravity as a perpetual energy source, specifically through the idea of using a heavy object to generate electricity via a material that converts physical force into energy. Participants explore the feasibility and implications of this idea, questioning the principles of energy generation and the limitations imposed by gravity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that gravity could be used as a continual energy source by harnessing the energy from a continuously falling object, questioning why this hasn't been widely implemented.
  • Another participant clarifies that only objects in orbit are continuously falling, while stationary objects like houses cannot fall due to the ground, limiting energy generation.
  • A participant references an article about a material that generates electricity through "squeezing," proposing that constant pressure could yield energy.
  • It is noted that while gravity exerts a downward force, energy generation requires displacement of the mass, which is limited by the ground, necessitating energy input to raise the mass again.
  • Discussion includes the concept that applying a force over a distance can store energy, but there are limits to how much energy can be extracted before the system stabilizes and requires re-application of force.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of using gravity as a perpetual energy source, with some agreeing on the limitations of energy generation while others explore the potential of specific materials. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the practicality of the initial proposal.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for displacement to generate energy from gravitational force and the limitations of energy extraction from materials under constant pressure. The discussion does not resolve the underlying assumptions about energy conservation and the nature of force versus energy.

Gnophos
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
I was thinking about how gravity is used as an energy source, for instance, gravity pulling water over a wheely-thing produces hydroelectricity. I wondered if there was a way to perpetually use gravity as a continual source of energy without the normal catch -- water can only fall once before it has to be raised up again, and that raising up would nullify any benefits of getting the water running through such a continuous loop.
So why not just harness the energy generated by a continuously falling object? This may not be kosher science-speak, but isn't it safe to say that when you stand on the ground, you're continuously falling into the ground, only resisting that pull by means of your muscles exerting energy in the opposite direction?
I recently learned of a material which can take advantage of such physical force and convert it to electricity: http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/material_reveals_unexpected_intriguing_behavior_9804
To sum up, why not just place a plate of this material under a heavy object such as a house? Wouldn't the weight of the house generate a fair amount of electricity?
I don't see how this couldn't have been thought of before, so I'm sure there's some major fallacy in my understanding that makes this impossible or impractical. Otherwise we would have perpetual energy sources!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
Only something in orbit is continuously falling toward the ground. In the case of a house or whatever, there is gravity continuously pulling on it, but it can't fall because the ground is in the way. Once it settles onto the generating device, no further work can be done unless it is raised and dropped again.
 
Granted, but the article I linked to said "squeezing" (a constant force) could generate electricity. I assumed that meant constant pressure on the molecular structure was generating energy somehow.
 
Gravity causes a mass to exert a downward force, but force is not the same thing as energy. To transform this force into energy you need a displacement of the mass in question. Unfortunately there is only so far you can go downward before you hit the ground, after which you have to raise the mass again to produce more energy, and this consumes exactly the energy you had initially produced. No free lunch.
 
"Squeezing" something is a similar thing. A force is applied over a distance, even when this distance is extremely short. Squeezing a spring using a force will visibly store energy in the spring. This is not so visible when you squeeze a piezoelectric crystal (like those used in lighters) but some type of action within the molecular matrix does cause electrons to move in response. But then it stops because there's also a limit as to how much action can be produced until you re-apply the force and re-displace some material again. Still, once the force has displaced what it could displace and has produced the energy it could, the system stabilizes and no further energy comes out of it.
 
Gotcha. Thanks for your responses!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
10K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
21
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K