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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gnophos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reason Work
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the idea of harnessing gravity as a continuous energy source, questioning whether a heavy object, like a house, could generate electricity by resting on a special material that converts force into energy. It highlights the misconception that gravity alone can provide perpetual energy, emphasizing that energy generation requires displacement of mass, which is limited by the ground. The conversation also touches on the concept of "squeezing" materials to generate electricity, but concludes that once the force is applied and energy is produced, the system stabilizes, requiring additional energy to reset. Ultimately, the discussion reveals that while gravity exerts a constant force, it cannot create a perpetual energy source without an external mechanism to facilitate displacement. The conclusion is that there are fundamental limitations to energy generation from gravity alone.
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!
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...

Similar threads

Back
Top