Jump to content
X facter

Gravity as an energy source?

Recommended Posts

Maybe there's a method to utilize it like Nature does, using other kind of available energy. With magnets is easier but if you can get energy from gravity alone all the related problems could be part of the history.

 

Sorry, I've forgot a letter here: "Nature uses it frequently in the water cycle." Is not possible to edit a message two times?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The water cycle requires an external energy source (the sun). You always require an external energy source with gravy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The water cycle requires an external energy source (the sun). You always require an external energy source with gravy.

 

This energy is really tricky, perhaps it would be possible without external source. Some people disagree of course and always end talking about laws that could be called theories in some way.

 

Now the forum permits to edit two times, ok ... it's time limited!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This energy is really tricky, perhaps it would be possible without external source. Some people disagree of course and always end talking about laws that could be called theories in some way.

 

Now the forum permits to edit two times, ok ... it's time limited!

No system had ever been proposed that would work. Gravity is a conservative force so you are not going to find any system that will work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the history tells, we still don't know what Gravity finally is. It fits in several models but who knows what will be next, or who will claim to have the definitive knowledge about it.

 

There are people talking about multidimensional models at CERN and this theory is the most amazing one, so add it to Newton, relativity or others.

 

If you go to the lab, you'll get easily a sum of zero and ... time to think!

 

The most important aspect is trying to find a method without being blocked by stereotypes that guarantee no success. Like it was said perhaps not alone or without using other kind of techniques. The objective is gain in a perpetual fashion and yes, it's still not done but tried since the origins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do know how gravity behaves in all on earth situations though so your argument doesn't really hold up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can make experiments according to current technology and maths, but we should hope for new frontiers in knowledge. However, the argument includes using every possible actual situation and there are not a few.

 

Only when something is totally understood you can make assumptions about how to control it or about his true behaviour.

 

Do that earth situations you mention also include a subatomic level? Come on, that's not correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gravitational energies on the subatomic level are tiny. It is also a good assumption that the force would still be conservative given all we know about forces. Science isn't ever going to understand anything totally, holding out for that before you make conclusions is this pointless.

 

There are very few citations where our models do not agree with observations/mathematical breakdown for gravity. We can therefore make some broad statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warning about broad statements like "we know how gravity behaves in all on earth situations." Subatomic level was only an example of thousand millions in which gravity interacts, and now add to it all kind of present and future engineering.

 

Science is already understanding several concepts very well, but this one is specially problematic because the key must be in that area. Think what could happen if someone is able of artificially creating a small object that generates a great quantity of gravity ... so that would be another situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had something like a micro-black hole kept contained via charges you could "feed" it matter.

 

You could picture it sitting behind a turbine generator, creating a perpetual vacuum.

 

It'll give you all the energy you want until you run out of stuff to feed it.

 

 

Same situation no matter what you decide to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Experimenting with several gravity fields due to small objects, to achieve energy gain could be obvious.


It'll give you all the energy you want until you run out of stuff to feed it.

 

"Feed the big dog. IT bites!" Black holes seem rather dangerous.

Edited by Eddie @ 10kOxygen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had something like a micro-black hole kept contained via charges you could "feed" it matter.

 

You could picture it sitting behind a turbine generator, creating a perpetual vacuum.

 

It'll give you all the energy you want until you run out of stuff to feed it.

 

 

Same situation no matter what you decide to use.

Outside the event horizon there is nothing special about the gravity of a black hole, they act like anything else of the same mass. Using the hawking radiation would probably be a better bet though. This isn't perpetual motion or energy though as feeding it is providing mass energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be the Singularity itself we'd be making use of as a semi-permanent low pressure region.

 

Transmit the effect of the singularity on the inside to the outside.

 

Might be easier to view it as a chain being pulled. How I originally envisioned it.

 

Would hopefully only be used as a secondary source used to improve efficiency. Would work well alongside of the more efficient Hawking radiation.

 

Kind of makes me wonder what the real world numbers would look like.

Edited by Endy0816

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not really how black holes work. Outside the event horizon are not gravitationally different to anything else of the same mass. You also get pressure pushing outwards from the hawking radiation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the bad joke! According to general relativity this sounds really interesting ... a space-time singularity to feed itself and take the energy, nice! Do I get it right? With two it would be easier one toward another in a cycle like you could emulate in that game called Portal, but who is going to make the experiment and where? That's worse than playing with fire!

Edited by Eddie @ 10kOxygen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of...

 

Turbine in standard Earth Atmosphere. Black hole enclosed on every other side behind it.

 

The majority of the energy generated would come from Atmospheric Pressure.

 

 

I'll have to look up the numbers for Hawking radiation. Makes sense there would be a cost involved though.

 

...and yes, this would be crazy dangerous.

Edited by Endy0816

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you like some answers, how to use gravitational field as a energy source, ...

 

!

Moderator Note

roger4464, please stop spamming SFN with your speculations. Your thread on the matter was closed and you are not allowed to reintroduce it. Regardless, the main science forum is not the place for non-mainstream science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No system had ever been proposed that would work. Gravity is a conservative force so you are not going to find any system that will work.

it is conservative, so, it is a potential energy that FIRST must be transformed to a ''force'' with the use of'matter''_ and this FORCE transformed to kinetic energy by mean of motion in a circle ''SPACE MOTION'' than it can be transformed again to electricity and again to heat and to steam:

 

!

Moderator Note

roger4464, please stop spamming SFN with your speculations. Your thread on the matter was closed and you are not allowed to reintroduce it. Regardless, the main science forum is not the place for non-mainstream science.

WHAT I HAVE POSTED WILL HELP ''people''TO OPEN THEIR MIND__that is good !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had something like a micro-black hole kept contained via charges you could "feed" it matter.

 

You could picture it sitting behind a turbine generator, creating a perpetual vacuum.

 

It'll give you all the energy you want until you run out of stuff to feed it.

Interesting sci-fi application, but probably not practical in reality. What would be the pumping speed of a micro-black hole? It would depend on the surface area, which would be small.

 

Another issue would be how the evaporation would affect the charge. I suspect it would not remain charged for long. Or if the evaporation rate was smaller than the growth rate from the background gas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting sci-fi application, but probably not practical in reality. What would be the pumping speed of a micro-black hole? It would depend on the surface area, which would be small.

 

Another issue would be how the evaporation would affect the charge. I suspect it would not remain charged for long. Or if the evaporation rate was smaller than the growth rate from the background gas.

 

 

Yeah, would basically be a race against time. Either the black hole evaporates or you run out of enough external pressure to keep going.

 

I'll probably try and work through the math in a separate thread.

 

Considering the energies involved more likely something for our descendents work out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Einstein's relativity tells us that an accelerated body gains mass, the extra mass being that of the KE; it has been verified countless times with accelerators. This theory would be problematic if we applied it to gravitational acceleration. What did Einstein mean by 'the equivalence principle'?

 

'Gravitional Fields' have the property of converting particle rest mass into KE mass so that a falling body does not change its total mass as seen in an accelerator. Hence: "A falling stone gathers no mass". Nigel Calder expressed the same idea in his book "Einstein's Universe" in Chapter 7: Shells of Time: "As no force acts on the apple, it cannot gain or lose energy".

 

There are no freebies in the energy game - with gravity (a conservative force) you add rest mass (most refer to this as potential energy) to the particle by raising it and you get it back when it falls. If we knew how to make the rest mass of a particle propel itself (gravity does just that) and then slow down withot ANY loss then we might almost have perpetual motion!I

I agree when you state a falling body gain no mass ;VS'_ in, and accelerated frame its ''mass-forces'' increase

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PG, actualy what you describe there sounds very similar to how a swing arm (moving coil or moving magnet) meter works smile.png

 

yes it`s a perfectly sound principal, but has little to do with gravity.

 

there is also something called magnetic damping also, again, that has little to do with Gravity as such and all to do with movement.

 

in Any of those ideas mentioned, you could replace gravity with an elastic band or a wound spring.

gravity alone is a loose band or spring, it has not inherant Energy of its own.

I like that!, about the elastic band__ wounded spring, NO ! __it can only be used to store a force as a single component to be transferred to an other component or used as an oscillator. remember gravity as a field potential in straight line that why it can be synthesized; there is more to it, if i am aloud to comment ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, this is my first time on here, but i've been reading this forum, and i have to disagree with a couple things.

 

I'm a little intimidated, but if I want answers, there seem to be some extremely intelligent people here to help me understand.

 

Please bear with me, im kindof all over the place, but i've had these ideas in my head forever, and just started researching, and i came across this forum. :)

 

I sincerely disagree that Gravity is a weak force. I believe it is the most powerful force in the universe.

 

(can actually be accredited to the creation of the universe in some circles AKA the Big Bang.), i also saw a post about gravity being linked to everything that was rebuffed. (i'll address that question in a sec.)

 

I also think it would be a very desctructive weapon, moreso than any nuclear, anti-matter, etc. weapon. If we could harness it, we could even make any of those weapons obsolete...just toss them in a black hole.

 

 

Is it true that when they were creating the atomic bomb, they were actually afraid of creating a Singularity on earth? I read it somewhere and always wondered about that.

Also, i think gravity would be a great way to travel in space. Since gravity is faster and stronger than the speed of light (think black hole here...) Screw Warp Drive...i'll take a Gravity Drive! if only i had any idea how to harness that!

 

I feel, just because we do not completely understand gravity, and have not learned how to harness it correctly, doesn't make it weak, it just means we don't get it yet. I believe it was einstein that described the relationship of gravity to every object as a "mesh" that we all exist in. For example when i am standing in a room with another person, our respective masses do have gravity towards each other, its just not perceptible to us as humans. Like, laying a ball in the middle of a stretchy cloth, if you lay another, lighter ball on the same cloth it will roll toward the large one.

 

Addressing the post about gravity being linked to everything, i believe that to be true (as i tried to explain above...not sure if i did the best job...).

 

There is no such thing as absence of gravity.

 

Certainly not in space (obviously), and not on earth. Down to the very molecules that make us.

 

We have electrons orbiting nuclei in the cells in our body.

 

Although you can simulate the absence of gravity (like weightlessness...we can never be without it.) Also, weightlessness is usually associated with the less tangible/humanly visible amount of gravity in open space, like in a space station, right?

 

I know im speaking in very large, general terms, but I find i usually understand things better when i break it back down to the basics. :)

 

i would LOVE any feedback!! Thanks! - Kristen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.