Can We Harness Gravity As Energy?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Colossus-Big C
1. Can We Harness Gravity As A Energy Source?
2. Can We Harness Weight As An Energy Source?

focus4chumps
yes!

and instead of winning the nobel prize and living like prince for the rest of my life from the royalties, im going to tell you right now:

dadudemon
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
1. Can We Harness Gravity As A Energy Source?
2. Can We Harness Weight As An Energy Source?

Sure!


287qd4uI7-E

Robtard
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
1. Can We Harness Gravity As A Energy Source?
2. Can We Harness Weight As An Energy Source?
http://www.visitingdc.com/images/hoover-dam-directions.jpg

Colossus-Big C
Not indirectly, Directly

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Not indirectly, Directly

We don't use anything as an energy source directly . . .

focus4chumps
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We don't use anything as an energy source directly . . .

oxygen? *trollface*

Major_Lexington
I like the thoughts (and Google searches) this thread inspires.

http://arachnoid.com/gravity/index.html

Lestov16
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
1. Can We Harness Gravity As A Energy Source?


If one could control gravity, they would pretty much be God, or at least a Dark-Phoenix level telekinetic. It's a fundamental force of the universe, and one of the major missing links in physics. That's at least assuming they had the control to work on a macroscopic and microscopic level.

Perhaps a better example would be Chris Evans in Push

Robtard
Gravity isn't missing anymore, I just dropped my shoe and found gravity.

Colossus-Big C
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We don't use anything as an energy source directly . . . You are taking what i said to literal. Can we harness gravity's pull as a power source without having to use water or such.

Just like we use solar panels which directly harness sunlight as energy.

Maybe some type of Technology or Element which creates electricity when gravity pulls on its mass? *Shrug*

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
You are taking what i said to literal. Can we harness gravity's pull as a power source without having to use water or such.

Just like we use solar panels which directly harness sunlight as energy.

Maybe some type of Technology or Element which creates electricity when gravity pulls on its mass? *Shrug*

You need to think about what you mean when you say directly or no one will ever be able to give you an answer. Solar panels don't magically turn light into electricity, there are many steps in between. If they count then so does letting water fall from a height and spin a turbine in a hydroelectric dam.

If you want something that you can handwave as magic I'd point you to quartz and a few other piezoelectric substances. You can put them under a rock (so gravity pushes down on it) and it will create a current.

Colossus-Big C
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You need to think about what you mean when you say directly or no one will ever be able to give you an answer. Solar panels don't magically turn light into electricity, there are many steps in between. If they count then so does letting water fall from a height and spin a turbine in a hydroelectric dam.

If you want something that you can handwave as magic I'd point you to quartz and a few other piezoelectric substances. You can put them under a rock (so gravity pushes down on it) and it will create a current. So if we make a large flat surface of quarts and placed weight on it, it would create power? Interesting.


But i guess its hard to explain what im asking here.

Lord Lucien
That's because you're stupid not good with words trying hard enough.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
So if we make a large flat surface of quarts and placed weight on it, it would create power? Interesting.

A very small amount. Quartz is sometimes used in watches to create a small amount of electricity.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That's because you're stupid not good with words trying hard enough.

What happened to your little man carrying a pile of books?

Mindship
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
1. Can We Harness Gravity As An Energy Source?
2. Can We Harness Weight As An Energy Source? A refrigerator magnet lifting a paper clip is outpulling the entire Earth. Gravity is by far the weakest of the fundamental forces.

Astner
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Not indirectly, Directly
No offense, but I think you've been reading a few too many comics.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Astner
No offense, but I think you've been reading a few too many comics.
His performances in the Comic Book Versus Forum disagree.

Astner
Maybe I'm a bit too hard on him? He's legitimately curious, and far be it for me to dismiss an inquisitive mind.

Well, Colossus-Big C, energy is defined as the relative state of objects or particles. Consequently Robtard did provide a very direct answer to your question.

Jim Colyer
I am an amateur astronomer but at the present time, do not see how gravity could be harnessed. Maybe it will be feasible in the remote future.

TheGodKiller
Why would we need to? Gravity doesn't even begin to register at the macroscopic level unless you're comparing objects many, many orders of magnitudes different in mass. Weakass and pathetic compared to the other 3 fundamental forces. And weak force translates to weak energy.

focus4chumps
Originally posted by Jim Colyer
I am an amateur astronomer but at the present time, do not see how gravity could be harnessed. Maybe it will be feasible in the remote future.

oh you're an amateur astronomer?

tell us more about your fisher-price telescope.

http://ct.fra.bz/il/fz/se/i51/5/2/9/f_e3dbd7e895.jpg

Colossus-Big C
So what is the strongest fundamental force?

Lord Lucien
Well strong force can overcome electromagnetism... and it's strong.

Colossus-Big C
Electromagnetism is one of the 4 fundamental forces of universe?

Astner
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Why would we need to? Gravity doesn't even begin to register at the macroscopic level unless you're comparing objects many, many orders of magnitudes different in mass.
Originally posted by Robtard
http://www.visitingdc.com/images/hoover-dam-directions.jpg

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Weakass and pathetic compared to the other 3 fundamental forces. And weak force translates to weak energy.
The strong- and weak nuclear forces have limited ranges of influence in contrast to the electromagnetic force and gravity.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Astner
The strong- and weak nuclear forces have limited ranges of influence in contrast to the electromagnetic force and gravity.

Yeah, I'd say "limited range", for sure. Let's go with less than 3 fm.

Meaning...


It is not as feasible, in some applications to "harness' the strong force. Oh, hey, nuclear weapons.

Astner

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Electromagnetism is one of the 4 fundamental forces of universe? Electromagnetism, gravity, strong force, and weak force.

According to Prof. Moriarty at Nottingham University, courtesy of this Sixty Symbols video, if you were to compare the ratio of the strength of gravity to that of electromagnetism, it would be like comparing the ratio of the weight of a 1 gram object to that of "4 million billion billion billion airbuses". EM is what gives protons their positive charge and makes them repulse each other, but it's the strong force that overpowers that charge and forces them to stick together in an atom's nucleus. It's why so much energy is released when you split an atom.

Omega Vision
8crIHgjG1_I

Colossus-Big C
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Electromagnetism, gravity, strong force, and weak force.

According to Prof. Moriarty at Nottingham University, courtesy of this Sixty Symbols video, if you were to compare the ratio of the strength of gravity to that of electromagnetism, it would be like comparing the ratio of the weight of a 1 gram object to that of "4 million billion billion billion airbuses". EM is what gives protons their positive charge and makes them repulse each other, but it's the strong force that overpowers that charge and forces them to stick together in an atom's nucleus. It's why so much energy is released when you split an atom. What happens if you split a Proton?

Lord Lucien
Then you're breaking the color interaction, a component of strong force. It would send a proton's (or neutron's) quarks flying. Actually you can just watch Scishow's series on the fundamental forces, beginning with strong force and color interaction. Here's the first video:



Yv3EMq2Dgq8

Colossus-Big C
This is very Interesting topic

TheGodKiller
Originally posted by Astner

Originally posted by Robtard
http://www.visitingdc.com/images/hoover-dam-directions.jpg
The strong- and weak nuclear forces have limited ranges of influence in contrast to the electromagnetic force and gravity.
Nope, I was talking about a device which can literally harness energy from gravitational based interactions, not some gravity dam or other such variation.

And yet both the strong and weak forces have successfully yielded great amounts of energy in the laboratory, and both have had successful military applications, with at least one being a viable(although somewhat expensive) energy source which has already been commercialized.
As far as electromagnetic force is concerned, don't even get started on how successful humans have been in that particular field.

Gravitational force, while having impressive astronomical ranges, simply can't compete with its counterparts in this department.

Lord Lucien
Any energy that could be gained from falling mass would first require energy to raise that mass. The output just wouldn't be worth the cost. Unless of course mass was taken out of the equation, directly touching on the source of gravity--which would mean observing the mysterious graviton. I'm sensing repulorlifts and andti-grav sleds here.

Astner
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Nope, I was talking about a device which can literally harness energy from gravitational based interactions, not some gravity dam or other such variation.
roll eyes (sarcastic) To have displace body of matter in the gravitational field to generate energy is to harness the energy of a gravitational-based interactions.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Gravitational force, while having impressive astronomical ranges, simply can't compete with its counterparts in this department.
Is that why hydroelectric plants generates around 24% of the world's electricity, whereas nuclear power plants generate about 16% of it?

Lord Lucien
Hydroelectric dams don't use solely gravity, which is what I think he wants to hear about. The only reason water flows is due to the Sun, which bombards us with EM.

Astner
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Hydroelectric dams don't use solely gravity, which is what I think he wants to hear about. The only reason water flows is due to the Sun, which bombards us with EM.
Hydroelectric plants generates energy solely from displacing bodies of water (matter) in a gravitation field to a lower state of potential energy.

The general principle is the same as displacing quarks or leptons in fields of the strong- and weak nuclear force, respectively, to generate energy.

The only reasonable conclusion one can draw from your replies is that neither of you have any idea of what you're talking about.

Mindship
*expecting a thread on zero-point energy*

Colossus-Big C
Originally posted by Mindship
*expecting a thread on zero-point energy* what exactly is the theory behind that?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Hydroelectric dams don't use solely gravity, which is what I think he wants to hear about. The only reason water flows is due to the Sun, which bombards us with EM.

And the only reason that the sun can bombard us with EM is because the strong and weak force keep us from collapsing into our component subatomic particles! Honestly gravity is hardly involved in the hydroeletric dam at all. stick out tongue

Mindship
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
what exactly is the theory behind that? Essentially, thanks to the uncertainty principle, even the vacuum of space has energy: it's not truly 'empty'. Physicists Feynman and Wheeler say that a cup of coffee contains enough ZPE to evaporate the oceans. But not everyone agrees with this assessment.

http://www.wingmakers.co.nz/Zero-Point_Energy.html

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZIvg_I3yHx0/Rr0zOuEarwI/AAAAAAAAAhM/vbK54yWGXGA/s320/syndrome.bmp

TheGodKiller
Originally posted by Astner
roll eyes (sarcastic) To have displace body of matter in the gravitational field to generate energy is to harness the energy of a gravitational-based interactions.
So ?
Originally posted by Astner

Is that why hydroelectric plants generates around 24% of the world's electricity, whereas nuclear power plants generate about 16% of it?
That's because nuclear power plants are considerably more expensive to build and maintain, and hydroelectric plants don't have the additional hazard of being used as factories for production of hazardous WMD fuel.
Not to mention your numbers are a little bit off, because nuclear power accounts for around 14% of the world's electricity consumption with hydropower accounting for 16%(a very marginal edge, but an edge nonetheless), which is even more "damming" when you consider that the number of hydroelectric dams in the US alone are nearly double the number of nuclear power plants worldwide.

The original point still stands: nuclear forces yield far greater amounts of energy per quantity of fuel as compared to gravitational based interactions.

Darth Jello
doesn't brane theory say that gravity and possibly other fundamental forces are stronger or weaker depending on where you are in the universe as well as what scale you are looking at?

Mindship
Originally posted by Darth Jello
doesn't brane theory say that gravity and possibly other fundamental forces are stronger or weaker depending on where you are in the universe...Gravity may be so incredibly weak in our universe/brane because it is "bleeding through" from other branes. I don't think it pertains to the other forces.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
...as well as what scale you are looking at? On the subatomic scale, the strong force dominates; on the astronomical scale, gravity rules. But I don't think their relative values actually change (at least in conventional models).

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Astner
Hydroelectric plants generates energy solely from displacing bodies of water (matter) in a gravitation field to a lower state of potential energy.

The general principle is the same as displacing quarks or leptons in fields of the strong- and weak nuclear force, respectively, to generate energy.

The only reasonable conclusion one can draw from your replies is that neither of you have any idea of what you're talking about. Did... did you just discount the Sun's involvement in the hydrosphere and attribute the flow of water on this planet solely to gravity?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And the only reason that the sun can bombard us with EM is because the strong and weak force keep us from collapsing into our component subatomic particles! Honestly gravity is hardly involved in the hydroeletric dam at all. stick out tongue Boosh!

TheGodKiller
This point about gravitation:
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Weakass and pathetic compared to the other 3 fundamental forces.
still holds fast and steady, not likely to fall any time soon.

This thread can be closed now(like most of CBC's other dumb threads).

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
(like most of CBC's other dumb threads). I want to imagine you're Canadian, and this is some clever reference to the state broadcaster.

Robtard
How did this thread get to page three when I posted the perfect wordless reply on page one?

You people, I swear sometimes.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Robtard
How did this thread get to page three when I posted the perfect wordless reply on page one?

You people, I swear sometimes. You swear frequently.

Astner
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Did... did you just discount the Sun's involvement in the hydrosphere and attribute the flow of water on this planet solely to gravity?
No. I merely pointed out that hydroelectric plants make use of the energy of gravitationally displaced bodies of water, and nothing else.

Just like fossil-fuel power stations make use off of the energy chemically stored in fossil-fuels, and nothing else. Even though that energy initially came from the sun.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Did... did you just discount the Sun's involvement in the hydrosphere and attribute the flow of water on this planet solely to gravity?

Boosh!
Isn't the sun's involvement in the hydrosphere a facet of its gravitational influence?

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Astner
No. I merely pointed out that hydroelectric plants make use of the energy of gravitationally displaced bodies of water, and nothing else.

Just like fossil-fuel power stations make use off of the energy chemically stored in fossil-fuels, and nothing else. Even though that energy initially came from the sun. Ah, ok. I read an insinuation that EM played no part.


Originally posted by Omega Vision
Isn't the sun's gravitational influence a facet of its involvement in the hydrosphere? ffsss... Probably.

Shinkicker
PILEDRIVER!!!!

BlackZero30x
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
So if we make a large flat surface of quarts and placed weight on it, it would create power? Interesting.


But i guess its hard to explain what im asking here.

Correct me if I am mistaken here.

What Im getting from your post is you are asking about gravity as a force. So gravity itself not from the cause gravity has on objects? Something like that?...

EDIT: like if I am pushing on a rock the energy that is transferred from me into the rock. That is the energy you want to know if we can harness?

Mindship
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
What happens if you split a Proton? If you try to split a proton -- ie, separate it into its component quarks -- the "gluonic energy" binding the quarks increases such that, when the proton breaks, that binding energy becomes new quarks and you get a new proton. Basically, protonic quarks can't exist as isolated particles.

At least, I think this is how it goes.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
So if we make a large flat surface of quartz and placed weight on it, it would create power? On a large scale I don't think it's an effective energy source, otherwise you'd see large quartz surfaces everywhere. Piezoelectricity is useful for record players: as the needle works its way along the grooves of a record, the pressure on the needle's crystal tip generates electrical current, which in turn, is translated into sound by the phonograph.

Colossus-Big C
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
Correct me if I am mistaken here.

What Im getting from your post is you are asking about gravity as a force. So gravity itself not from the cause gravity has on objects? Something like that?...
Exactly. This is Exactly What Im Asking.

BlackZero30x
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Exactly. This is Exactly What Im Asking.

Looking back on things from history a lot of things now would seem utterly impossible but we have them. So on that note I could see it happening at some point.

Though we would need a machine that could absorb energy. Almost in the same manner Vibrainium does in comics. Though it would need to work more efficiently then that. The machine would have to constantly absorb and release the energy it stores. Thats not even going into the complexity of what this said machine would run on.

Omega Vision
^ I don't think energy works the way you think it does.

Asking about harnessing the power of gravity but not the force it exerts on things qua gravity is like asking for a glass of water without hydrogen or oxygen in it.

Gravity (by my understanding, one of the science majors in this forum can correct me if I'm wrong) simply is the set of its effects on the physical Universe.

Colossus-Big C
I think that there is a good arguement that gravity is a field capable of converting potential energy into kinetic energy in the direction of the source. If it is shown to be right, then one has to contemplate the possibility of finding out how to reverse the polarity of the field.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
I think that there is a good arguement that gravity is a field capable of converting potential energy into kinetic energy in the direction of the source. If it is shown to be right, then one has to contemplate the possibility of finding out how to reverse the polarity of the field.
Whenever someone says 'reverse polarity' you can tell one of two things--1) they're quoting a Sci Fi series or 2) they're saying nonsense.

Astner
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Gravity (by my understanding, one of the science majors in this forum can correct me if I'm wrong) simply is the set of its effects on the physical Universe.
You're right. Gravity is defined as the force exerted by all objects having mass on all other objects having mass.

The only way to harness energy from gravity (or any other force) is to displace its property of influence within its field, in which case you need energy to begin with. When a hydroelectric plant generates electrical energy it uses the potential energy of water, when a nuclear plant generates electricity it uses the energy of sub-atomically unstable materials.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.