you only have to pump up water one foot at any hight. if it is dropped at hight it would give you speed weight that more then its took pump it up...

I think you'll find that the energies involved are the same, less the losses.

To clarify:


Pump moves water at m/s (constant rate)


If i wanted to perfectly balance gravity:
I would need a rocket (with infinite fuel)
that accelerated at (9.8 ) m/s/s


something to think about:
Why doesnt the current draw on a vertical pump increase with time?


……………………………


Thought about it?
It actually DOES! The time is the time for a volume of water to get from point A to point B within the gravitational field.
To test this run the pump horizontally, then again vertically.
If the time is 1 second or less, current draw is consistent.
If the time is greater than 1 second, current draw is scalar
For this reason, a pressure system is preferred for greater heights than 10m
As less energy is required to pressurize the system than to pump at those heights mechanically.


The pressure system (assuming above the ambient) does not experience gravitational acceleration in the way a free falling object does. A column of water will hang in the air expending no additional energy, so long as the pressure in the column is maintained.
This is akin to an object sitting on the ground.
In this manner, pressure and height are proportional.
Like plumbing in the top floor of a skyscraper.


So:
The losses in a pump system are scalar
While the losses in a pressure system are static
(when height is constant)


This difference in energy is the difference between what the water company uses
to fill the tower
Vs
What we get out of it at ground level.
Hydrodynamics, like a Dam.


Remember gravitational acceleration is independent from mass.
Pressure systems, pumps, ballistics, or virtually (almost) any other method
of us moving the water is absolutely dependent upon mass.
more specifically, the density of that mass.


while under pressure, aerated water is far less dense.
Even though the air is compressed and the “amount” of water moved over time hasn’t changed significantly, the density of that water has.


Falling momentum, on the other hand, let’s say the water were contained in a (massless) vessel
doesn’t care about the air


here again we can draw inequality.


Let’s think about the momentum itself
as well as the kinetic energy:
in one condition we have a mass in constant motion
On the other we have an accelerating mass
What is different about these two conditions?

I agree, there is no difference in energy, only in force and duration required to perform the lifting.
The one interesting thing with lifting a static object, is that if you allow it to fall along a gradual ramp to horizontal, your slow lifting can result in a rather rapid horizontal displacement.
Lift a cannonball (slowly) up a good 5 meter tall quarter pipe such as use for extreme sports, let go, and a good second later you have a cannonball traveling horizontally at 10 m/s. Friction and the next quarter pipe decide how far it will travel.
To push a static cannonball up to 10 m/s is quite a feet, it takes signficant equipment and/or force. Forcing the cannonball against the slow force of gravity and releasing it in a controlled way along the quarter pipe, tranfers all its potential energy (the 5 meters) into horizontal velocity.
At the time when we were teased by the Abeling gravity wheel, I was pondering (kinda still am) how we could use horizontal and radial advancement of weights on a wheel into persistent acceleration. A "simple" manner of saving time on the way up and starting to impart force on the downward side of the wheel ahead of schedule causing it to be unbalanced and accelerate. So far, no solution that I foresee working.

Don’t blindly believe what you have been told
The truth is we do not fully understand gravity


1) how much energy is required to lift an object through gravity?
    A) if the object is motionless
    B) if the object first falls, then rises using gravitational momentum?


How much energy is consumed by a plane to raise its altitude?
How much energy does a flying squirrel use by jumping down then flying up to a higher branch?


An Eagle or condor can slow itself down, causing lift, then soar back down to the original altitude
resulting in a higher velocity


A spacecraft can enter gravity at one angle, and leave at another at a faster speed


Momentum can exceed the potential energy of a gravitational system under the right conditions
the kinetic energy of the rise and fall are not equivalent,
Rising incurs an inverse acceleration, over time
Falling incurs an increasing acceleration, over time


Take the energy in 12 grains of black powder
And use that to slowly lift a mass of lead
And compare that to the height of a fired bullet straight up


Then compare both of those to the instantaneous force of impact when the bullet lands


in one condition the bullet falls from a great height and impacts at one velocity
In the other condition the bullet is moving much faster (often inhibited by terminal velocity)


lets take a 100 lb man with 100lbs of weights in his pockets
and also a 200lb man with no additional weight
Who has more stored energy available?
Who can jump higher?
Why are those two things not in agreement?


Newtonian Theory works, exactly as prescribed, in most circumstances
But it is not absolute, and conservation within the field is bound by certain presumptions
Go outside of these, and things change

There are the extreme examples of magnetism and buoyancy
but even two different uses of gravity alone can result in
differences between two sides of a system

Don’t forget what we learned from William Skinner

                       So, returning to declaration as posited by user frii143

you only have to pump up water one foot at any hight. if it is dropped at hight it would give you speed weight that more then its took pump it up. if you had a tower with two pockets a full one and an empty one the impacted could be hit a lever at the bottom that spins a generator to pump water to the top of the tower.

Greatings
                frii143

It requires the same amount of energy to lift an object against gravity's force
(a same amount of height),

1. When it is lifted rapidly.
   as
2. When it is lifted slowly.

This does not mean that the mechanism or the method to cause the lifting is as energy
efficient in both circumstances.

The same amount of energy is present in an object's falling due to gravity's force,
(a same amount of height),

1. When it falls rapidly.
   as
2. When it falls slowly.

It      SEEMS     as if     an object that has fallen rapidly had more energy, than the
same object had, in its being lowered gradually (a same amount of distance).

This is because we witness that energy of the rapid fall, all at once.
For example...  upon it having a sudden  impact.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

It requires the         same amount of energy       to accelerate an object of a given
mass, to some       given speed,         against the reactive force of its tendency to remain
at rest (its own inertia).....

1. When we accelerate that object suddenly to that given speed.
       as
2. When we gradually accelerate that object to that same given speed.
   and also note that
The object  when rapidly accelerated reaches that given speed sooner.
The object when gradually accelerated reaches that given speed in longer period of time.

The object  when rapidly accelerated reaches that given speed in a shorter distance of
travel.
The object when gradually accelerated reaches that given speed in a longer distance
of travel..

Interesting paradox.
In practice, try to move 200 kg. barrel on a flat, smooth, hard surface, for example, 10 meters.
How much energy do you spend on this. And now tilt the barrel on the edge of its bottom.
And roll the barrel on the edge of the bottom to a new place.This is much more easily.
 

what I want to know would free fall weight acted like a combustion if dropped from more than a 130 feet. like 12 gallons of water about 100 pounds. I think free fall a human reaches about a 120 mph dropping a 120 feet. I think it would need a flywheel to capture the impacted.

You know the answer.