Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Gravity powered devices => Gravity powered devices => Topic started by: ResinRat2 on October 30, 2009, 06:54:52 PM

Title: The Power of Gravity - You might find this interesting.
Post by: ResinRat2 on October 30, 2009, 06:54:52 PM
In a thought experiment of building a mechanical battery I found the following calculation very sobering.

In order to simply store the equivalent of One Kilowatt-Hour of energy the following is required:

One Kilogram of water falling one meter produces:

(1 kg water)(9.8 m/s2)(1 meter) =  9.8 kg-m2/s2 which is equivalent to

9.8 Joules of energy

                       ------------------------------

1000J/s for one hour is One Kilowatt-hr of energy

(1000J/s)(60sec/min)(60min/hour)  =  3.6 million Joules .

In order to store this much energy by raising a weight to a height of  3 meters we would need a total weight of:

(3600000 kg-m2/s2)/ ((9.8 m/s2)(3 m))  =  122000 kg. raised to a height of 3 meters.

For those of us in the United States it is equivalent to approximately 134 Tons raised to a height of approximately 10 Feet.
                                  -----------------------------

Wet sand weighs approximately 2.3g/cm3 or 19.19 lbs/ gal

A single ton of this heavy stuff would require 53 cubic meters of volume. Multiply this by 134 and you can see why energy is never stored by raising a weight, and why a gravity-based battery has never been economically developed.

For the first time in my life, my old sore knees being now ignored, I am looking at the reality that the force of gravity is a very weak force indeed.
Title: Re: The Power of Gravity - You might find this interesting.
Post by: spoondini on October 30, 2009, 11:42:16 PM
Resinrat,
   On another post somebody had a very clever idea to perform electrolysis, take advantage of the natural buoyancy of hydrogen and let it rise in a tower, react with oxygen from the atmosphere (burn) at altitude and capture that energy, the capture the hydro power as the water fell back down.  A perpetual water fall if you will.  Sounded great to me.  I did the math and after taking into account efficiency losses, I calculated the tower would need to be really freeking tall, like stratospheric to even break even.

Are knees certainly don't perceive gravity as a weak force, bu math sure as hell does.
Title: Re: The Power of Gravity - You might find this interesting.
Post by: sm0ky2 on October 30, 2009, 11:58:21 PM
or using water instead of sand, 1 gallon weights 3.787 Kg

so,  1 KW-Hr is roughly 32,220 gallons per hour, or approx. 550 gallons per minute through an hydroelectric generator.
with a drop height of 9.8 ft.

size = its about a 20-ft by 40-ft / 5 ft deep swimming pool.
completely dumped in 1 hour.

Title: Re: The Power of Gravity - You might find this interesting.
Post by: ResinRat2 on October 31, 2009, 01:59:33 AM
Yes, the math does show what a pittance of energy gravity potentially can store; but doesn't this also hint at the fact that even if a perpetual motion wheel could possibly be invented, it would require such a large number of them to produce even a small amount of energy from gravity that it would be a waste of energy even building them?

I originally thought of digging downward and building the mechanical battery with a shaft in the ground a hundred feet deep. Even this would require such a large weight (over 13 tons) that it was ridiculous to even consider it.
 
Title: Re: The Power of Gravity - You might find this interesting.
Post by: TechStuf on October 31, 2009, 03:12:51 PM
Yes, but consider that such an eventuality is not really about gravity wheels at all....

But instead, certain tangential possibilities.

From there, a single great leap is possible.


TS
Title: Re: The Power of Gravity - You might find this interesting.
Post by: brian334 on November 05, 2009, 01:21:36 AM
Mr. Rat,
A single ton of this heavy stuff would require 53 cubic meters of volume.
Title: Re: The Power of Gravity - You might find this interesting.
Post by: 2tiger on November 05, 2009, 04:15:56 PM
Hi all
Why not use water.
1 liter water = 1kg
1000 liter = 1000kg = 1t

to Spoondini:
Is that the idea you red somewhere?

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3422.0

Bye
Title: Re: The Power of Gravity - You might find this interesting.
Post by: broli on November 05, 2009, 04:36:48 PM
Gravity is weak compared to electro-magnetism anyone who knows something about nature knows that. Even Besslers big wheels were maybe 100-300 Watt strong. Back then that was a lot of muscle power. Now it would be sufficient for a few light bulbs. The cost will in no way justify the energy production. Wheels must become ferris size to output usable energy. Weights have to be made from plutonium to keep the size down. There has to be a whole team of technicians around the clock maintaining such a dynamic mechanical behemoth.

Only a deluded person would not accept these facts. Gravity wheels are toys that will end up in museums, they won't change our energy hungry societies.
Title: Re: The Power of Gravity - You might find this interesting.
Post by: tinu on November 05, 2009, 07:39:57 PM
Gravity wheels do not function.  ;)
Title: Re: The Power of Gravity - You might find this interesting.
Post by: tinu on November 05, 2009, 08:01:22 PM
...

Wet sand weighs approximately 2.3g/cm3 or 19.19 lbs/ gal

A single ton of this heavy stuff would require 53 cubic meters of volume.
...

I’m not familiar with US system. In kgms, 1ton = 1000kg, math is easier.
In the above quote there is a math error. 2.3g/cm3 would be 2.3 tons/m3. 1 such ton would require only 0.43m3.

Instead of wet sand, one may better use lead. Or even steal. Gravitational batteries are still used today although not widely; check large bridges i.e. the famous London Bridge (before its refurbishment).

Gravity is indeed weak, still hydros provide the cheapest, cleanest and one of the most reliable energy source we have. But also your knees are right…  ;)
Try multiplying mass by several hundreds km to see its real power.
Alternatively, check the size of fuel rocket tanks in comparison to the size of payload itself.

Best regards,
Tinu
Title: Re: The Power of Gravity - You might find this interesting.
Post by: ResinRat2 on November 05, 2009, 11:35:39 PM
I’m not familiar with US system. In kgms, 1ton = 1000kg, math is easier.
In the above quote there is a math error. 2.3g/cm3 would be 2.3 tons/m3. 1 such ton would require only 0.43m3.

Instead of wet sand, one may better use lead. Or even steal. Gravitational batteries are still used today although not widely; check large bridges i.e. the famous London Bridge (before its refurbishment).


What?

Let's see, wet sand weighs about 19.19#/gal so a ton is:

2000#/(19.19#/gal) = about 104.2 gallons

A gallon is 3785 ml or 0.003785 m3

so (104.2 gal ) (0.003785 m3/gal) = 0.3944 m3 ... DOH!!

Leave it to a Chemist to screw that calculation up.

so 134 tons would be (134 tons)(0.3944 m3/Ton) = 53 m3.

OK so now is this right? I probably screwed it up again, but it looks OK to me now.

I also thought about lead or steel first, but I wanted to get as close to the same densities and be very, very cheap. You can't beat sand for cheap except with water, but the wet sand density is over twice the density of water, so I figured it was the best to use to get the most weight in the smallest volume at the cheapest cost.

Still, it is very disappointing for size vs. power storage.

Thanks for finding my error.
Title: Re: The Power of Gravity - You might find this interesting.
Post by: ResinRat2 on November 05, 2009, 11:46:11 PM
So you can see this idea is very, very simple. I know there is nothing new here.Store excess energy from solar/wind into a mechanical battery composed of a shaft downward and a very heavy weight held by a cable. Simply raise the weight with excess power during the day, and reclaim it once the solar/wind activity ceases for the day by allowing the weight to again go downward into the shaft and turn a generator (maxing out the gear ratio to get the most energy possible from gravity's pull). No chemicals, no battery memory effect, no toxic lithium to dispose of, and no need to tie into the Electric Power Grid.

As simple a mechanical battery as a simple mind could conceive. I don't think you could get a patent on this one however, and digging the shaft wouldn't be too cheap; nor would the mechanical equipment needed to raise the weight. Can it be commercialized into something practical? Especially in our "green" era?

That was the whole idea behind it though.

Thanks for everyone's input and interest.

RR2
Title: Re: The Power of Gravity - You might find this interesting.
Post by: brian334 on November 06, 2009, 01:15:11 PM
Mr. Rat,
I like your idea.
Sort of like a grandfather clock, only a lot bigger.

Title: Re: The Power of Gravity - You might find this interesting.
Post by: brian334 on November 06, 2009, 06:21:52 PM
Mr. Rat,
Think flywheels for energy storage.
Title: Re: The Power of Gravity - You might find this interesting.
Post by: fletcher on November 06, 2009, 07:21:07 PM
Taking the same idea & tweaking it - have a barge in a tidal area - have the barge act like a pontoon i.e. four poles in the sea floor & guides mounted on the barge so that it rises & falls with the tides but doesn't move laterally - either run a cable thru a sea floor mounted pulley to land &/or a cable to a pulley above the barge then to land - have both for max work capacity - the land based cables lift a weight via a pulley on top of a tower etc to raise the masses gravitational Pe [to do work when released, say driving a generator] - the buoyancy of the barge lifts the land based mass up the tower as the tide comes in - having a dual system allows another mass to be lifted into position when the tide goes out & the barge falls, lifting the mass - free energy 4 times a day limited only by the scale.
Title: Re: The Power of Gravity - You might find this interesting.
Post by: Justalabrat on November 07, 2009, 12:40:49 AM
So you can see this idea is very, very simple. I know there is nothing new here.Store excess energy from solar/wind into a mechanical battery composed of a shaft downward and a very heavy weight held by a cable. Simply raise the weight with excess power during the day, and reclaim it once the solar/wind activity ceases for the day by allowing the weight to again go downward into the shaft and turn a generator (maxing out the gear ratio to get the most energy possible from gravity's pull). No chemicals, no battery memory effect, no toxic lithium to dispose of, and no need to tie into the Electric Power Grid.

As simple a mechanical battery as a simple mind could conceive. I don't think you could get a patent on this one however, and digging the shaft wouldn't be too cheap; nor would the mechanical equipment needed to raise the weight. Can it be commercialized into something practical? Especially in our "green" era?

That was the whole idea behind it though.

Thanks for everyone's input and interest.

RR2
You know the real cool thing about this method is you could tell just by looking how much power you had stored.  ;D

you could get free energy from the rain! just put an empty tank as your weight, and when it rains let it fill the tank! :)
Title: Re: The Power of Gravity - You might find this interesting.
Post by: raburgeson on November 20, 2009, 08:15:25 AM
Well, before I got misdirected on other projects I was working on hydrogen on demand. Newton's Laws came from and apple testing impenetrability on his head. That observation was point of view on a very limited basis. I find interesting the rings on Saturn and Jupiter. That and the 2 major asteroid belts in our solar system that should not exist in their present state. Do to constant impacts and energy being transferred from mass to mass, the belts should have dispersed instead of staying in a localized orbit. We came to the believe the the same energy that powers gravity is either the same energy that forms the molecular bond in water or a sister energy. Electric and magnetism (brother and sister energies). One does not exist without the other. We don't believe time is directly related and that points to another possible undefined energy. We are crunching numbers and will look at formulas now under investigation. I would appreciate any point outs to such works that I might miss by search engine. We think some comets are displaying overunity and may leave the solar system in the distant future. After the sling shot they seem to be still increasing energy, most curious.

We are trying to find a relationship between the orbits of the planets and their moons and the planets and the Sol at the moment. We think these objects may be traveling in an energy (Gravity) race track, so to speak.

Lenz's law, passing a nonmagnetic material through a strong magnetic flux will slow or resist movement. Why does the Earth then rotate? Other planets? Is the moons orbit centered around a average of the magnetic equator? Can the heat at the center of our planet be coming from another dimension's or universe's potential difference and can that be explained by Torsion Physics?

Not all planets have a moon or moons. All elements have electrons. Even with the exception from planets do electrons have a pathway similar to the one we are looking for in the solar system. This is the point were I draw a possible relationship between gravity and my hydrogen pursuits. This is not put here for any type of disinformation. I am trying to ask the right questions here.

I have proved that the governments are falsifying scientific information. I cracked the photos from space that scientist around the world are studying to get data from. There was not one pixel from space that I could find. Just computer generated subliminal smut and a main theme. These (cough) pictures have been withdrawn from the net and new ones have appeared with the exact same agenda. They include Mercury, and Europa. Working from false data the opinions of the doctorate astrophysicist opinion is probably worth less than mine. Take that to heart. It didn't take them long to retire the rovers after my cracked solution to their lie was made public did it? I have excellent reason to believe everything they teach about gravity is misdirection too. I will repeat myself here the governments pick and control the curriculum you learn from in the school systems.

The rings of Saturn and Jupiter have things in common the most important is they are both created by a huge rotating mass. How much gravity work is centered around a rotating mass? Actually think for yourselves people your schooling is going to fail you here, No one has given you this answer. Even if you are thinking wrong, it's more important you think than continually return to texts that do not contain the information.
Title: Re: The Power of Gravity - You might find this interesting.
Post by: mr_bojangles on December 10, 2009, 04:57:43 PM
that is why we must not use water, but a magnet!

and straight down is the most inefficient way of using gravity

put the magnet on a pendulum and it will conserve some of the wasted energy that a kinetic battery would not


there is something going on with lateral movement, man invented the wheel for something, i hope it wasn't just for cars
Title: Re: The Power of Gravity - You might find this interesting.
Post by: Nabo00o on January 24, 2010, 09:46:02 PM
Resin Rat, I disagree with the formula you used in the first post.
At least if you want to calculate the kinetic energy which 1 kg of water gains at the end of a 1 meter fall, then the formula is this:
Ek = (M * V^2)/2 
and V = height * the gravity constant, where you wrote 9.8 m/s

So, then we get: 1 * 9.8^2 * 0.5 =  48.02 Joules!

Interesting that the work formula and kinetic energy formula turns out so different ;D
Also, note that if you use leverage for more distance instead of force, you will get more energy out because kinetic energy is proportional to mass but quadrople of velocity!

Julian

Edit: Sorry I got the math completely wrong there!
Since it doesn't fall for one second, but one meter, it actually reaches a velocity of 0.1 m/s....
That halved gives aproximately 0.05 Joules, at least acording to the kinetic energy formula.
BUT, it still holds that you can increase that energy by sacrificing mass to height, as you can by using a piston as leverage.