Can we harness gravitational potential energy?
$begingroup$
I'm following this question that was closed as unclear. I think the OP meant the potential energy.
There are skyscrapers sitting there and pushing on the ground with tremendous weight. Is it possible to convert this weight/force to harness energy to power the building?
Maybe, build the building on top of some type of pendulum that will rotate under the pressure and when one cycle of rotation reaches the equilibrium point we could give it a kick from the stored energy of the same source to continue rotation.
Was something like this created or tested and found useless?
Note: maybe my question should be is it possible to convert the potential energy of a building into a kinetic?
energy-conservation potential-energy perpetual-motion energy-storage
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm following this question that was closed as unclear. I think the OP meant the potential energy.
There are skyscrapers sitting there and pushing on the ground with tremendous weight. Is it possible to convert this weight/force to harness energy to power the building?
Maybe, build the building on top of some type of pendulum that will rotate under the pressure and when one cycle of rotation reaches the equilibrium point we could give it a kick from the stored energy of the same source to continue rotation.
Was something like this created or tested and found useless?
Note: maybe my question should be is it possible to convert the potential energy of a building into a kinetic?
energy-conservation potential-energy perpetual-motion energy-storage
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
isn't that what tidal energy stations are?
$endgroup$
– aaaaaa
5 mins ago
$begingroup$
A practical example of us doing exactly this is Gravity Light. The idea behind it is that batteries are hard to come by in many African villages, but they do have humans who can expend effort to lift a bag (increasing potential energy), and then the device turns that gravitational potential energy into kinetic, then electricitrical, then light.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
57 secs ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm following this question that was closed as unclear. I think the OP meant the potential energy.
There are skyscrapers sitting there and pushing on the ground with tremendous weight. Is it possible to convert this weight/force to harness energy to power the building?
Maybe, build the building on top of some type of pendulum that will rotate under the pressure and when one cycle of rotation reaches the equilibrium point we could give it a kick from the stored energy of the same source to continue rotation.
Was something like this created or tested and found useless?
Note: maybe my question should be is it possible to convert the potential energy of a building into a kinetic?
energy-conservation potential-energy perpetual-motion energy-storage
$endgroup$
I'm following this question that was closed as unclear. I think the OP meant the potential energy.
There are skyscrapers sitting there and pushing on the ground with tremendous weight. Is it possible to convert this weight/force to harness energy to power the building?
Maybe, build the building on top of some type of pendulum that will rotate under the pressure and when one cycle of rotation reaches the equilibrium point we could give it a kick from the stored energy of the same source to continue rotation.
Was something like this created or tested and found useless?
Note: maybe my question should be is it possible to convert the potential energy of a building into a kinetic?
energy-conservation potential-energy perpetual-motion energy-storage
energy-conservation potential-energy perpetual-motion energy-storage
edited 7 hours ago
Qmechanic♦
105k121901203
105k121901203
asked 11 hours ago
GrasperGrasper
1606
1606
$begingroup$
isn't that what tidal energy stations are?
$endgroup$
– aaaaaa
5 mins ago
$begingroup$
A practical example of us doing exactly this is Gravity Light. The idea behind it is that batteries are hard to come by in many African villages, but they do have humans who can expend effort to lift a bag (increasing potential energy), and then the device turns that gravitational potential energy into kinetic, then electricitrical, then light.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
57 secs ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
isn't that what tidal energy stations are?
$endgroup$
– aaaaaa
5 mins ago
$begingroup$
A practical example of us doing exactly this is Gravity Light. The idea behind it is that batteries are hard to come by in many African villages, but they do have humans who can expend effort to lift a bag (increasing potential energy), and then the device turns that gravitational potential energy into kinetic, then electricitrical, then light.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
57 secs ago
$begingroup$
isn't that what tidal energy stations are?
$endgroup$
– aaaaaa
5 mins ago
$begingroup$
isn't that what tidal energy stations are?
$endgroup$
– aaaaaa
5 mins ago
$begingroup$
A practical example of us doing exactly this is Gravity Light. The idea behind it is that batteries are hard to come by in many African villages, but they do have humans who can expend effort to lift a bag (increasing potential energy), and then the device turns that gravitational potential energy into kinetic, then electricitrical, then light.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
57 secs ago
$begingroup$
A practical example of us doing exactly this is Gravity Light. The idea behind it is that batteries are hard to come by in many African villages, but they do have humans who can expend effort to lift a bag (increasing potential energy), and then the device turns that gravitational potential energy into kinetic, then electricitrical, then light.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
57 secs ago
add a comment |
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In classical mechanics, absolute values of potential energy are meaningless. In your case of a skyscraper just sitting there, we could say it has a large positive amount of potential energy, no potential energy, or even negative potential energy. It doesn't matter at all. What is important is a change in potential energy.
is it possible to convert the potential energy of a building into a kinetic?
Based on what is said above, you would need to decrease the potential energy of the building and find a way to harness that change in potential energy. The issue is that for gravity, the potential energy just depends on the distance from the Earth, so this would mean that you would have to move the building (or at least parts of the building) closer to the Earth. The utility of buildings is typically that they remain stationary so people can use them consistently and for a long time, so I don't see this being feasible.
To see how gravitational potential energy can be converted to other types of energy in other systems, see some of the other posted answers.
$endgroup$
26
$begingroup$
+1 for "The utility of buildings is typically that they remain stationary so people can use them consistently and for a long time".
$endgroup$
– dbmag9
9 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
There have been instances where a building's potential energy has been converted (briefly) into kinetic energy, but I'm not sure we care to repeat them.
$endgroup$
– Michael Seifert
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@MichaelSeifert Some people might consider it in poor taste to use that example in this context.
$endgroup$
– David Z♦
36 mins ago
$begingroup$
@DavidZ I agree...
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
31 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
An example of harnessing gravitational potential energy is a hydroelectric power plant which converts the potential energy of water falls, dams and the like into electrical energy.
As far as harnessing the potential energy of a building sitting on the ground, I suppose if you caused the building to topple you could harness the energy of the falling portions of the building. Obviously ridiculous.
All practical examples of harnessing potential energy involve its conversion to kinetic energy.Hope this helps.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
If you want to describe hydroelectric power as "harnessing gravitational potential energy" then wouldn't it be more accurate to say that energy comes from the dammed lake or upriver water, rather than the dam itself or even the "waterfall" that moves the turbines?
$endgroup$
– talrnu
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@talrnu The potential energy is the height of the water above the point where it drives a turbine. When it falls and reaches the turbine the potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy. Now the kinetic energy is converted to turbine work by the work energy principle.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Or you could have a regenerative elevator: the car going down generates power to lift the car going up, so all you have to do is replace system losses.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@jamesqf yes, another good example.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Hmm.... Maybe wrecking crews could harness the energy of the falling building and store it in some sort of battery, and then sell it back into the energy grid?
$endgroup$
– Nacht
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Yes, you can convert the potential energy of the skyscraper into useful work. But, to extract useful work from the potential energy, must reduce the potential energy, that is: you must reduce the height of the skyscraper. You must tear the skyscraper down to get its energy.
You should note that skyscrapers aren't free and that someone used a crane powered by electricity or diesel to lift the parts of the skyscraper to their current positions. You are guaranteed to get less energy out of this process than was put in to build the skyscraper. You will waste a lot of energy in the process of converting energy from diesel or the electric grid into the potential energy of the skyscraper and then back into electricity. This would be a terribly inefficient way to store energy.
However, as noted by another answer, this is essentially what we do with hydroelectric dams. We move water from a high altitude to a lower altitude and extract useful work that is converted into electrical energy. This energy is free in the sense that the sun evaporated water somewhere and it rained down on the high altitude reservoir. So hydroelectric power is, at its core, solar power, because the sun effectively pumps the water uphill and we extract energy as it moves downhill.
Using actual electrically powered pumps, you can pump water uphill to store energy. You can use the energy later by allowing it to flow downhill.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By convention, potential energy (which can be mechanical, gravitational, chemical, electromagnetic or nuclear) refers to energy stored in a field (electromagnetic field, gravitational field, gluon field etc.). This energy must be converted into kinetic energy in order to be "harnessed" or do work. For example, you can convert potential energy into:
- kinetic energy of an arrow, a pendulum or a pipe full of water
- heat energy (which at a molecular scale is just kinetic energy again)
- an electric current (moving electrons, so kinetic energy again)
- energetic neutrons and other products of fission or fusion (kinetic energy again)
So you can harness potential energy, but only indirectly.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understand this, maybe my question should be is it possible to convert the potential energy of a building into a kinetic?
$endgroup$
– Grasper
10 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Grasper Sure. A few well placed explosive charges will convert the potential energy of a building into kinetic energy for a short period, before this kinetic energy is used to break a lot of chemical bonds. I believe there are videos of the phenomena available on YouTube :) But if you want to convert some of the kinetic energy back to potential energy afterwards then you have to design a building that will bounce.
$endgroup$
– gandalf61
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Speaking of bouncing, skyscrapers actually swing. There were strips created that generate electricity. They placed them under a bridge and anytime car passed it generated electricity. So if a very long string is attached this could work but in that case I think the wind energy would be more efficient but who knows.
$endgroup$
– Grasper
7 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Grasper In all of those cases the energy isn't coming from nowhere. For the strips that generate electricity from moving cars, that energy comes from reducing the speed of the cars as they pass through (even if only a tiny bit), meaning in aggregate you are reducing the mileage of those cars. It's basically an extremely inefficient generator that runs on gas. You could get energy from swaying buildings, but that energy is from the wind moving the building, and as you said, directly harnessing the wind is going to be far more efficient. In every case the energy has to come from somewhere
$endgroup$
– Kevin Wells
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Simply No. If you could generate energy simply from the potential energy of the building, induced by gravity, without somehow permanently decreasing that energy, you would build some sort of perpetuum mobile.
If you would gain usable energy (like an electrical current) out of the potential energy of the building, without reducing the mass of the building and without altering the gravitational field, you would have created energy out of nothing, but energy is conserved.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Isn't gravitational force a perpetuum mobile? or at least it has the potential to be.
$endgroup$
– Grasper
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Grasper How so? You only get energy from the gravity by moving closer together. At some point, you can't get any closer and the energy doesn't increase.
$endgroup$
– JMac
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JMac because gravity is always there available?
$endgroup$
– Grasper
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Grasper But the objects aren't always apart. You can extract some energy from the system; but in extracting that energy you remove potential energy from the system; which you can only do a finite amount until there is no potential left. In a perfect isolated system with no loss, you in theory could have it move forever without energy exchange. Wikipedia calls that "perpetual motion of the third kind", and it's still not possible in practice. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Classification
$endgroup$
– JMac
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JMac Since the objects are still attracted to and exert force on each other when they meet, your explanation doesn't really address the source of Grasper's confusion. The question is about why we can't generate power from these forces when the objects are touching.
$endgroup$
– talrnu
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Absolutely, yes. We actually do that, for example in an old-fashioned grandfather clock. They have big weights inside. You give the clock energy by raising the weights up, and then they go down slowly (due to gravity) and in a very precise way, to drive the clock.
In theory, you could fathom a building where you put a huuuuuuge spring between its base and earth, and after the building is complete, you raise it up with some pretty substantial external energy input (some hydraulic mechanism driven by whatever source you wish). Then, as the building presses down and slowly compresses the spring, you could use that movement to drive whatever generator you like.
This has only two practical problems: 1) if you're able to find the energy to lift the house in the first place, why would you need this complicated contraption at all and 2) obviously totally impractical for reasons of "The utility of buildings is typically that they remain stationary so people can use them consistently and for a long time - Aaron Stevens"...
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Wouldn't putting a spring underneath be extremely impractical? A large portion of the energy would be going into the potential energy of the spring instead of whatever storage system you are using; unless the spring is your storage system, in which case I don't know how you get the energy back out in a usable way (besides just expanding the spring, which I imagine is a waste). You would need the spring to be built on top of some sort of base that could relax itself after the spring compressed to get the energy out; at that point you might as well build it on that base.
$endgroup$
– JMac
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@JMac, obviously... it's a thought experiment.
$endgroup$
– AnoE
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a company in Switzerland that is developing an Energy Vault, which is a building sized stack of heavy blocks with cranes extending out from a central pilar.
Each of these blocks can be lowered to the ground and the crane generates energy doing so.
Re-stacking the block requires using energy to take it back up. There are, of course, losses when comparing the energy it takes to raise the block compared to the energy generated when lowering it.
This is meant to be used as an energy storage device, to give a method of storing excess "green" energy so that overproduction is not wasted. Again, energy is wasted in this process, but that is true of any energy storage/conversion system.
Note that the stack of stones, when unmoving, generates zero energy. It is only when the stones are actually being lowered that energy generation is possible. The Potential Energy of an object is an ideal calculation of the Kinetic Energy that could be generated if the object was lowered a specific distance. If the object is unmoving, no energy is generated.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f463293%2fcan-we-harness-gravitational-potential-energy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In classical mechanics, absolute values of potential energy are meaningless. In your case of a skyscraper just sitting there, we could say it has a large positive amount of potential energy, no potential energy, or even negative potential energy. It doesn't matter at all. What is important is a change in potential energy.
is it possible to convert the potential energy of a building into a kinetic?
Based on what is said above, you would need to decrease the potential energy of the building and find a way to harness that change in potential energy. The issue is that for gravity, the potential energy just depends on the distance from the Earth, so this would mean that you would have to move the building (or at least parts of the building) closer to the Earth. The utility of buildings is typically that they remain stationary so people can use them consistently and for a long time, so I don't see this being feasible.
To see how gravitational potential energy can be converted to other types of energy in other systems, see some of the other posted answers.
$endgroup$
26
$begingroup$
+1 for "The utility of buildings is typically that they remain stationary so people can use them consistently and for a long time".
$endgroup$
– dbmag9
9 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
There have been instances where a building's potential energy has been converted (briefly) into kinetic energy, but I'm not sure we care to repeat them.
$endgroup$
– Michael Seifert
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@MichaelSeifert Some people might consider it in poor taste to use that example in this context.
$endgroup$
– David Z♦
36 mins ago
$begingroup$
@DavidZ I agree...
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
31 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In classical mechanics, absolute values of potential energy are meaningless. In your case of a skyscraper just sitting there, we could say it has a large positive amount of potential energy, no potential energy, or even negative potential energy. It doesn't matter at all. What is important is a change in potential energy.
is it possible to convert the potential energy of a building into a kinetic?
Based on what is said above, you would need to decrease the potential energy of the building and find a way to harness that change in potential energy. The issue is that for gravity, the potential energy just depends on the distance from the Earth, so this would mean that you would have to move the building (or at least parts of the building) closer to the Earth. The utility of buildings is typically that they remain stationary so people can use them consistently and for a long time, so I don't see this being feasible.
To see how gravitational potential energy can be converted to other types of energy in other systems, see some of the other posted answers.
$endgroup$
26
$begingroup$
+1 for "The utility of buildings is typically that they remain stationary so people can use them consistently and for a long time".
$endgroup$
– dbmag9
9 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
There have been instances where a building's potential energy has been converted (briefly) into kinetic energy, but I'm not sure we care to repeat them.
$endgroup$
– Michael Seifert
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@MichaelSeifert Some people might consider it in poor taste to use that example in this context.
$endgroup$
– David Z♦
36 mins ago
$begingroup$
@DavidZ I agree...
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
31 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In classical mechanics, absolute values of potential energy are meaningless. In your case of a skyscraper just sitting there, we could say it has a large positive amount of potential energy, no potential energy, or even negative potential energy. It doesn't matter at all. What is important is a change in potential energy.
is it possible to convert the potential energy of a building into a kinetic?
Based on what is said above, you would need to decrease the potential energy of the building and find a way to harness that change in potential energy. The issue is that for gravity, the potential energy just depends on the distance from the Earth, so this would mean that you would have to move the building (or at least parts of the building) closer to the Earth. The utility of buildings is typically that they remain stationary so people can use them consistently and for a long time, so I don't see this being feasible.
To see how gravitational potential energy can be converted to other types of energy in other systems, see some of the other posted answers.
$endgroup$
In classical mechanics, absolute values of potential energy are meaningless. In your case of a skyscraper just sitting there, we could say it has a large positive amount of potential energy, no potential energy, or even negative potential energy. It doesn't matter at all. What is important is a change in potential energy.
is it possible to convert the potential energy of a building into a kinetic?
Based on what is said above, you would need to decrease the potential energy of the building and find a way to harness that change in potential energy. The issue is that for gravity, the potential energy just depends on the distance from the Earth, so this would mean that you would have to move the building (or at least parts of the building) closer to the Earth. The utility of buildings is typically that they remain stationary so people can use them consistently and for a long time, so I don't see this being feasible.
To see how gravitational potential energy can be converted to other types of energy in other systems, see some of the other posted answers.
edited 8 hours ago
answered 10 hours ago
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
11.6k32046
11.6k32046
26
$begingroup$
+1 for "The utility of buildings is typically that they remain stationary so people can use them consistently and for a long time".
$endgroup$
– dbmag9
9 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
There have been instances where a building's potential energy has been converted (briefly) into kinetic energy, but I'm not sure we care to repeat them.
$endgroup$
– Michael Seifert
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@MichaelSeifert Some people might consider it in poor taste to use that example in this context.
$endgroup$
– David Z♦
36 mins ago
$begingroup$
@DavidZ I agree...
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
31 mins ago
add a comment |
26
$begingroup$
+1 for "The utility of buildings is typically that they remain stationary so people can use them consistently and for a long time".
$endgroup$
– dbmag9
9 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
There have been instances where a building's potential energy has been converted (briefly) into kinetic energy, but I'm not sure we care to repeat them.
$endgroup$
– Michael Seifert
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@MichaelSeifert Some people might consider it in poor taste to use that example in this context.
$endgroup$
– David Z♦
36 mins ago
$begingroup$
@DavidZ I agree...
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
31 mins ago
26
26
$begingroup$
+1 for "The utility of buildings is typically that they remain stationary so people can use them consistently and for a long time".
$endgroup$
– dbmag9
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
+1 for "The utility of buildings is typically that they remain stationary so people can use them consistently and for a long time".
$endgroup$
– dbmag9
9 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
There have been instances where a building's potential energy has been converted (briefly) into kinetic energy, but I'm not sure we care to repeat them.
$endgroup$
– Michael Seifert
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
There have been instances where a building's potential energy has been converted (briefly) into kinetic energy, but I'm not sure we care to repeat them.
$endgroup$
– Michael Seifert
7 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@MichaelSeifert Some people might consider it in poor taste to use that example in this context.
$endgroup$
– David Z♦
36 mins ago
$begingroup$
@MichaelSeifert Some people might consider it in poor taste to use that example in this context.
$endgroup$
– David Z♦
36 mins ago
$begingroup$
@DavidZ I agree...
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
@DavidZ I agree...
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
31 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
An example of harnessing gravitational potential energy is a hydroelectric power plant which converts the potential energy of water falls, dams and the like into electrical energy.
As far as harnessing the potential energy of a building sitting on the ground, I suppose if you caused the building to topple you could harness the energy of the falling portions of the building. Obviously ridiculous.
All practical examples of harnessing potential energy involve its conversion to kinetic energy.Hope this helps.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
If you want to describe hydroelectric power as "harnessing gravitational potential energy" then wouldn't it be more accurate to say that energy comes from the dammed lake or upriver water, rather than the dam itself or even the "waterfall" that moves the turbines?
$endgroup$
– talrnu
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@talrnu The potential energy is the height of the water above the point where it drives a turbine. When it falls and reaches the turbine the potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy. Now the kinetic energy is converted to turbine work by the work energy principle.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Or you could have a regenerative elevator: the car going down generates power to lift the car going up, so all you have to do is replace system losses.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@jamesqf yes, another good example.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Hmm.... Maybe wrecking crews could harness the energy of the falling building and store it in some sort of battery, and then sell it back into the energy grid?
$endgroup$
– Nacht
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
An example of harnessing gravitational potential energy is a hydroelectric power plant which converts the potential energy of water falls, dams and the like into electrical energy.
As far as harnessing the potential energy of a building sitting on the ground, I suppose if you caused the building to topple you could harness the energy of the falling portions of the building. Obviously ridiculous.
All practical examples of harnessing potential energy involve its conversion to kinetic energy.Hope this helps.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
If you want to describe hydroelectric power as "harnessing gravitational potential energy" then wouldn't it be more accurate to say that energy comes from the dammed lake or upriver water, rather than the dam itself or even the "waterfall" that moves the turbines?
$endgroup$
– talrnu
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@talrnu The potential energy is the height of the water above the point where it drives a turbine. When it falls and reaches the turbine the potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy. Now the kinetic energy is converted to turbine work by the work energy principle.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Or you could have a regenerative elevator: the car going down generates power to lift the car going up, so all you have to do is replace system losses.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@jamesqf yes, another good example.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Hmm.... Maybe wrecking crews could harness the energy of the falling building and store it in some sort of battery, and then sell it back into the energy grid?
$endgroup$
– Nacht
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
An example of harnessing gravitational potential energy is a hydroelectric power plant which converts the potential energy of water falls, dams and the like into electrical energy.
As far as harnessing the potential energy of a building sitting on the ground, I suppose if you caused the building to topple you could harness the energy of the falling portions of the building. Obviously ridiculous.
All practical examples of harnessing potential energy involve its conversion to kinetic energy.Hope this helps.
$endgroup$
An example of harnessing gravitational potential energy is a hydroelectric power plant which converts the potential energy of water falls, dams and the like into electrical energy.
As far as harnessing the potential energy of a building sitting on the ground, I suppose if you caused the building to topple you could harness the energy of the falling portions of the building. Obviously ridiculous.
All practical examples of harnessing potential energy involve its conversion to kinetic energy.Hope this helps.
edited 10 hours ago
answered 10 hours ago
Bob DBob D
3,2682215
3,2682215
2
$begingroup$
If you want to describe hydroelectric power as "harnessing gravitational potential energy" then wouldn't it be more accurate to say that energy comes from the dammed lake or upriver water, rather than the dam itself or even the "waterfall" that moves the turbines?
$endgroup$
– talrnu
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@talrnu The potential energy is the height of the water above the point where it drives a turbine. When it falls and reaches the turbine the potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy. Now the kinetic energy is converted to turbine work by the work energy principle.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Or you could have a regenerative elevator: the car going down generates power to lift the car going up, so all you have to do is replace system losses.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@jamesqf yes, another good example.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Hmm.... Maybe wrecking crews could harness the energy of the falling building and store it in some sort of battery, and then sell it back into the energy grid?
$endgroup$
– Nacht
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
2
$begingroup$
If you want to describe hydroelectric power as "harnessing gravitational potential energy" then wouldn't it be more accurate to say that energy comes from the dammed lake or upriver water, rather than the dam itself or even the "waterfall" that moves the turbines?
$endgroup$
– talrnu
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@talrnu The potential energy is the height of the water above the point where it drives a turbine. When it falls and reaches the turbine the potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy. Now the kinetic energy is converted to turbine work by the work energy principle.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Or you could have a regenerative elevator: the car going down generates power to lift the car going up, so all you have to do is replace system losses.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@jamesqf yes, another good example.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Hmm.... Maybe wrecking crews could harness the energy of the falling building and store it in some sort of battery, and then sell it back into the energy grid?
$endgroup$
– Nacht
2 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
If you want to describe hydroelectric power as "harnessing gravitational potential energy" then wouldn't it be more accurate to say that energy comes from the dammed lake or upriver water, rather than the dam itself or even the "waterfall" that moves the turbines?
$endgroup$
– talrnu
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you want to describe hydroelectric power as "harnessing gravitational potential energy" then wouldn't it be more accurate to say that energy comes from the dammed lake or upriver water, rather than the dam itself or even the "waterfall" that moves the turbines?
$endgroup$
– talrnu
8 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
@talrnu The potential energy is the height of the water above the point where it drives a turbine. When it falls and reaches the turbine the potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy. Now the kinetic energy is converted to turbine work by the work energy principle.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@talrnu The potential energy is the height of the water above the point where it drives a turbine. When it falls and reaches the turbine the potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy. Now the kinetic energy is converted to turbine work by the work energy principle.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
6 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Or you could have a regenerative elevator: the car going down generates power to lift the car going up, so all you have to do is replace system losses.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Or you could have a regenerative elevator: the car going down generates power to lift the car going up, so all you have to do is replace system losses.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
6 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@jamesqf yes, another good example.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@jamesqf yes, another good example.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Hmm.... Maybe wrecking crews could harness the energy of the falling building and store it in some sort of battery, and then sell it back into the energy grid?
$endgroup$
– Nacht
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Hmm.... Maybe wrecking crews could harness the energy of the falling building and store it in some sort of battery, and then sell it back into the energy grid?
$endgroup$
– Nacht
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Yes, you can convert the potential energy of the skyscraper into useful work. But, to extract useful work from the potential energy, must reduce the potential energy, that is: you must reduce the height of the skyscraper. You must tear the skyscraper down to get its energy.
You should note that skyscrapers aren't free and that someone used a crane powered by electricity or diesel to lift the parts of the skyscraper to their current positions. You are guaranteed to get less energy out of this process than was put in to build the skyscraper. You will waste a lot of energy in the process of converting energy from diesel or the electric grid into the potential energy of the skyscraper and then back into electricity. This would be a terribly inefficient way to store energy.
However, as noted by another answer, this is essentially what we do with hydroelectric dams. We move water from a high altitude to a lower altitude and extract useful work that is converted into electrical energy. This energy is free in the sense that the sun evaporated water somewhere and it rained down on the high altitude reservoir. So hydroelectric power is, at its core, solar power, because the sun effectively pumps the water uphill and we extract energy as it moves downhill.
Using actual electrically powered pumps, you can pump water uphill to store energy. You can use the energy later by allowing it to flow downhill.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, you can convert the potential energy of the skyscraper into useful work. But, to extract useful work from the potential energy, must reduce the potential energy, that is: you must reduce the height of the skyscraper. You must tear the skyscraper down to get its energy.
You should note that skyscrapers aren't free and that someone used a crane powered by electricity or diesel to lift the parts of the skyscraper to their current positions. You are guaranteed to get less energy out of this process than was put in to build the skyscraper. You will waste a lot of energy in the process of converting energy from diesel or the electric grid into the potential energy of the skyscraper and then back into electricity. This would be a terribly inefficient way to store energy.
However, as noted by another answer, this is essentially what we do with hydroelectric dams. We move water from a high altitude to a lower altitude and extract useful work that is converted into electrical energy. This energy is free in the sense that the sun evaporated water somewhere and it rained down on the high altitude reservoir. So hydroelectric power is, at its core, solar power, because the sun effectively pumps the water uphill and we extract energy as it moves downhill.
Using actual electrically powered pumps, you can pump water uphill to store energy. You can use the energy later by allowing it to flow downhill.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, you can convert the potential energy of the skyscraper into useful work. But, to extract useful work from the potential energy, must reduce the potential energy, that is: you must reduce the height of the skyscraper. You must tear the skyscraper down to get its energy.
You should note that skyscrapers aren't free and that someone used a crane powered by electricity or diesel to lift the parts of the skyscraper to their current positions. You are guaranteed to get less energy out of this process than was put in to build the skyscraper. You will waste a lot of energy in the process of converting energy from diesel or the electric grid into the potential energy of the skyscraper and then back into electricity. This would be a terribly inefficient way to store energy.
However, as noted by another answer, this is essentially what we do with hydroelectric dams. We move water from a high altitude to a lower altitude and extract useful work that is converted into electrical energy. This energy is free in the sense that the sun evaporated water somewhere and it rained down on the high altitude reservoir. So hydroelectric power is, at its core, solar power, because the sun effectively pumps the water uphill and we extract energy as it moves downhill.
Using actual electrically powered pumps, you can pump water uphill to store energy. You can use the energy later by allowing it to flow downhill.
$endgroup$
Yes, you can convert the potential energy of the skyscraper into useful work. But, to extract useful work from the potential energy, must reduce the potential energy, that is: you must reduce the height of the skyscraper. You must tear the skyscraper down to get its energy.
You should note that skyscrapers aren't free and that someone used a crane powered by electricity or diesel to lift the parts of the skyscraper to their current positions. You are guaranteed to get less energy out of this process than was put in to build the skyscraper. You will waste a lot of energy in the process of converting energy from diesel or the electric grid into the potential energy of the skyscraper and then back into electricity. This would be a terribly inefficient way to store energy.
However, as noted by another answer, this is essentially what we do with hydroelectric dams. We move water from a high altitude to a lower altitude and extract useful work that is converted into electrical energy. This energy is free in the sense that the sun evaporated water somewhere and it rained down on the high altitude reservoir. So hydroelectric power is, at its core, solar power, because the sun effectively pumps the water uphill and we extract energy as it moves downhill.
Using actual electrically powered pumps, you can pump water uphill to store energy. You can use the energy later by allowing it to flow downhill.
answered 7 hours ago
WaterMoleculeWaterMolecule
24114
24114
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By convention, potential energy (which can be mechanical, gravitational, chemical, electromagnetic or nuclear) refers to energy stored in a field (electromagnetic field, gravitational field, gluon field etc.). This energy must be converted into kinetic energy in order to be "harnessed" or do work. For example, you can convert potential energy into:
- kinetic energy of an arrow, a pendulum or a pipe full of water
- heat energy (which at a molecular scale is just kinetic energy again)
- an electric current (moving electrons, so kinetic energy again)
- energetic neutrons and other products of fission or fusion (kinetic energy again)
So you can harness potential energy, but only indirectly.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understand this, maybe my question should be is it possible to convert the potential energy of a building into a kinetic?
$endgroup$
– Grasper
10 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Grasper Sure. A few well placed explosive charges will convert the potential energy of a building into kinetic energy for a short period, before this kinetic energy is used to break a lot of chemical bonds. I believe there are videos of the phenomena available on YouTube :) But if you want to convert some of the kinetic energy back to potential energy afterwards then you have to design a building that will bounce.
$endgroup$
– gandalf61
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Speaking of bouncing, skyscrapers actually swing. There were strips created that generate electricity. They placed them under a bridge and anytime car passed it generated electricity. So if a very long string is attached this could work but in that case I think the wind energy would be more efficient but who knows.
$endgroup$
– Grasper
7 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Grasper In all of those cases the energy isn't coming from nowhere. For the strips that generate electricity from moving cars, that energy comes from reducing the speed of the cars as they pass through (even if only a tiny bit), meaning in aggregate you are reducing the mileage of those cars. It's basically an extremely inefficient generator that runs on gas. You could get energy from swaying buildings, but that energy is from the wind moving the building, and as you said, directly harnessing the wind is going to be far more efficient. In every case the energy has to come from somewhere
$endgroup$
– Kevin Wells
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By convention, potential energy (which can be mechanical, gravitational, chemical, electromagnetic or nuclear) refers to energy stored in a field (electromagnetic field, gravitational field, gluon field etc.). This energy must be converted into kinetic energy in order to be "harnessed" or do work. For example, you can convert potential energy into:
- kinetic energy of an arrow, a pendulum or a pipe full of water
- heat energy (which at a molecular scale is just kinetic energy again)
- an electric current (moving electrons, so kinetic energy again)
- energetic neutrons and other products of fission or fusion (kinetic energy again)
So you can harness potential energy, but only indirectly.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understand this, maybe my question should be is it possible to convert the potential energy of a building into a kinetic?
$endgroup$
– Grasper
10 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Grasper Sure. A few well placed explosive charges will convert the potential energy of a building into kinetic energy for a short period, before this kinetic energy is used to break a lot of chemical bonds. I believe there are videos of the phenomena available on YouTube :) But if you want to convert some of the kinetic energy back to potential energy afterwards then you have to design a building that will bounce.
$endgroup$
– gandalf61
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Speaking of bouncing, skyscrapers actually swing. There were strips created that generate electricity. They placed them under a bridge and anytime car passed it generated electricity. So if a very long string is attached this could work but in that case I think the wind energy would be more efficient but who knows.
$endgroup$
– Grasper
7 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Grasper In all of those cases the energy isn't coming from nowhere. For the strips that generate electricity from moving cars, that energy comes from reducing the speed of the cars as they pass through (even if only a tiny bit), meaning in aggregate you are reducing the mileage of those cars. It's basically an extremely inefficient generator that runs on gas. You could get energy from swaying buildings, but that energy is from the wind moving the building, and as you said, directly harnessing the wind is going to be far more efficient. In every case the energy has to come from somewhere
$endgroup$
– Kevin Wells
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By convention, potential energy (which can be mechanical, gravitational, chemical, electromagnetic or nuclear) refers to energy stored in a field (electromagnetic field, gravitational field, gluon field etc.). This energy must be converted into kinetic energy in order to be "harnessed" or do work. For example, you can convert potential energy into:
- kinetic energy of an arrow, a pendulum or a pipe full of water
- heat energy (which at a molecular scale is just kinetic energy again)
- an electric current (moving electrons, so kinetic energy again)
- energetic neutrons and other products of fission or fusion (kinetic energy again)
So you can harness potential energy, but only indirectly.
$endgroup$
By convention, potential energy (which can be mechanical, gravitational, chemical, electromagnetic or nuclear) refers to energy stored in a field (electromagnetic field, gravitational field, gluon field etc.). This energy must be converted into kinetic energy in order to be "harnessed" or do work. For example, you can convert potential energy into:
- kinetic energy of an arrow, a pendulum or a pipe full of water
- heat energy (which at a molecular scale is just kinetic energy again)
- an electric current (moving electrons, so kinetic energy again)
- energetic neutrons and other products of fission or fusion (kinetic energy again)
So you can harness potential energy, but only indirectly.
answered 10 hours ago
gandalf61gandalf61
31915
31915
$begingroup$
I understand this, maybe my question should be is it possible to convert the potential energy of a building into a kinetic?
$endgroup$
– Grasper
10 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Grasper Sure. A few well placed explosive charges will convert the potential energy of a building into kinetic energy for a short period, before this kinetic energy is used to break a lot of chemical bonds. I believe there are videos of the phenomena available on YouTube :) But if you want to convert some of the kinetic energy back to potential energy afterwards then you have to design a building that will bounce.
$endgroup$
– gandalf61
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Speaking of bouncing, skyscrapers actually swing. There were strips created that generate electricity. They placed them under a bridge and anytime car passed it generated electricity. So if a very long string is attached this could work but in that case I think the wind energy would be more efficient but who knows.
$endgroup$
– Grasper
7 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Grasper In all of those cases the energy isn't coming from nowhere. For the strips that generate electricity from moving cars, that energy comes from reducing the speed of the cars as they pass through (even if only a tiny bit), meaning in aggregate you are reducing the mileage of those cars. It's basically an extremely inefficient generator that runs on gas. You could get energy from swaying buildings, but that energy is from the wind moving the building, and as you said, directly harnessing the wind is going to be far more efficient. In every case the energy has to come from somewhere
$endgroup$
– Kevin Wells
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I understand this, maybe my question should be is it possible to convert the potential energy of a building into a kinetic?
$endgroup$
– Grasper
10 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Grasper Sure. A few well placed explosive charges will convert the potential energy of a building into kinetic energy for a short period, before this kinetic energy is used to break a lot of chemical bonds. I believe there are videos of the phenomena available on YouTube :) But if you want to convert some of the kinetic energy back to potential energy afterwards then you have to design a building that will bounce.
$endgroup$
– gandalf61
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Speaking of bouncing, skyscrapers actually swing. There were strips created that generate electricity. They placed them under a bridge and anytime car passed it generated electricity. So if a very long string is attached this could work but in that case I think the wind energy would be more efficient but who knows.
$endgroup$
– Grasper
7 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Grasper In all of those cases the energy isn't coming from nowhere. For the strips that generate electricity from moving cars, that energy comes from reducing the speed of the cars as they pass through (even if only a tiny bit), meaning in aggregate you are reducing the mileage of those cars. It's basically an extremely inefficient generator that runs on gas. You could get energy from swaying buildings, but that energy is from the wind moving the building, and as you said, directly harnessing the wind is going to be far more efficient. In every case the energy has to come from somewhere
$endgroup$
– Kevin Wells
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I understand this, maybe my question should be is it possible to convert the potential energy of a building into a kinetic?
$endgroup$
– Grasper
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
I understand this, maybe my question should be is it possible to convert the potential energy of a building into a kinetic?
$endgroup$
– Grasper
10 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
@Grasper Sure. A few well placed explosive charges will convert the potential energy of a building into kinetic energy for a short period, before this kinetic energy is used to break a lot of chemical bonds. I believe there are videos of the phenomena available on YouTube :) But if you want to convert some of the kinetic energy back to potential energy afterwards then you have to design a building that will bounce.
$endgroup$
– gandalf61
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Grasper Sure. A few well placed explosive charges will convert the potential energy of a building into kinetic energy for a short period, before this kinetic energy is used to break a lot of chemical bonds. I believe there are videos of the phenomena available on YouTube :) But if you want to convert some of the kinetic energy back to potential energy afterwards then you have to design a building that will bounce.
$endgroup$
– gandalf61
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Speaking of bouncing, skyscrapers actually swing. There were strips created that generate electricity. They placed them under a bridge and anytime car passed it generated electricity. So if a very long string is attached this could work but in that case I think the wind energy would be more efficient but who knows.
$endgroup$
– Grasper
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Speaking of bouncing, skyscrapers actually swing. There were strips created that generate electricity. They placed them under a bridge and anytime car passed it generated electricity. So if a very long string is attached this could work but in that case I think the wind energy would be more efficient but who knows.
$endgroup$
– Grasper
7 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
@Grasper In all of those cases the energy isn't coming from nowhere. For the strips that generate electricity from moving cars, that energy comes from reducing the speed of the cars as they pass through (even if only a tiny bit), meaning in aggregate you are reducing the mileage of those cars. It's basically an extremely inefficient generator that runs on gas. You could get energy from swaying buildings, but that energy is from the wind moving the building, and as you said, directly harnessing the wind is going to be far more efficient. In every case the energy has to come from somewhere
$endgroup$
– Kevin Wells
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Grasper In all of those cases the energy isn't coming from nowhere. For the strips that generate electricity from moving cars, that energy comes from reducing the speed of the cars as they pass through (even if only a tiny bit), meaning in aggregate you are reducing the mileage of those cars. It's basically an extremely inefficient generator that runs on gas. You could get energy from swaying buildings, but that energy is from the wind moving the building, and as you said, directly harnessing the wind is going to be far more efficient. In every case the energy has to come from somewhere
$endgroup$
– Kevin Wells
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Simply No. If you could generate energy simply from the potential energy of the building, induced by gravity, without somehow permanently decreasing that energy, you would build some sort of perpetuum mobile.
If you would gain usable energy (like an electrical current) out of the potential energy of the building, without reducing the mass of the building and without altering the gravitational field, you would have created energy out of nothing, but energy is conserved.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Isn't gravitational force a perpetuum mobile? or at least it has the potential to be.
$endgroup$
– Grasper
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Grasper How so? You only get energy from the gravity by moving closer together. At some point, you can't get any closer and the energy doesn't increase.
$endgroup$
– JMac
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JMac because gravity is always there available?
$endgroup$
– Grasper
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Grasper But the objects aren't always apart. You can extract some energy from the system; but in extracting that energy you remove potential energy from the system; which you can only do a finite amount until there is no potential left. In a perfect isolated system with no loss, you in theory could have it move forever without energy exchange. Wikipedia calls that "perpetual motion of the third kind", and it's still not possible in practice. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Classification
$endgroup$
– JMac
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JMac Since the objects are still attracted to and exert force on each other when they meet, your explanation doesn't really address the source of Grasper's confusion. The question is about why we can't generate power from these forces when the objects are touching.
$endgroup$
– talrnu
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Simply No. If you could generate energy simply from the potential energy of the building, induced by gravity, without somehow permanently decreasing that energy, you would build some sort of perpetuum mobile.
If you would gain usable energy (like an electrical current) out of the potential energy of the building, without reducing the mass of the building and without altering the gravitational field, you would have created energy out of nothing, but energy is conserved.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Isn't gravitational force a perpetuum mobile? or at least it has the potential to be.
$endgroup$
– Grasper
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Grasper How so? You only get energy from the gravity by moving closer together. At some point, you can't get any closer and the energy doesn't increase.
$endgroup$
– JMac
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JMac because gravity is always there available?
$endgroup$
– Grasper
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Grasper But the objects aren't always apart. You can extract some energy from the system; but in extracting that energy you remove potential energy from the system; which you can only do a finite amount until there is no potential left. In a perfect isolated system with no loss, you in theory could have it move forever without energy exchange. Wikipedia calls that "perpetual motion of the third kind", and it's still not possible in practice. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Classification
$endgroup$
– JMac
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JMac Since the objects are still attracted to and exert force on each other when they meet, your explanation doesn't really address the source of Grasper's confusion. The question is about why we can't generate power from these forces when the objects are touching.
$endgroup$
– talrnu
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Simply No. If you could generate energy simply from the potential energy of the building, induced by gravity, without somehow permanently decreasing that energy, you would build some sort of perpetuum mobile.
If you would gain usable energy (like an electrical current) out of the potential energy of the building, without reducing the mass of the building and without altering the gravitational field, you would have created energy out of nothing, but energy is conserved.
$endgroup$
Simply No. If you could generate energy simply from the potential energy of the building, induced by gravity, without somehow permanently decreasing that energy, you would build some sort of perpetuum mobile.
If you would gain usable energy (like an electrical current) out of the potential energy of the building, without reducing the mass of the building and without altering the gravitational field, you would have created energy out of nothing, but energy is conserved.
answered 11 hours ago
Patrik PuchertPatrik Puchert
212
212
$begingroup$
Isn't gravitational force a perpetuum mobile? or at least it has the potential to be.
$endgroup$
– Grasper
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Grasper How so? You only get energy from the gravity by moving closer together. At some point, you can't get any closer and the energy doesn't increase.
$endgroup$
– JMac
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JMac because gravity is always there available?
$endgroup$
– Grasper
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Grasper But the objects aren't always apart. You can extract some energy from the system; but in extracting that energy you remove potential energy from the system; which you can only do a finite amount until there is no potential left. In a perfect isolated system with no loss, you in theory could have it move forever without energy exchange. Wikipedia calls that "perpetual motion of the third kind", and it's still not possible in practice. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Classification
$endgroup$
– JMac
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JMac Since the objects are still attracted to and exert force on each other when they meet, your explanation doesn't really address the source of Grasper's confusion. The question is about why we can't generate power from these forces when the objects are touching.
$endgroup$
– talrnu
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Isn't gravitational force a perpetuum mobile? or at least it has the potential to be.
$endgroup$
– Grasper
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Grasper How so? You only get energy from the gravity by moving closer together. At some point, you can't get any closer and the energy doesn't increase.
$endgroup$
– JMac
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JMac because gravity is always there available?
$endgroup$
– Grasper
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Grasper But the objects aren't always apart. You can extract some energy from the system; but in extracting that energy you remove potential energy from the system; which you can only do a finite amount until there is no potential left. In a perfect isolated system with no loss, you in theory could have it move forever without energy exchange. Wikipedia calls that "perpetual motion of the third kind", and it's still not possible in practice. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Classification
$endgroup$
– JMac
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JMac Since the objects are still attracted to and exert force on each other when they meet, your explanation doesn't really address the source of Grasper's confusion. The question is about why we can't generate power from these forces when the objects are touching.
$endgroup$
– talrnu
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Isn't gravitational force a perpetuum mobile? or at least it has the potential to be.
$endgroup$
– Grasper
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Isn't gravitational force a perpetuum mobile? or at least it has the potential to be.
$endgroup$
– Grasper
11 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Grasper How so? You only get energy from the gravity by moving closer together. At some point, you can't get any closer and the energy doesn't increase.
$endgroup$
– JMac
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Grasper How so? You only get energy from the gravity by moving closer together. At some point, you can't get any closer and the energy doesn't increase.
$endgroup$
– JMac
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JMac because gravity is always there available?
$endgroup$
– Grasper
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JMac because gravity is always there available?
$endgroup$
– Grasper
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Grasper But the objects aren't always apart. You can extract some energy from the system; but in extracting that energy you remove potential energy from the system; which you can only do a finite amount until there is no potential left. In a perfect isolated system with no loss, you in theory could have it move forever without energy exchange. Wikipedia calls that "perpetual motion of the third kind", and it's still not possible in practice. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Classification
$endgroup$
– JMac
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Grasper But the objects aren't always apart. You can extract some energy from the system; but in extracting that energy you remove potential energy from the system; which you can only do a finite amount until there is no potential left. In a perfect isolated system with no loss, you in theory could have it move forever without energy exchange. Wikipedia calls that "perpetual motion of the third kind", and it's still not possible in practice. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Classification
$endgroup$
– JMac
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JMac Since the objects are still attracted to and exert force on each other when they meet, your explanation doesn't really address the source of Grasper's confusion. The question is about why we can't generate power from these forces when the objects are touching.
$endgroup$
– talrnu
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JMac Since the objects are still attracted to and exert force on each other when they meet, your explanation doesn't really address the source of Grasper's confusion. The question is about why we can't generate power from these forces when the objects are touching.
$endgroup$
– talrnu
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Absolutely, yes. We actually do that, for example in an old-fashioned grandfather clock. They have big weights inside. You give the clock energy by raising the weights up, and then they go down slowly (due to gravity) and in a very precise way, to drive the clock.
In theory, you could fathom a building where you put a huuuuuuge spring between its base and earth, and after the building is complete, you raise it up with some pretty substantial external energy input (some hydraulic mechanism driven by whatever source you wish). Then, as the building presses down and slowly compresses the spring, you could use that movement to drive whatever generator you like.
This has only two practical problems: 1) if you're able to find the energy to lift the house in the first place, why would you need this complicated contraption at all and 2) obviously totally impractical for reasons of "The utility of buildings is typically that they remain stationary so people can use them consistently and for a long time - Aaron Stevens"...
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Wouldn't putting a spring underneath be extremely impractical? A large portion of the energy would be going into the potential energy of the spring instead of whatever storage system you are using; unless the spring is your storage system, in which case I don't know how you get the energy back out in a usable way (besides just expanding the spring, which I imagine is a waste). You would need the spring to be built on top of some sort of base that could relax itself after the spring compressed to get the energy out; at that point you might as well build it on that base.
$endgroup$
– JMac
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@JMac, obviously... it's a thought experiment.
$endgroup$
– AnoE
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Absolutely, yes. We actually do that, for example in an old-fashioned grandfather clock. They have big weights inside. You give the clock energy by raising the weights up, and then they go down slowly (due to gravity) and in a very precise way, to drive the clock.
In theory, you could fathom a building where you put a huuuuuuge spring between its base and earth, and after the building is complete, you raise it up with some pretty substantial external energy input (some hydraulic mechanism driven by whatever source you wish). Then, as the building presses down and slowly compresses the spring, you could use that movement to drive whatever generator you like.
This has only two practical problems: 1) if you're able to find the energy to lift the house in the first place, why would you need this complicated contraption at all and 2) obviously totally impractical for reasons of "The utility of buildings is typically that they remain stationary so people can use them consistently and for a long time - Aaron Stevens"...
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Wouldn't putting a spring underneath be extremely impractical? A large portion of the energy would be going into the potential energy of the spring instead of whatever storage system you are using; unless the spring is your storage system, in which case I don't know how you get the energy back out in a usable way (besides just expanding the spring, which I imagine is a waste). You would need the spring to be built on top of some sort of base that could relax itself after the spring compressed to get the energy out; at that point you might as well build it on that base.
$endgroup$
– JMac
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@JMac, obviously... it's a thought experiment.
$endgroup$
– AnoE
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Absolutely, yes. We actually do that, for example in an old-fashioned grandfather clock. They have big weights inside. You give the clock energy by raising the weights up, and then they go down slowly (due to gravity) and in a very precise way, to drive the clock.
In theory, you could fathom a building where you put a huuuuuuge spring between its base and earth, and after the building is complete, you raise it up with some pretty substantial external energy input (some hydraulic mechanism driven by whatever source you wish). Then, as the building presses down and slowly compresses the spring, you could use that movement to drive whatever generator you like.
This has only two practical problems: 1) if you're able to find the energy to lift the house in the first place, why would you need this complicated contraption at all and 2) obviously totally impractical for reasons of "The utility of buildings is typically that they remain stationary so people can use them consistently and for a long time - Aaron Stevens"...
$endgroup$
Absolutely, yes. We actually do that, for example in an old-fashioned grandfather clock. They have big weights inside. You give the clock energy by raising the weights up, and then they go down slowly (due to gravity) and in a very precise way, to drive the clock.
In theory, you could fathom a building where you put a huuuuuuge spring between its base and earth, and after the building is complete, you raise it up with some pretty substantial external energy input (some hydraulic mechanism driven by whatever source you wish). Then, as the building presses down and slowly compresses the spring, you could use that movement to drive whatever generator you like.
This has only two practical problems: 1) if you're able to find the energy to lift the house in the first place, why would you need this complicated contraption at all and 2) obviously totally impractical for reasons of "The utility of buildings is typically that they remain stationary so people can use them consistently and for a long time - Aaron Stevens"...
answered 5 hours ago
AnoEAnoE
1,800412
1,800412
1
$begingroup$
Wouldn't putting a spring underneath be extremely impractical? A large portion of the energy would be going into the potential energy of the spring instead of whatever storage system you are using; unless the spring is your storage system, in which case I don't know how you get the energy back out in a usable way (besides just expanding the spring, which I imagine is a waste). You would need the spring to be built on top of some sort of base that could relax itself after the spring compressed to get the energy out; at that point you might as well build it on that base.
$endgroup$
– JMac
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@JMac, obviously... it's a thought experiment.
$endgroup$
– AnoE
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Wouldn't putting a spring underneath be extremely impractical? A large portion of the energy would be going into the potential energy of the spring instead of whatever storage system you are using; unless the spring is your storage system, in which case I don't know how you get the energy back out in a usable way (besides just expanding the spring, which I imagine is a waste). You would need the spring to be built on top of some sort of base that could relax itself after the spring compressed to get the energy out; at that point you might as well build it on that base.
$endgroup$
– JMac
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@JMac, obviously... it's a thought experiment.
$endgroup$
– AnoE
4 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Wouldn't putting a spring underneath be extremely impractical? A large portion of the energy would be going into the potential energy of the spring instead of whatever storage system you are using; unless the spring is your storage system, in which case I don't know how you get the energy back out in a usable way (besides just expanding the spring, which I imagine is a waste). You would need the spring to be built on top of some sort of base that could relax itself after the spring compressed to get the energy out; at that point you might as well build it on that base.
$endgroup$
– JMac
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Wouldn't putting a spring underneath be extremely impractical? A large portion of the energy would be going into the potential energy of the spring instead of whatever storage system you are using; unless the spring is your storage system, in which case I don't know how you get the energy back out in a usable way (besides just expanding the spring, which I imagine is a waste). You would need the spring to be built on top of some sort of base that could relax itself after the spring compressed to get the energy out; at that point you might as well build it on that base.
$endgroup$
– JMac
5 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@JMac, obviously... it's a thought experiment.
$endgroup$
– AnoE
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JMac, obviously... it's a thought experiment.
$endgroup$
– AnoE
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a company in Switzerland that is developing an Energy Vault, which is a building sized stack of heavy blocks with cranes extending out from a central pilar.
Each of these blocks can be lowered to the ground and the crane generates energy doing so.
Re-stacking the block requires using energy to take it back up. There are, of course, losses when comparing the energy it takes to raise the block compared to the energy generated when lowering it.
This is meant to be used as an energy storage device, to give a method of storing excess "green" energy so that overproduction is not wasted. Again, energy is wasted in this process, but that is true of any energy storage/conversion system.
Note that the stack of stones, when unmoving, generates zero energy. It is only when the stones are actually being lowered that energy generation is possible. The Potential Energy of an object is an ideal calculation of the Kinetic Energy that could be generated if the object was lowered a specific distance. If the object is unmoving, no energy is generated.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a company in Switzerland that is developing an Energy Vault, which is a building sized stack of heavy blocks with cranes extending out from a central pilar.
Each of these blocks can be lowered to the ground and the crane generates energy doing so.
Re-stacking the block requires using energy to take it back up. There are, of course, losses when comparing the energy it takes to raise the block compared to the energy generated when lowering it.
This is meant to be used as an energy storage device, to give a method of storing excess "green" energy so that overproduction is not wasted. Again, energy is wasted in this process, but that is true of any energy storage/conversion system.
Note that the stack of stones, when unmoving, generates zero energy. It is only when the stones are actually being lowered that energy generation is possible. The Potential Energy of an object is an ideal calculation of the Kinetic Energy that could be generated if the object was lowered a specific distance. If the object is unmoving, no energy is generated.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a company in Switzerland that is developing an Energy Vault, which is a building sized stack of heavy blocks with cranes extending out from a central pilar.
Each of these blocks can be lowered to the ground and the crane generates energy doing so.
Re-stacking the block requires using energy to take it back up. There are, of course, losses when comparing the energy it takes to raise the block compared to the energy generated when lowering it.
This is meant to be used as an energy storage device, to give a method of storing excess "green" energy so that overproduction is not wasted. Again, energy is wasted in this process, but that is true of any energy storage/conversion system.
Note that the stack of stones, when unmoving, generates zero energy. It is only when the stones are actually being lowered that energy generation is possible. The Potential Energy of an object is an ideal calculation of the Kinetic Energy that could be generated if the object was lowered a specific distance. If the object is unmoving, no energy is generated.
$endgroup$
There is a company in Switzerland that is developing an Energy Vault, which is a building sized stack of heavy blocks with cranes extending out from a central pilar.
Each of these blocks can be lowered to the ground and the crane generates energy doing so.
Re-stacking the block requires using energy to take it back up. There are, of course, losses when comparing the energy it takes to raise the block compared to the energy generated when lowering it.
This is meant to be used as an energy storage device, to give a method of storing excess "green" energy so that overproduction is not wasted. Again, energy is wasted in this process, but that is true of any energy storage/conversion system.
Note that the stack of stones, when unmoving, generates zero energy. It is only when the stones are actually being lowered that energy generation is possible. The Potential Energy of an object is an ideal calculation of the Kinetic Energy that could be generated if the object was lowered a specific distance. If the object is unmoving, no energy is generated.
answered 2 hours ago
Michael RichardsonMichael Richardson
20125
20125
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f463293%2fcan-we-harness-gravitational-potential-energy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
isn't that what tidal energy stations are?
$endgroup$
– aaaaaa
5 mins ago
$begingroup$
A practical example of us doing exactly this is Gravity Light. The idea behind it is that batteries are hard to come by in many African villages, but they do have humans who can expend effort to lift a bag (increasing potential energy), and then the device turns that gravitational potential energy into kinetic, then electricitrical, then light.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
57 secs ago