• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Tapping gravity energy potential. Will gravity batteries make a proper start?

TheBrokenSoul

Active Member
This is false. Piezoelectric crystals produce a voltage but not a continuous flow of current.

You will produce an initial voltage across the crystal but once that is discharged no more energy can be extracted. A simple consideration of energy shows this. As the rock settles a bit, while it compresses the crystal, it loses gravitational potential energy, converting that into electrical potential energy in the crystal. When you discharge that, the rock does not move any more, so it loses no more energy. Since energy is conserved, and not magically made out of nothing, the fact it loses no more energy means that nothing else can gain any more energy.
Thank you for the information but I did only consider the topic briefly . You are correct it would not produce a constant flow of electricity but as you said there would be an initial charge created , effectively it would be a gravitaional method but as you explained not efficient enough . Perhaps we could add some tidal energy and create motion with a device that was a constant or even a wind method .
There must be a way to engineer the concept .
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Thank you for the information but I did only consider the topic briefly . You are correct it would not produce a constant flow of electricity but as you said there would be an initial charge created , effectively it would be a gravitaional method but as you explained not efficient enough . Perhaps we could add some tidal energy and create motion with a device that was a constant or even a wind method .
There must be a way to engineer the concept .
Why bother, when we can already generate electricity from wind and tides efficiently by electromagnetic generators?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
One question I have about the design is the use of concrete. It seems that it would be better to use a denser material for the blocks: more stored energy per unit volume.

Maybe it is the cost of the blocks.
With all the handling & bumping in wind, I'd expect concrete
to begin to fail at the corners. Perhaps cast iron would be
worth the higher cost due to better energy density & longevity.
(Corrosion would be minimal even unpainted.)
The attachment system shown in the video looks costly &
prone to malfunction. But I'm sure they'd do better for
production versions.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Whatever is most cost effective is going to be used. Gravity power will be useful for some. I'd like to see a version for homes and apartments.
Homes & apartments would be small scale users, so not
practical. Gravity batteries are a grid-scale approach.

What I like for small scale is reduced rate scheduled service
for things like electric car chargers. People can tailor their
needs to reflect peak generation times.
Battery & ultra-capacitor systems could also be used, since
they serve to handle power outages also.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Homes & apartments would be small scale users, so not
practical.
I did some calculations. I think an 800 lb weight slung 7 meters in the air powering a 40% efficient generator could provide emergency power of just over 300 watt for 2 hours. That's enough to run a small computer, a light or radio.
You could slowly re-raise your 800 lb weight using a windmill connected to a winch through a gearbox. So you'd charge up your 800lb rock, getting it up there into position. Then if the power went off for an hour or so you could stay on the internet anyway.

So it wouldn't be something for daily use, but it might be of interest if it was at the correct price point.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I did some calculations. I think an 800 lb weight slung 7 meters in the air powering a 40% efficient generator could provide emergency power of just over 300 watt for 2 hours. That's enough to run a small computer, a light or radio.
That's a whole lotta equipment for so little power, ie, 0.6 kwhr.
You could slowly re-raise your 800 lb weight using a windmill connected to a winch through a gearbox. So you'd charge up your 800lb rock, getting it up there into position. Then if the power went off for an hour or so you could stay on the internet anyway.

So it wouldn't be something for daily use, but it might be of interest if it was at the correct price point.
Sounds incredibly impractical.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
That's a whole lotta equipment for so little power, ie, 0.6 kwhr.

Sounds incredibly impractical.
Its not ideal, however it is achievable. 7 meters is about the height you could reach on a ladder when setting up a pulley. 300 watts is about the minimum useful power that exists. 800lbs is the result of those two choices and is also something a person could manage using pulleys.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Its not ideal, however it is achievable. 7 meters is about the height you could reach on a ladder when setting up a pulley. 300 watts is about the minimum useful power that exists. 800lbs is the result of those two choices and is also something a person could manage using pulleys.
Achievable isn't always practical.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Just for anyone who may be curious, @TheBrokenSoul is without doubt the latest in a long line of rather tedious sockpuppets, known here variously here as Sustainer, ANEWDAWN, James Blunt and others, and elsewhere on the internet as Tyler Shaw*, Mohat, Amber (pretending to be a young girl, in the hope of gentler treatment), Spencer 666, Theorist Constant, etc, etc. I could tot up more than a dozen, given time.

The game is usually to start a discussion based on some semi-scientific nonsense and then to keep it going by means of replies with just enough science to keep people responding, but simultaneously adding a drip-feed of new nonsense, requiring further requests for correction, requests for clarification and so on. I suppose the idea is see how long he can make it last before people give up or, on science forms at least, he gets banned as a sock or for time-wasting.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I did some calculations. I think an 800 lb weight slung 7 meters in the air powering a 40% efficient generator could provide emergency power of just over 300 watt for 2 hours. That's enough to run a small computer, a light or radio.
You could slowly re-raise your 800 lb weight using a windmill connected to a winch through a gearbox. So you'd charge up your 800lb rock, getting it up there into position. Then if the power went off for an hour or so you could stay on the internet anyway.

So it wouldn't be something for daily use, but it might be of interest if it was at the correct price point.
Why only 40%? You should be able to get 80%. It's not a heat engine.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Why only 40%? You should be able to get 80%. It's not a heat engine.
That is good news. That means I can cut my weight in half or else double my power.

I think it costs more to get an efficient one. Some of them are 40%. Lets say I'm just using motors out of old power drills or washing machines. I can't expect to get 80%. If I'm manufacturing them then yes.
 

TheBrokenSoul

Active Member
Just for anyone who may be curious, @TheBrokenSoul is without doubt the latest in a long line of rather tedious sockpuppets, known here variously here as Sustainer, ANEWDAWN, James Blunt and others, and elsewhere on the internet as Tyler Shaw*, Mohat, Amber (pretending to be a young girl, in the hope of gentler treatment), Spencer 666, Theorist Constant, etc, etc. I could tot up more than a dozen, given time.

The game is usually to start a discussion based on some semi-scientific nonsense and then to keep it going by means of replies with just enough science to keep people responding, but simultaneously adding a drip-feed of new nonsense, requiring further requests for correction, requests for clarification and so on. I suppose the idea is see how long he can make it last before people give up or, on science forms at least, he gets banned as a sock or for time-wasting.
Mr Chemist what a huge mistake you just made in lying . I know a lot of people like . P.s He is also a hacker so watch your data .

I don't hide behind a mask like you ! I am not as sock puppet and God protects me from you .
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
Mr Chemist what a huge mistake you just made in lying . I know a lot of people like . P.s He is also a hacker so watch your data .

I don't hide behind a mask like you ! I am not as sock puppet and God protects me from you .
And yet, on the concurrent thread you have just posted this:

"Mr Chemist works for the government and is an internet science cop who is on every single forum . Science pays these people to protect thier science and fake science such as CERN that cost billions .

Ok Mr Chemist I was going to play to nice , now I am going to destroy sciences bs space travel.

The moon landings are fake because a parachute or thruster does not work on the moon becuase there is no propulsion pressure or air for the parachute to work.

They also struggle to go into space because the air thins out at altitude and lose power in the thrust .

Mr chemist and several other try to get me banned no matter where I go ."

That looks awfully like an admission that I am telling the truth.:D
 
Top