/sci/ - Science & Math

Anyone stupid enough to try and steal this idea is most likely incapable of even walking, reading, or doing anything we do with relative ease.
tl;dr You're an idiot.

A water wheel?

>>1858456
no

like

have a turbine in the middle of the forest

and like climb a tree and drop a book from like 3000 feet right onto one of the blades (obviously the idea needs more refining, but this is the jist) and then make it spin

>>1858460
That's what a water wheel is, except with water instead of books.

>is it not possible to harvest gravity as a source of electricity?
Wow, that sounds like the source of every single failed perpetual motion machine ever

>>1858460

You could far more easily ride a bike and have that generate power.

A water wheel is much more energy efficient.

stop breaking up

your posts like this

you are gay

Oh how I love you /sci/.

Well is books denser then the waters\ so it woud produce more energy then a wheel water just u would a need bunch of fuks picking up da books nd than dropping them

>OP doesn't realize it takes energy to get the books up there in the first place

>>1858499
Well ... not as much energy as they would create

>>1858483
Why a book? If density is really that important why not use liquid mercury?

>>1858507
No. Learn to conservation of energy. Energy is lost to friction in the turbine.

OP you are in sore need of enlightenment for two reasons:

1. Energy is conserved, always. Thermodynamic 2nd law says knock this shit off. The energy required to raise your book would equal the energy it would produce in an ideal system. But considering we live in non-ideal conditions, the book would take more energy to raise than it would generate by falling. And this applies to ALL objects, not just books.

2. U.S. Patents and Copyright require implementation to take effect. You come up with this idea, you'll need either a working prototype or detailed, dated, and notarized blueprints to stop someone from patenting your ideas. A screenshot with a changeable timestamp wouldn't hold a candle in court.

>>1858534
The first law of thermodynamics is a special case of the conservation of energy for large ensembles. It's not fundamental. The conservation of energy is. For example, you can't use it to explain why the energy of a point particle is conserved.

HEY YOU GUYS, LISTEN

SERIOUSLY, LISTEN

YOU GUYS

What if like, we make a machine so sensitive to gravity (with an enormous mass of course) that we could produce energy from the small small fluctuations in the gravitational acceleration due to shifting magma in the earths core? Nobel here I come. Grafene, fuck you.

>is it not possible to harvest gravity as a source of electricity?

sup.

>>1858534
Wait wait wait, hold the fucking phone

F=M*A CORRECT?

So raising the book in the air isn't nearly as much force as when the fucking book is accelerating at quick speeds.

>>1858581

To avoid having to bring the book back up, to have it fall down again, let's use a natural phenomenon, like a "*water*-fall".

Then, a wheel with some sort of paddles could be partially be inserted into this "waterfall" and, once mounted on an axel, serves as a source of energy.

My god, OP just re-invented the watermill. Good thing he's about to patent it.

Sorry for the sarcasm...

how has no one yet mentioned OP's thread-starting pic?

>>1858594

Everyone knows that idea won't work in reality due to the conservation of angular momentum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_angular_momentum#Conservation_of_angular_momentum

Please think before you write dumbshit ideas.

Hydro electricity

>>1858594 mocking because patenting the watermill
Look up the Ig nobel prize winners of 2001
Shit bricks

Water wheels aren't gravity powered, they're solar powered.

>>1858581

You're confusing 'Force' with 'Kinetic Energy'.
Not sure if troll, if not troll then say so and ask for an explanation, I'll be happy to provide one.

energy it takes to carry something up a hill = power created by drop

enjoy your friction

>>1858816
> implying the sun isn't powered by gravity

>>1858916
My brain cannot even begin to process the dipshittyness of that implication.

>>1858871
the person who said that probably was a troll

but go for the explanation any way

it takes force to lift the book doesn't it?
and wouldn't the force the book creates while falling be greater than the force needed for the book to be lifted?

>>1858937
try real hard, see what happens

>>1858916
Wait a second - in a roundabout sense...this is true.

...Well, fuck.

>>1858952
someone

captcha: Science caller

how very related

>>1858952

Well, I'll do my best to condense about a week's worth of high-school physics or a lecture's worth of collegiate mechanics into a single post. I'll also try to simplify it for the physics impaired. (I mean no offense, but most benefit for most people)

Make a distinction between velocity and acceleration right now.
Velocity is HOW FAST something is going, Acceleration is THE CHANGE in velocity. A car going steady 90mph has high velocity and zero acceleration. If it speeds up, it will have a positive acceleration, if it slows down it will have a negative acceleration.

Now, you've got Force, and it's equal to mass*acceleration.
When an object falls, Gravity imparts an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2.
Even if an object falls for a long time, and speeds up because it's been falling for a long time, it still ONLY HAS AN ACCELERATION OF 9.8 m/s^2.

Whether a book has been falling for ten years and has reached terminal velocity or if a book is completely still and you're holding it in your hand. Gravity is exerting the same amount of force on the book.

What you're thinking of when you think 'a bullet fired at me is more damaging than a bullet thrown at me' is Kinetic Energy.

>>1859165
not quite true.
acceleration due to gravity is proportional to the inverse square of the distance between the two objects (earth and book). So over time, that distance will decrease, and the gravitational force will increase.

Everything else is correct.

>>1859186
Goddamn physicists nit-picking my engineering assumption that delta-r is insignificant compared with r!

For those of you still watching this thread, this man is correct. For large falling values a difference in acceleration would become noticeable, but for the purposes of dropping a book on a windmill an appreciable difference would probably not manifest.