Genuine question here, please someone help me or ill spend the

>>8268962
>and take that object back to the top

That's your answer pal. Taking that object back to the top will require more energy than is produced by dropping it.

File: W8sSK[1].png (21KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 960x720px

You can.

>>8268968
What if we use magnets for bringing it up

>>8268975
a magnet on a rope which catapults it back up

>>8268962
As someone who is not an expert on physics, I believe I can offer this simplified view:

All objects have potential energy based on their mass and height/distance from earth. When things drop, this potential is turned into kinetic energy (velocity). You could harness this energy on their descent, but you can only do it once. Once the object has dropped down by a certain distance, you cannot bring it back without inevitably expending at least as much energy as you got out of its fall in the first place. Gravity is not an unlimited source of energy.

>>8268982
Ok what about width ways with a tiny decline and at the end the ball would only need a small amout of energy to put it back at the start

that way you could have lots of (track in this theory) going width ways for the object to travel across

actully, would that work? how steep does somthing need to be for gravity to take effect

>>8268992
As I said:
>All objects have potential energy based on their mass and height/distance from earth.
You can fuck around with slopes and tricks all you want, the energy released by an object due to gravity is only dependent on the height difference between it's start and end location.

>>8268992
you would have the same exact problem. You would need at the least the same amount of energy you could gain, to put it back at start

>>8268998
>>8268999
So if you had a track what went around the length of Britain with a small decline for graivty to take effect, with stuff along to track all the way to generat power(flippers or some shit) that wouldnt generate enough power to lift that ball back up to the start of the rail, even if that lift was only somthing stupid like 10cm

Is this the moron who was talking about drilling a hole through the earth?
Fuck off and learn energy conservation.

File: 1468665793501.webm (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>8268962
Have a webm

>>8269025
If the decline was that small then the ball wouldn't pick up enough speed to generate power in the first place

File: [HorribleSubs] Amanchu! - 03 [1080p].mkv_snapshot_14.53_[2016.07.22_12.15.18].png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>8268962
Because gravity is weak as shit lmao

>>8268962
We do use gravity, look up hydroelectric power.

>why cant we build a machine which drops on object down a tube which somehow generates electricity and take that object back to the top
That wouldn't work

>>8268962
http://www.aresnorthamerica.com/

cutting edge stuff

>>8268962
Hydroelectric power plants are a good example for this. You can use gravity to power stuff, when you dont actively have to put energy into putting mass in a higher position first.

>>8269049
Dayum nigga, that shit sounds tight.

>>8269069
>You can use gravity to power stuff, when you dont actively have to put energy into putting mass in a higher position first.
That's kind of the basic ethos behind all power production. You find something that's already in a high energy state then lower it's energy while catching the runoff.

Do you guys think if we improved science education we'd prevent people from wasting their time trying to create perpetual energy machines via methods that have been proven wrong repeatedly for hundreds of years?

>>8268962

Set up wheels on the beach hooked up to motors for hydroelectricity. The kinetic energy (movement) of the water is caused from the gravitational forces of the moon and sun that pull it in different directions.

The reason it isn't used (often) is because other methods are more efficient. Dams are similar but you also get some potential energy from light, just let the sun evaporate the water back to the top of your "tube". Right now that's our best source of renewable energy.

What we really need is to recreate photosynthesis. Those plant fuckers really know how to use light and our sun is throwing out tons of it.

>>8268974
Takes energy to get it under the barrier

>>8268962
Well water towers are based off of gravity and fluid physics.