I think you could argue that we are already extracting energy from the rotation of the Earth. The Coriolis effect due the rotation of the Earth contributes to atmospheric circulation which we can and do harvest in wind turbines.
The wind is caused by the sun and is thus an extension of solar energy, not Earth's rotational energy, I think. And the Coriolis effect only applies to and explains regional/local phenomena, not the whole atmosphere's interaction with the outer empty vacuum space, I think.
@@theaman1786 I believe that both of you are correct, but I’m not sure and I’m no expert. The atmosphere is a complex enough system so that both statements can be true, or at least partially true.
The Coriolis effect is absolute bullshit. No sniper shoots 70 feet to the left to accommodate for the spin of the earth. No arplane or flying craft of any kind has earth rotation factored in to its navigation.
Yes: tidal enegery! That can be harnassed, and it already is. It's the Earth's rotation being "shaken" by the Moon's gravity. Don't get bigger in terms of "ball + hand" than that!
That’s what I was thinking. The wind currents and ocean currents. Water is way denser than air though. Edit: My favorite is a start up called Eco Wave Power. It‘s on the NASDAQ.
@@g.4279 Yup, solar will be much cheaper. Yet at some point manufacturing might become cheap enough so that tidal can have its application in dark and cold environments, or where wind turbines would suffer too much, like the Arctic for instance.
@@g.4279 Tidal power accounts for less than 1% of world wide electrical generation, but that still represents a few gigawatts on average. Tidal power is easiest to harvest where the geography funnels tides through a small channel. This concentrates the energy making it cost effective to harvest.
2 gyros on the same axle spinning in opposite directions would cancel each others precession out. Now you can save the world, you're welcome. Seriously though, you don't need to let the gyro turn, the problem was more likely that they couldn't keep friction lower than the amount of energy that could be harvested.
That would also cancel and net gyroscopic action. Of course they would still react to changes in orientation but the forces would only act on the axle.
@@whatelseison8970 Can you explain what you mean by "net gyroscopic action". The idea was to harvest energy from the rigidity in space. Two flywheels, or "gyros" on the same axle spinning in opposite directions would "help" each others rigidity in space, but the directions of their precession that was claimed to be the problem would be in opposite directions, and thereby canceling each other out. Replying to you I just realized the idea has a much more fundamental problem. Rigidity in space is relative, rotating flywheels doesn't resist turning, they resist changes in direction and speed of turning. Their idea was fundamentally flawed.
Great video, and really interesting idea! And i find it funny how the problem you run into here seems to be the same as referred to as "gimbal lock" in 3d animation. You'd think that describing the rotation of a 3d object you'd be fine with just an x y and c coordinate, but since they are influencing each other in a hierarchy you end up in these situations where they line up and you have no axis left for the rotation you want. Therefore it's popular to use quaternions, aka 4d numbers to describe rotations that don't run in to the same problem. I wonder if this translates directly to the mechanics of the gyroscope and number of rings and how they are connected. And if it would be possible to mechanically construct a "quaternion" gyroscope with 4 rings and somehow get around this problem maybe??
What if we used gasoline to power a gyroscope to make it look like it is free energy and scam the government for billions in funding… oh wait wind and solar did that already. 😕
What about instead of a gyroscope, you used a Foucault Pendulum? It swings based on the Earths rotation, needs no introduced force like a gyroscopic mass, and can exert energy without (noticeable or appreciable) slowing (in the cases Ive seen, knocking down pegs). Could it be used to generate a weak electromagnetic field by passing a magnet over a coil?
But the balancing pendulum requires some energy to go forth and forward (unless I didn't understand what you meant). It will be strongly slowed down by the magnet.
Maybe with a modification you could extract rotational energy rather than extracting the kinetic energy of the pendulum swinging. If the pendulum mass was on a solid rod (like a hammer for example) and the end was hinged to a disk or something that could rotate at the pivot point, then you could extract rotational energy as the earth rotated under the pendulum. Operating the thing in a vacuum would help reduce friction losses. Using magnetic bearings at the pivot point would be beneficial too to reduce friction losses.
I saw you at the beach last night! Hope you enjoyed that INCREDIBLE show! The public almost put on a better show than the pros right?? That was crazy! Thanks for all the great content, you've taught me many things over the years.
in case of a frictionless disc would it slow down if you were extracting energy? Anyway the power used to keep the wheel spinning will probably be greater than what you get.
No You are extracting energy at 90 degrees to the disk So a frictionless disk held at the proper locations would not extract any energy from the disk It extracts it from the earth
@@aspiringscientificjournali1505 ..Ight google babe..)/* only reason to extract energy would be to keep the day constant length.. and there's a point to that..)/* might as well run copper around the equator and see if we can tap some ether....) but hey, it seems to have formed a magnetic field of it's own and she happens to give us life, so how about you quit f'n with her magnetosphere, AY?
@@YouGloomy don't know enough to answer your question but I've been thinking about making some flywheel based batteries and the water idea is very interesting.
If you slow the earth from the surface, wouldn't the core keep spinning at the previous speed? Would it create turbulence in the outer core and mantle? Would that increase the magnetic field of the earth? The idea of extracting energy from earth's rotation bring up so many more questions.
I've been waiting for someone with top shelf content to cover this topic! Thank you so much for everything you do and for making science fun for anyone who watches. Your channel is the best on youtube ✌🤟🖖
Unfortunately he got the physics and his conclusion dead wrong. The educators need to understand the topic before they are helping. As I and other commenter pointed out, conservation of angular momentum means you can't extract energy from the earth's spin this way
Can you make metal “self-heal” itself in a vacuum chamber? The layer of oxidized metal prevents it from happening in our atmosphere but in a vacuum chamber it should work, right? You should give it a shot! I’m curious to see 🤔
That is a very interesting question I remember i had the same thoughts when i was studying 12th grade chemistry I would be interested to find it out as well
Conservation of angular momentum means you can't extract rotational energy from a closed system at equilibrium. The best you can do is to find some part of the Earth that spins at a different rate to the surface, then extract work from that mass by bringing its rotation speed to equal that of the surface.
Wrong well idea is right application is wrong Motors word specifically by turning angular momentum into heat an electricity Allow me to prove it It I had a motor in space Rotating body and head 1rpm With a small battery on the head and a gyroscope on the head face 90 degrees in the direction of rotation If the gyro turns on its resistance to motion would cause the head to rotate or “not rotate” and that energy would be quickly converted to electrical
@aspiring scientific journalist Also a cow _"Motors word specifically by turning angular momentum into heat an electricity."_ 1) Motors turn electricity into work. Generators turn work into electricity. 2) You are confusing angular momentum with rotational kinetic energy. Kinetic energy can be transformed into other forms of energy. Angular momentum can't be converted to energy but it can be transferred from one object to another. If you see a generator stop moving it's because the angular momentum of the rotor was transferred to the Earth via the stator. The kinetic energy was transformed into electricity and heat. _"If the gyro turns on its resistance to motion would cause the head to rotate or “not rotate” and that energy would be quickly converted to electrical"_ Maybe. It will also cause the whole system to rotate around a third perpendicular axis as shown in the video. If you want to call this a proof you should at least show that the energy generated is higher than the energy used to spin up the gyro.
@@aspiringscientificjournali1505 gyros do not resist turning, they just turn 90 degrees offset to the direction you try to make them turn. With clever arangements, bunch of gymbals and low friction bearings, you can use that to keep track of direction, but the moment you try to apply force on it, it will turn around on some axis. Also, if you run a motor in space, the shaft will rotate one direction, while the casing will rotate the opposite direction, perfectly in line with the law of conservation of angular momentum.
I don't know what the solution would be, but I guarantee it would involve being closer to the center of rotation, so at one of the axial poles. If you can somehow multiply the rotational inertia, through a series of pulleys or some other mechanism pulling the center of mass inward, you could potentially generate additional speed similar to a figure skater.
Yes but, as @The Action Lab stated, you'd have to extract truly titanic amounts of energy in order for the slowdown to even be measurable, let alone catastrophic.
@@GumbootMan yeah, kinda like you'd have to extract truly titanic amounts of energy from oil in order for the effect on climate to be measurable... yep, we humans are capable of that
@@vincentletard7379 He says at the beginning of the video that with the US consumption it would take thousands of years to even slow the earth by 1 second
year of 2050: extracting energy by slowing down rotation of the Earth year of 2100: extracting energy by slowing down speed of the Earth year of 2150: extracting energy from free falling on the Sun
The Earth wouldn't slow down sense gravity makes it spins, slowing down the speed of the Earth only works by moving it away from the sun, making the earth free fall to the sun would take moving it closer
We already do extract energy from the earths rotation. We use something that is not in direct contact with the earth, and use that to move a "mechanism" that drives other machines that extract the energy. The mechanism is called: tides. The thing not in contact with the earth is: the moon. The frictional losses are absolutely massive, so its hardy efficient, but the energy involved is phenomenal, so even a very inefficient system is capable of extracting huge amounts of energy. Then people start to worry about ecological damage, and it gets a whole lot more complicated.
I believe my family was sitting next to you at the 4th of July parade. Thought I recognized your voice! Continue your awesome work with educational videos!
Imagine for a moment that we develop a working method to extract energy from the rotation of the Earth. Now imagine this successful method gets applied globally, by all developed countries. The phrase "extract energy" is key here. With a large implementation of this, we would undoubtedly slow the rotation of the planet. Doing so, even a little, would have catastrophic effects on our civilization due to the climate change it would cause. Days and nights would become much longer, temperature shift between the two would become much larger. Seasonal extremes, much deeper.
Extracting a second of rotational speed from the Earth yields enough energy to power the US for 83,000 years. The US consumes about 4 GW/h/yr of energy, which is 1/6th of entire planet energy consumption at 24 GW/h/yr. So divide 83,000 years by 6, and you can power the entire planet for 13,833 years and you'll have slowed its rotation by only 1 second at the end of of those 13 millenia. Even factoring in increased efficiency with technological progress and greater energy demands, that amount of drag on the planet's rotation is negligible on climate.
Maybe if we like, actually significantly slowed the Earth. But he said at the start, only slowing it by one second yields an insane amount of energy that we'd use over thousands of years. Obviously we'll grow in energy needs but for the time being, the effect is minimal on the Earth.
It seems you need a reciprocating motion to extract energy. Maybe instead of the Earth's rotation, we capture the Earth's subtle wobble, like the gyro ball?
We could extract energy from the rotation by creating a space elevator with a circular chain, delivering heavy rocks to an orbit high enough so that they get flung away by the rotation of the earth. That centrifugal force can drive the elevator to carry up more rocks, and it can deliver energy we can gather by putting generators to the circular chain. The problem only is that we have no material to construct such an elevator. Nothing is strong enough to sustain the forces of that pull under its own weight for a length of thousands of kilometers.
It's relatively not a good idea you'd need to have a huge amount of weight to produce any energy that moves relative to the earth. Tonnes of water moving in a dam produces only a few kilowatt of energy so even if anything like this works you'd need to balance a million tonnes of weight on an axis to produce a few megawatt hours of energy. Just do the calculation you'll realize.
Energy from rotating movement -> energy gyro ball -> solar energy -> electric energy -> ( use the electric energy to power the rotating decice) AND VOILÀ! INFINITE SOURCE OF ENERGY
Actually, we do have machines that harvest Earth's angular momentum and turn that into energy, nowadays, although they do it indirectly. They are called wind turbines :)
Well, actually no. The winds used for windturbines have mostly nothing to do with earths rotation. Tidal powerplants on the other hand do in fact kinda use earths rotation indirectly to harvest energy.
@@matthiaskritzinger5509 Cyclones and anticyclones are formed from the Coriolis force on the movement of air from the equator to the poles in Hadley cells - this directly converts energy from the motion into heat which ultimately gets radiated to space. Wind turbines capture this energy and do useful work for us in the process, converting more of this energy to heat. Converting kinetic energy to radiation *must* cause the Earth to slow down, however imperceptibly. Tidal powerplants work because the Moon's and Sun's gravity potentials have different magnitudes on the near and far sides of the Earth causing it to deform to raise and lower a large mass of water which can be made to do work, as energy is transferred from the Earth to the Moon. However, a rotating body that doesn't have tides can't generate energy in that way, but the Coriolis force could be exploited using water turbines in the Gulf Stream.
@@ahaveland Thx for your reply. Of course in aware of the effect the coriolis force (and so earths rotation) have on global windstreams. However windturbines mostly dont use these kind of windstreams as they can be to strong and/or are way to high in the air or far in the open sea (early sailers used jetstreams to get across the atlantic for example). Of course im not an expert on windturbines, but thats the point i wanted to get across. Also as you said correctly tides are a direct energy transfer between earths rotation and the moon slowing the earths rotation down till earths rotationspeed is at the same angular momentum of the moon falling around earth. At that point the tides no longer exsist making tidal powerplants useless. So in the end - to get my second point across - tidal powerplants harvest a bit of that energytransfer between moon and earth which in turn is caused by earths rotation meaning that they practically do harvest energy from earths rotation itself. Anyways, thx for your reply! Have a nice day :)
2 года назад
@@matthiaskritzinger5509 I never claimed that the air produced by the coriolis effect was the ONLY source of air whose energy wind turbines convert. But whatever little part of that air's energy is converted, it still makes wind turbines machines that, at some level, indirectly turn earth's rotation into energy. So, actually, yeah. My point is still valid.
Gyroscopes are for direction/guidance. Let's take a frisbee like disc. Inside are 3 grooved walls from the outside in. The center is free floating while the walls are lockable. Hand cranked to keep centrifugal force going (the start being a large "skeet" shooting lever), with gyroscopes at 16 points along the outside. Each gyroscope is able to be engaged (by being brought in closer to the center).
Reducing the earths rotation without applying an external force would violate the conservation of angular momentum. You can do it with the help of the moon or the sun like the tides do.
Since the centripetal force is stronger at the equator than any other point above or under the equator, then I guess we could join a (very) long pipe between any point above /under the equator and the equator itself. We'd obtain two different pressure at each end of the pipe. The pipe needs to be tangential, not perpendicular to equator's plane.
Except Earth is not a sphere. Since the poles are squashed AKA downhill AKA closer to the center, Earth's gravity is not perfectly perpendicular to the surface along the "slope" from equator down to the poles. This gravitational force component along the surface perfectly cancels out with the force you described above. Otherwise Earth's surface would not be in equilibrium (ignoring Lunar tides).
@@JWQweqOPDH You mean someone actually calculated that ? If you have any link, I'd be interested. That's quite surprising, considering that earth is not even symmetrical so if what you say is true, it can't work for both sides anyway. But it's a good point.
@@JWQweqOPDH That's not related to the curvature-centripal ratio (unless you have a more detailed answer). The best case to highlight your claim would be to imagine a planet made only of water with a uniform density. If in that case, the difference between centripetal forces at the equator and any other point can't be used as a source of energy, then yes your hypothesis is valid.
@@En_theo Putting it a different way, harvesting energy requires a lowering of energy within the source. We need to reduce the rotational energy of Earth by some miniscule amount. We can change the moment of inertia by moving mass closer or farther from the axis of rotation. We can't change the angular momentum since we are part of Earth and momentum is conserved unless there is a force interaction with something beyond Earth (such as Lunar tides, which I will be ignoring for now). With angular momentum constant, rotational energy is directly proportional to angular velocity. We want to reduce Earth's rotational energy, thus we want to reduce Earth's rotational velocity. To do so, we can increase the moment of inertia of Earth. For example, space rockets IRL might be trucked/flown closer to the equator prior to launch. Since the equator is "uphill", as I discussed previously, the truck does not roll there naturally. The truck drives normally. However, the rocket now has more kinetic energy near the equator, in relation to an outside reference frame, and the Earth has a miniscule amount less. We could steal rotational energy from the Earth by simply lifting heavy objects, such as pumping water to a mountain reservoir, at the equator, since at the equator "up" is away from Earth's axis of rotation. However, we couldn't harvest that energy as it takes more energy to lift than is stolen from Earth's spin. Instead, we can move mass along Earth's surface from the poles to the equator. However, moving the mass will be difficult, as we'll need many ton-miles moved just to generate some energy. Even worse, we have to store everything we move permanently at the destination. If we let move water and dump it in the ocean, it will just move back. So we will move mass onto land, like a landfill, from the poles to the equator. As the Earth's rotation slows, the centripetal force at the equator lessens. The ocean levels there lowers and ocean levels at the poles rise. The even worse part is, that's where our harvestable energy is! The space rocket needs energy within an external reference frame to get into space, but we're still here on the ground. A mountain at the equator contains more kinetic energy than one at the poles, but it's still a mountain just sitting there. Sure if we built rockets out of it, they'd be slight easier to launch, because it's already moving, but we don't care that it's moving because it's moving with us. We could harvest the movement of the oceans toward to poles, but the oceans already move without human intervention (Lunar tides) why put so much effort into moving them?
If we had a coil of wire around the earth and far enough away so there is an insulation between the magnet (earth) and the copper coil, could you generate a charge? Theoretically?
For this to work out the coil would have to move relative to earth magnetic field.And if we assume that earths magnetic field does nearly not move relative to earths surface,the coil would have to move relative to earths surface. So since initially it would move due to conservation of momentum, you would have to spin it up first. And this will take the same energy to do as you could theoretically extract from it afterwards, cause by doing so, you would slow it down relative to earths surface. So no it would not work.
Nice idea, but as soon as you would take energy from the coil, the coil will begin to spin with the earth because of the electromagnetic force that generates the energy. Eventualy it wil become in sync with the earth and you will need to put as much energy back into it (probably even more due to losses) to get it stationary again. So you would need to tie a rope around the sun or moon to anchor it to something. But getting energy from the moons rotation is much easier as it already creates the tides in the sea which we can use to extract energy from, another question would be how much are we slowing the moons rotation by harvesting tidal energy ;-)
@@AndreVanKammen we will not slow down the moon, but the earth,since earth has higher angular speed, than the moon has. (in fact, earths day once where roundabout at 12hours, and it slowed down, due to the tides, while the moon got faster,and is constantly moving away from earth.
Yepp! Just another misconception about conservation of momentum and energy. Isaac Newton recognized in his famous Lex III, every force creates a reaction force to preserve momentum. Harnessing energy from a gyroscope would provide a reactionless energy extraction. The dream of all perpetua mobile builders. The reason, why this does not work is simple: All accelerations, that form a particular angular momentum cancel out. This is the reason, drift of gyroscopes are not only determined by earth's rotation, but by friction. Proof: Two counterrotating gyroscopes on the same axis cancel their angular momentum: L-L=0. The only physically sound possibility to impart momentum against the fabric of spacetime itself is provided by the Alcubierre metrics (sic).
The problem is, if you're removing 0.001% of Earth's angular momentum, you've gotta put that somewhere. It can't just disappear. So you're putting it into the gyros? Sure. Fine. But they're gonna be saturated very rapidly after which point energy will want to flow the other direction. The minimum possible energy state of a rotating system is when all parts of the system are rotating at the same speed (not angular speed, though for a rigid body that's the likely outcome). Any other state is a higher energy state. I don't see how you're gonna drop the energy state of a gyroscope below that of Earth without net input of energy. For the exact same reason that attaching a heat engine to your refrigerator doesn't gain you net surplus energy taken from latent heat. The only type of (nearly) unsaturable reservoirs I'm aware of are things that have negative potential energy somewhere in the mix. For examples of negative potential energy, dumping energy into an object in orbit will reduce the speed of the object, though this is saturable once it reaches escape velocity. Dumping energy into a planet, in the form of mass, increases that planets' escape velocity. Dumping heat into the interior of a star (say, from fusion) expands and cools that star. Dumping mass into a neutron star or white dwarf compacts it further and dramatically increases the escape velocity. Dumping anything into a black hole makes it larger but does not affect its escape velocity, and also makes it colder. The types of objects that work as unsaturable energy reservoirs all have an inverse or zero relation between the ground potential at the object, and the energy input, and this doesn't change regardless of how much you throw in. So even things like orbits or stars only work in the sense that you can wait for them to radiate energy away and THEN dump more energy in. The only ones that work as truly unlimited energy dumping reservoirs are compact objects, especially black holes.
I think the main research problems are obvious. The component materials that you make the gyroscope from and how to cost effectively convert and transmit that constant theoretical energy. Obviously, by up-scaling your gyroscope so that it delivers the energetic results originally theorised, with an electrically induced magnetic current generator gyroscope. Ie. frictionless. I would start my own elemental component dreaming/theorising, with barium sulphate, Weldbond and pure magnetite crystals. Great video you fellas, enormously intriguing.
It is hardly a free energy, though I think it would be probably more feasible to extract energy from the Coriolis force. The thing is the Earth's rotation is really slow so it is quite hard to extract energy from it. Maybe with some gear shift added as well...
The impossibility of this idea is easy to check - just try to come up with a way to use a gyroscope to spin the carousel on which you yourself are, without relying on anything other than the carousel itself. if you succeed, consider that you have deceived the laws of physics, because a motor is the same as a generator)
The atmosphere takes some rotational energy of the earth via coriolis to different latitudes. Some of the wind's energy will be dissipated because of frictional drag (eg tree leaves flapping producing heat) so angular momentum is not perfectly conserved. So wind does slow earth down but not by blowing on mountains etc but by the good old 2 law of thermodynamics. The earth has so much mass it's effect is so small though. If earth were turned to Minecraft blocks and they were laid in a line it would be as big as the milky ways diameter.
yeah i was thinking of similar stuff... like isn't part of what we extract from wind and ocean energies somewhat originated from earth's rotation.... yeah probably not that big compared to all other factors but just thought it'd make sense that overall wind blowing west is stronger than the other direction.
Coriolis forces don't add energy. The energy of wind comes from convection currents from solar heating. Coriolis forces just redirect that energy, conserving angular momentum in the process.
Even if you can harness the power of hurricanes you are NOT taking away from the spin of earth by one bit. The angular momentum of the earth in the end is still perfectly conserved. The total angular momentum of the earth and hurricane combined, plus all satellites in orbit, is still perfectly conserved regardless of how you look at it.
The atmosphere does NOT take the rotational energy out of earth. The wind is blowing because the sun heats it up, the convection causes currents, and then earth's rotation turns those currents into different directions. But the energy that the wind has is not coming from earth's rotation. Conservation of angular momentum is a thing, just as real as conservation of energy.
Tesla came up with an idea to extract energy from the earth's rotation. He said we just need to build a structure that circles the earth at the equator which when completed, would no longer need any supports as it would float independently because gravity would be pulling on it equally all around the world. He posited that since this structure is now independent from the earth, the earth would rotate under it and generators could be made to turn from the earth's rotation. Genius.
@@flamencoprof I believe the entire structure would only be under 1 g. I think the real issue would be supporting the structure while under construction in the areas that cross oceans. Floating platforms may not be stable enough.
Extracting energy from earth rotation sounds like a bad idea since you make earth rotation slower and slower. I know it would take a really long time to significantly slow down earth rotation, but still better to keep it the same way since our life depends on it.
Our lives also depend on clean energy. The Earth has a rotational kinetic energy of 2,138×10^29 J. World primary energy consumption fell to 556,63x10^18 in 2020. At that rate it would take approximately 384.097.156 years for the Earth to stop. If we can use Earth's rotational energy as an environmentally friendly alternative to carbon based fuels right now, in a million years or so we can start to put energy back into the system.
It's already happening and has been for a very long time, 3.5 billion years ago years ago a day was ~12 hours. Tidal forces from the Sun result in the Earths spin slowing down over time. The Earth has already stopped the Moon's rotation via the same process. Given enough time the sun will do the same to the Earth.
Three things no one is talking about: First off, to spin the gyroscope that fast, it takes a bit of energy. Secondly, what if you lock the inner rim on the stand like so that the gyroscope has no way of turning sideways. Thirdly, if that's not possible, or it works poorly, just rotate the entire thing 90° and it will work like it did before.
ya and its even worse if you try to scale it up. imagine the weight of a gyroscope large enough needed to extract energy from the earth. Imagine spinning that thing up super fast and KEEPING it spun up. ya dump idea
@@BIindsid3 flywheels don't have any interent reason that they would slow without external force. Resistance from air or friction or any other way of transferring the rotational energy to anything else basically. Locking the flywheel orientation to the rod takes the force and applies it to the entire rod instead of just the the flywheel. It TWISTS the rod. The one thing I've noticed hands-on that makes it hard to to extract EXTERNAL energy... the gyro slows down if you resist the twist. Not sure why, but I think it's either transferring the rotational energy of the flywheel into the torque on the rod, then that force ultimate travels into the ground... Or it increases the friction on the axle of the flywheel. Can't really tell with the cheap setup I have. (A toy gyroscope held in my hands with no modifications or measurement devices.) In other words, in my experience this is only a way to DEPOSIT energy, not really extract it. Maybe there is something I'm missing, but it seems to me that it would be like trying to recover the energy of a rocket by firing the thruster in the opposite direction. It's using energy to resist energy. Actually... Now I'm wondering if such a setup could be used to desaturate flywheels in space by swinging them them back and forth while locked... Each swing would reduce the speed of the flywheel and cause a torque on the spacecraft. If you then swing it the other direction the flywheel slows more, but counteracts the torque from the previous swing reducing the rational energy of the entire system... That would violate conservation wouldn't it? I must be wrong. Maybe the energy would become heat or something? Either way I'm gonna have to build out the experiment and see what's up. Saturated flywheels in space is a big ol problem for long term missions.
@@leolipasti maybe... I lose track of time extremely easily. I had fun. If I wanted to actually play with this, it would be good to actually do some physics. Maybe simulate. But really, it'd be so cheap to set this up, and the rig could be used for a bunch of different demonstrations.
Here's the ultimate question: What happens to the angular momentum of Earth? If you can't dump that somewhere, you can't get energy from moving it there. And you certainly can't just make it disappear. Moving energy from something rotating quickly to something rotating slowly releases energy. Moving energy from something rotating slowly to something rotating quickly costs energy.
That's a good question. While the conservation of energy holds (we just take energy from the Earth rotation and convert it into work, and then heat), the angular momentum needs to go somewhere. Maybe we could look at the Earth-Moon system? If we can independently vary the Earth's rotation speed and Moon's orbital speed, we might be able to end up with a net zero change in angular momentum but still move energy around. And we can slow down or (theoretically) accelerate the moon using ocean power.
Several years ago I read a paper submitted to the physics journal by a Harvard professor and his students doing an experiment on a vacuum chambered glass container. They wanted to see if they could suspend hydrogen gas in the container using a magnetic field. They discovered that hydrogen gas could be suspended in the container using a weak magnetic field. Then, they wondered what would happen if they passed visible light into the container. They claimed that the light went into the hydrogen and came out as high energy X-rays and heat. They claimed they measured a temperature inside the container around 54,000° F. That was nearly the same temperature that scientists measured in sonoluminescence experiments, suspending an air bubble in water and hitting it with sound. The sound caused the air bubble to vibrate, causing it expand and contract converting the sound into heat and a bright light in the center of the air bubble. They measured a temperature around 50,000° F around the air bubble. I congratulated them on discovering over-unity of energy. Well, I then got the idea that we could use hydrogen suspended in a vacuum chamber to produce heat. Similar to the thermal energy produced by radioactive particles in nuclear reactors but without the dangerous radiation. Nuclear reactors use thermoelectric generators to convert heat into electricity. The same thing could be done using hydrogen suspended in a vacuum and then hitting the hydrogen with visible light. Lots of thermal energy is produced that could in theory be converted into a constant current of electricity. The only difference is the hydrogen would not be radioactive and would not lose it's ability to generate heat over time like radioactive particles do. Plus hydrogen wouldn't produce radioactive waste. I'd love to provide the link to the article but I commented on the article congratulating the professor and the next day my comment and the article was gone. Apparently someone agreed with me, the device proved over-unity of energy is possible because they removed the article. I should have kept silent. I doubt they would have figured it out. Something to think about. Maybe you could try to repeat their experiment to see if the claim was legit?
@@matthewmullin8168 Over-unity is indeed possible. The exponentially expanding space with distance is empirical evidence that it is possible, IE dark energy. Scientists just don't know why or how it is possible in space. I figured out how to recreate the effect on Earth to produce clean energy on demand, without having to use radioactive particles or rare elements. Research sonoluminescence. More energy is produced than what does into the experiments. They take sound with low energy and send it into an air bubble suspended in water and the air bubble expands and collapses to the point where the sound converts into visible light and heat, 50,000° F. Proof that over-unity of energy is possible. Ignoring the evidence for any reason would be an act of ignorance.
if the outer disk is a strong magnet and inner disks are coils, that rotation can be easily converted into electric energy. Much love from Kenya, East Africa
I have 3 of those power balls and they're killers! I just want to add that yes they're difficult to start up at first, going against the grain so to speak, you do a kind of circular rotation with the hand from the wrist. But then once its in "flow" its just a wrist rotation left and right and the hand no longer needed to do a rotation. So I'm thinking, if you can start it up and put it in a device that only goes left and right, maybe can generate the resistance via sea waves or wind. to be consistent it would need to harness and spread evenly at the correct speed?
Even if you could convert this into a usable energy source, the earth's rotational energy is a nonrenewable resource. There isn't much we can do to speed the rotation back up. It may not be much, but it will never come back, and humanity isn't historically known for its restraint in energy use.
I feel like this inevitably comes back to the same problem mentioned at the beginning of the video with other theoretical methods of harnessing Earth's rotational energy: You need some external element to have it act upon. If we were to set up some type of gyro based generator using this method, it would require the same thing that the exercise ball does to function. A separate, "planetary orbital ring" which wraps entirely around the Earth and yet does not spin alongside it. Then we could use it to generate the friction needed....But at that point there would be far simpler ways to harness the rotational energy, without needed a gyroscope
@@diamondcreeper0982 by far lol, but to be fair we have spent decades making nuclear better/cheaper. And this wouldn’t necessarily need a full ball wrap around the earth, but a ring would do(even though thats still insane). You could basically just build a tower up to the ring with a roller on top to roll along the ring as we rotate and generate energy…would probably be cheaper than nuclear at that point. Buuut the “point” of having a planetary ring is ridiculous, and to make it not rotate with us would be basically impossible
I think the example of using america is because its the largest electrically consuming country on the planet, I think the implied information is "if it does X for America imagine the whole world"
You can get free energy if you made a station in space that has a long foldable pole with some sort of generator that uses wind as a power source. Basically the station is outside the atmosphere and the long pole with the generator will be inside the atmosphere created energy by atmospheric drag
if you look at the gyroball ..you need to provide a lot of energy in form of motion to get a very diminishing amount of energy to be output for a relatively short amount of time, spinning it for 30 seconds gives the LED’s about 20 seconds of power … so a 10 seconds loss of energy wasted… For the gyroscope power source to work it needs the maximum amount of speed at the equator (1600 KM/h) and that amount needs to be stored and multiplied to be fed back into it before any excess is then send into the grid. So to get the most out of it you need 2 or more gyroscopes feeding in into each other for maybe a few 100 thousand KWh which if any of the gyroscopes stop will immediately reduce to 0 after a few seconds or minutes
i love how you said "provide America with enough energy for 83000 years" instead of the world for 20000 years or whatever the amount. GO AMERICA!!!! happy 4th guys....
If you use the principle of the magnetic compass, you can harvest the magnetic energy of the earth. Use 3x electro magnet bars crossed on a center pivot. Let the wires touch a copper bowtie half positive and half negative, like a brush. So that only 1 is on at a time. This magnet wil rotate to North South until it drops off the bowtie. By this time the next magnet activate and so on. This will create a motor of which the stator is the earth.
What would happen if you made a gyro out of printed neodymium magnets? You said something in the video that hit a nail on the head for me. Our energy extraction methods leave us wanting. If we could truly create energy from matter and extract 100% of it we'd have unlimited fuel. The atomic realm holds the key by stripping protons and neutrons from the atoms of an object and cultivating the energetic reactions like Doc Browns Delorian in the second movie.
You can extract energy from earths rotation using a look skyhook. Lifting a lump of mass up to the geostationary orbit requires some energy. But at higher altitudes you can extract energy since the mass is pushed up due to the centrifugal force. The amount of energy is just limited by the length of the cable. At the end of the cable the mass is released.
Maybe with a mechanical advantage of "some absurdly huge number" to 1 Where we purposefully rotate the gyroscope with a similar mechanism as the ball (the gyroscope will stay perfectly 90° to the floor at all times) The Earth's rotation with the mechanical advantage will spin the gyroscope faster and faster to a set point of equilibrium and we extract the energy directly from the gyroscope
Thank you for this video and the work you do. The creator of this video requested input on potential solutions to break the barrier of using gyroscopes to extract energy,. One possibility is incorporating elements of the vandergrah generator using conical levitating bearings, that is, without taking advantage of China’s recent breakthrough extracting energy from quantum entanglement,… (also, incorporating concentric spheres and cyclotronic/collider principles in place of gyroscope rings, suspended via magnetic levitation is another option to completely remove the need for bearings thereby decreasing resistance.) In theory we could even incorporate ionic and/or harmonic frequency stabilization/propulsion to smooth rotational wobble.
Go to the poles, attach a metal bar EXACTLY at the center of rotation, connect the metal bar to your ball, connect your ball to some gears, connect your gears to some load like a spring or a generator, then. Bam! Free energy.
crazy how them space objects seem to operate like your rotation demo. also if you see this action lab, I just happened to be heating up my dab rig that has the same geometry on it! energy is all around.
Maybe applying gyroscopic principals to gears and do make it gear the rotational force of the earth down to the center of the gyroscope to rotate it faster. Then you could make the center out of a giant permanent magnet and make the loops around the gyroscope be the coils for collecting power. You could even potentially stabilize the gyroscopic generator depending on the flow of electricity that's released. To use the eddi currents to stabilize the whole system. Just a thought
In engineering, you have to take power into account, not just energy. The angular velocity of the Eart is quite small, so extracting energy above the one needed to compensate for dissipation (like air resistance, friction, etc) is quite difficult.
The Soviets tried building these things for decades, and only ever got a few watts of power generation. The main issue is the scale; you'd need to build a gyroscope on a scale comparable to a small planet to get a useful output of energy, due to the slow spin speed. Using a series of orbital rings, you might be able to get it to work, but there's much more useful things you could do with orbital rings to provide power. A much more realistic possibility would be to melt an iron/nickel asteroid into a sphere deep in space using solar-pumped mirrors, then build a flywheel on one of its poles. You could then spin it up with the flywheel, converting the asteroid into a giant mechanical battery (to store nuclear or solar power) and then you could extract that energy from the flywheels on its poles and beam that back to Earth via a MASER and ground Rectenna setup on an as-needed basis. Even if the asteroid was only a few cubic miles, it could store enough power to run entire nations for years, and would have something like 85+% efficiency as a battery.
@@janimelender2674 Yeah, hard to find much info these days. I read about the Soviet experiments with gyroscopic energy generation about twenty years ago in college. No idea how to find that info today, sorry. The flywheel battery thing is pretty well known, though. I'm sure there are multiple RUclips videos that explain it better than I could. Using it to spin up an asteroid is my idea, but it's based on plans for how to control the rotation of O'Neill style orbital habitats that NASA was studying decades ago. It's all fairly easy to understand once you know how flywheel batteries work, though. If you stand on an object, like an asteroid, and spin up a flywheel in your hand, the asteroid below you will start to spin in the opposite rotation. Essentially the same as having two flywheels atop each other, each wanting to counter the spin of the other.
I think the main issues are that you'd need a frame bigger than the entire earth, connect it to the earth precisely in two places, and then it'd be massive massive generators would be required, that wouldn't just explode with the force. Plus, if you speed up the slowing down of earth's rotation, you could cause all sorts of issues (granted, it'd likely take thousands/millions of years, but still).
We are already harvesting rotation energy from earth. It's called wind energy as wind is generated by two forces: Sunlight and earth rotation. There would also be wind if there was no earth rotation but there would be less and weaker wind.
Ok I know how to do it : you put two big masses in balance on an horizontal axe (the axe is on vertical pole), the whole system is at the top (North) of the planet. If you quickly flip the axe vertically (as if it was a clock's hands spinning), then the two masses will suddenly have a momentum that is in the opposite direction of the spinning of the planet. This should cause a torque in the middle of the horizontal axe relative to the pole.
I think you could argue that we are already extracting energy from the rotation of the Earth. The Coriolis effect due the rotation of the Earth contributes to atmospheric circulation which we can and do harvest in wind turbines.
The wind is caused by the sun and is thus an extension of solar energy, not Earth's rotational energy, I think.
And the Coriolis effect only applies to and explains regional/local phenomena, not the whole atmosphere's interaction with the outer empty vacuum space, I think.
@@theaman1786 I believe that both of you are correct, but I’m not sure and I’m no expert. The atmosphere is a complex enough system so that both statements can be true, or at least partially true.
The Coriolis effect is absolute bullshit. No sniper shoots 70 feet to the left to accommodate for the spin of the earth. No arplane or flying craft of any kind has earth rotation factored in to its navigation.
We also use this for launching spacecraft.
if we chose to extract energy from earth's revolution it will just fall towards the sun. Remember kids, energy is always conserved.
Yes: tidal enegery! That can be harnassed, and it already is.
It's the Earth's rotation being "shaken" by the Moon's gravity. Don't get bigger in terms of "ball + hand" than that!
That’s what I was thinking. The wind currents and ocean currents. Water is way denser than air though.
Edit: My favorite is a start up called Eco Wave Power. It‘s on the NASDAQ.
True, but tidal energy is effectively useless when you consider the cost/kw and energy density.
@@g.4279 Yup, solar will be much cheaper. Yet at some point manufacturing might become cheap enough so that tidal can have its application in dark and cold environments, or where wind turbines would suffer too much, like the Arctic for instance.
@@g.4279 Tidal power accounts for less than 1% of world wide electrical generation, but that still represents a few gigawatts on average.
Tidal power is easiest to harvest where the geography funnels tides through a small channel. This concentrates the energy making it cost effective to harvest.
Ig that's moons kinetic energy
2 gyros on the same axle spinning in opposite directions would cancel each others precession out. Now you can save the world, you're welcome. Seriously though, you don't need to let the gyro turn, the problem was more likely that they couldn't keep friction lower than the amount of energy that could be harvested.
That would also cancel and net gyroscopic action. Of course they would still react to changes in orientation but the forces would only act on the axle.
@@whatelseison8970 Can you explain what you mean by "net gyroscopic action". The idea was to harvest energy from the rigidity in space.
Two flywheels, or "gyros" on the same axle spinning in opposite directions would "help" each others rigidity in space, but the directions of their precession that was claimed to be the problem would be in opposite directions, and thereby canceling each other out.
Replying to you I just realized the idea has a much more fundamental problem. Rigidity in space is relative, rotating flywheels doesn't resist turning, they resist changes in direction and speed of turning. Their idea was fundamentally flawed.
Great video, and really interesting idea! And i find it funny how the problem you run into here seems to be the same as referred to as "gimbal lock" in 3d animation. You'd think that describing the rotation of a 3d object you'd be fine with just an x y and c coordinate, but since they are influencing each other in a hierarchy you end up in these situations where they line up and you have no axis left for the rotation you want. Therefore it's popular to use quaternions, aka 4d numbers to describe rotations that don't run in to the same problem. I wonder if this translates directly to the mechanics of the gyroscope and number of rings and how they are connected. And if it would be possible to mechanically construct a "quaternion" gyroscope with 4 rings and somehow get around this problem maybe??
What if you have a multi gyroscope? Or a gyroscope within a gyroscope?🤔
Russian nesting gyro's
Not gonna do anything. They all will stay stationary with respect to each other
What if we used gasoline to power a gyroscope to make it look like it is free energy and scam the government for billions in funding… oh wait wind and solar did that already. 😕
Then you'll have a gyrogyroscope
What if you put a gyroscope in the sandwich known as the gyro?? You could eat it completely flat without stuff spilling out
Another great video that is to the point and doesn't drag out watch time thanks for all the great content. Ps I love your shirt
What about instead of a gyroscope, you used a Foucault Pendulum? It swings based on the Earths rotation, needs no introduced force like a gyroscopic mass, and can exert energy without (noticeable or appreciable) slowing (in the cases Ive seen, knocking down pegs). Could it be used to generate a weak electromagnetic field by passing a magnet over a coil?
But the balancing pendulum requires some energy to go forth and forward (unless I didn't understand what you meant). It will be strongly slowed down by the magnet.
I went to the exploration place and they had one and yea it knocked down pegs. It was used as a clock so it must be fairly consistent.
Using that as a magnet moving to generate current in a coil seems an interesting idea
Maybe with a modification you could extract rotational energy rather than extracting the kinetic energy of the pendulum swinging. If the pendulum mass was on a solid rod (like a hammer for example) and the end was hinged to a disk or something that could rotate at the pivot point, then you could extract rotational energy as the earth rotated under the pendulum. Operating the thing in a vacuum would help reduce friction losses. Using magnetic bearings at the pivot point would be beneficial too to reduce friction losses.
@@mb-3faze If this method was true we would need multi ton swinging balls on a large scale, vacuum chambers that large are not feasible.
I saw you at the beach last night! Hope you enjoyed that INCREDIBLE show!
The public almost put on a better show than the pros right?? That was crazy!
Thanks for all the great content, you've taught me many things over the years.
in case of a frictionless disc would it slow down if you were extracting energy? Anyway the power used to keep the wheel spinning will probably be greater than what you get.
No
You are extracting energy at 90 degrees to the disk
So a frictionless disk held at the proper locations would not extract any energy from the disk
It extracts it from the earth
Yes, if you turn a spinning gyroscope, it drastically slows down
The amount of energy available is tiny, any attempt to exploit it will kill it.
@@aspiringscientificjournali1505 ..Ight google babe..)/* only reason to extract energy would be to keep the day constant length.. and there's a point to that..)/* might as well run copper around the equator and see if we can tap some ether....) but hey, it seems to have formed a magnetic field of it's own and she happens to give us life, so how about you quit f'n with her magnetosphere, AY?
@@YouGloomy don't know enough to answer your question but I've been thinking about making some flywheel based batteries and the water idea is very interesting.
If you slow the earth from the surface, wouldn't the core keep spinning at the previous speed? Would it create turbulence in the outer core and mantle? Would that increase the magnetic field of the earth? The idea of extracting energy from earth's rotation bring up so many more questions.
LOL
I've been waiting for someone with top shelf content to cover this topic! Thank you so much for everything you do and for making science fun for anyone who watches. Your channel is the best on youtube ✌🤟🖖
The functioning of a gyroscope was one of the coolest homework problems I had in Physics I in college.
Thank you for these videos!! They're really interesting and educate lots of people!
Unfortunately he got the physics and his conclusion dead wrong. The educators need to understand the topic before they are helping. As I and other commenter pointed out, conservation of angular momentum means you can't extract energy from the earth's spin this way
Can you make metal “self-heal” itself in a vacuum chamber? The layer of oxidized metal prevents it from happening in our atmosphere but in a vacuum chamber it should work, right? You should give it a shot! I’m curious to see 🤔
Is it cold welding. I guess he has one video.
That is a very interesting question
I remember i had the same thoughts when i was studying 12th grade chemistry
I would be interested to find it out as well
Thinking about your video and here it comes!!
Conservation of angular momentum means you can't extract rotational energy from a closed system at equilibrium. The best you can do is to find some part of the Earth that spins at a different rate to the surface, then extract work from that mass by bringing its rotation speed to equal that of the surface.
Wrong well idea is right application is wrong
Motors word specifically by turning angular momentum into heat an electricity
Allow me to prove it
It I had a motor in space
Rotating body and head 1rpm
With a small battery on the head and a gyroscope on the head face 90 degrees in the direction of rotation
If the gyro turns on its resistance to motion would cause the head to rotate or “not rotate” and that energy would be quickly converted to electrical
and jk about dingus part .. but Darren ..please check it out
@aspiring scientific journalist Also a cow
_"Motors word specifically by turning angular momentum into heat an electricity."_
1) Motors turn electricity into work. Generators turn work into electricity.
2) You are confusing angular momentum with rotational kinetic energy. Kinetic energy can be transformed into other forms of energy. Angular momentum can't be converted to energy but it can be transferred from one object to another.
If you see a generator stop moving it's because the angular momentum of the rotor was transferred to the Earth via the stator. The kinetic energy was transformed into electricity and heat.
_"If the gyro turns on its resistance to motion would cause the head to rotate or “not rotate” and that energy would be quickly converted to electrical"_
Maybe. It will also cause the whole system to rotate around a third perpendicular axis as shown in the video. If you want to call this a proof you should at least show that the energy generated is higher than the energy used to spin up the gyro.
@@aspiringscientificjournali1505 gyros do not resist turning, they just turn 90 degrees offset to the direction you try to make them turn.
With clever arangements, bunch of gymbals and low friction bearings, you can use that to keep track of direction, but the moment you try to apply force on it, it will turn around on some axis.
Also, if you run a motor in space, the shaft will rotate one direction, while the casing will rotate the opposite direction, perfectly in line with the law of conservation of angular momentum.
I thought the conclusion at the end would be this. This is a theoretically unsolvable problem, not just an engineering challenge.
I don't know what the solution would be, but I guarantee it would involve being closer to the center of rotation, so at one of the axial poles. If you can somehow multiply the rotational inertia, through a series of pulleys or some other mechanism pulling the center of mass inward, you could potentially generate additional speed similar to a figure skater.
Even if you were able to do that, wouldn't it make the Earth spin a little slower every year? That'd be catastrophic, mind you.
Yes but, as @The Action Lab stated, you'd have to extract truly titanic amounts of energy in order for the slowdown to even be measurable, let alone catastrophic.
@@GumbootMan yeah, kinda like you'd have to extract truly titanic amounts of energy from oil in order for the effect on climate to be measurable...
yep, we humans are capable of that
@@vincentletard7379 Once humans see the amount of energy, they will see a way to use it...
@@vincentletard7379 He says at the beginning of the video that with the US consumption it would take thousands of years to even slow the earth by 1 second
@@vincentletard7379 literally millions of orders of magnitude of difference. Windmills are already extracting rotational energy from Earth
year of 2050: extracting energy by slowing down rotation of the Earth
year of 2100: extracting energy by slowing down speed of the Earth
year of 2150: extracting energy from free falling on the Sun
The Earth wouldn't slow down sense gravity makes it spins, slowing down the speed of the Earth only works by moving it away from the sun, making the earth free fall to the sun would take moving it closer
We already do extract energy from the earths rotation. We use something that is not in direct contact with the earth, and use that to move a "mechanism" that drives other machines that extract the energy. The mechanism is called: tides. The thing not in contact with the earth is: the moon. The frictional losses are absolutely massive, so its hardy efficient, but the energy involved is phenomenal, so even a very inefficient system is capable of extracting huge amounts of energy. Then people start to worry about ecological damage, and it gets a whole lot more complicated.
Nice ! You're always making cool videos, thanks !
I believe my family was sitting next to you at the 4th of July parade. Thought I recognized your voice! Continue your awesome work with educational videos!
Imagine for a moment that we develop a working method to extract energy from the rotation of the Earth. Now imagine this successful method gets applied globally, by all developed countries.
The phrase "extract energy" is key here. With a large implementation of this, we would undoubtedly slow the rotation of the planet. Doing so, even a little, would have catastrophic effects on our civilization due to the climate change it would cause. Days and nights would become much longer, temperature shift between the two would become much larger. Seasonal extremes, much deeper.
Extracting a second of rotational speed from the Earth yields enough energy to power the US for 83,000 years. The US consumes about 4 GW/h/yr of energy, which is 1/6th of entire planet energy consumption at 24 GW/h/yr. So divide 83,000 years by 6, and you can power the entire planet for 13,833 years and you'll have slowed its rotation by only 1 second at the end of of those 13 millenia. Even factoring in increased efficiency with technological progress and greater energy demands, that amount of drag on the planet's rotation is negligible on climate.
Better than fossil fuel
Maybe if we like, actually significantly slowed the Earth. But he said at the start, only slowing it by one second yields an insane amount of energy that we'd use over thousands of years. Obviously we'll grow in energy needs but for the time being, the effect is minimal on the Earth.
It seems to me that there is a process on earth that mimics the motion of your hand that is free. Waves!
It seems you need a reciprocating motion to extract energy. Maybe instead of the Earth's rotation, we capture the Earth's subtle wobble, like the gyro ball?
We could extract energy from the rotation by creating a space elevator with a circular chain, delivering heavy rocks to an orbit high enough so that they get flung away by the rotation of the earth. That centrifugal force can drive the elevator to carry up more rocks, and it can deliver energy we can gather by putting generators to the circular chain.
The problem only is that we have no material to construct such an elevator. Nothing is strong enough to sustain the forces of that pull under its own weight for a length of thousands of kilometers.
@cåññâbëār Don’t feed the troll!
It's relatively not a good idea you'd need to have a huge amount of weight to produce any energy that moves relative to the earth. Tonnes of water moving in a dam produces only a few kilowatt of energy so even if anything like this works you'd need to balance a million tonnes of weight on an axis to produce a few megawatt hours of energy. Just do the calculation you'll realize.
Energy from rotating movement -> energy gyro ball -> solar energy -> electric energy -> ( use the electric energy to power the rotating decice) AND VOILÀ! INFINITE SOURCE OF ENERGY
Futurama tried extracting energy from the earths rotation, it was a bad idea lol.
Dankie!
Actually, we do have machines that harvest Earth's angular momentum and turn that into energy, nowadays, although they do it indirectly.
They are called wind turbines :)
Well, actually no. The winds used for windturbines have mostly nothing to do with earths rotation.
Tidal powerplants on the other hand do in fact kinda use earths rotation indirectly to harvest energy.
@@matthiaskritzinger5509 Cyclones and anticyclones are formed from the Coriolis force on the movement of air from the equator to the poles in Hadley cells - this directly converts energy from the motion into heat which ultimately gets radiated to space. Wind turbines capture this energy and do useful work for us in the process, converting more of this energy to heat. Converting kinetic energy to radiation *must* cause the Earth to slow down, however imperceptibly.
Tidal powerplants work because the Moon's and Sun's gravity potentials have different magnitudes on the near and far sides of the Earth causing it to deform to raise and lower a large mass of water which can be made to do work, as energy is transferred from the Earth to the Moon.
However, a rotating body that doesn't have tides can't generate energy in that way, but the Coriolis force could be exploited using water turbines in the Gulf Stream.
@@ahaveland Thx for your reply. Of course in aware of the effect the coriolis force (and so earths rotation) have on global windstreams. However windturbines mostly dont use these kind of windstreams as they can be to strong and/or are way to high in the air or far in the open sea (early sailers used jetstreams to get across the atlantic for example). Of course im not an expert on windturbines, but thats the point i wanted to get across.
Also as you said correctly tides are a direct energy transfer between earths rotation and the moon slowing the earths rotation down till earths rotationspeed is at the same angular momentum of the moon falling around earth. At that point the tides no longer exsist making tidal powerplants useless. So in the end - to get my second point across - tidal powerplants harvest a bit of that energytransfer between moon and earth which in turn is caused by earths rotation meaning that they practically do harvest energy from earths rotation itself.
Anyways, thx for your reply! Have a nice day :)
@@matthiaskritzinger5509 I never claimed that the air produced by the coriolis effect was the ONLY source of air whose energy wind turbines convert. But whatever little part of that air's energy is converted, it still makes wind turbines machines that, at some level, indirectly turn earth's rotation into energy. So, actually, yeah. My point is still valid.
Gyroscopes are for direction/guidance. Let's take a frisbee like disc. Inside are 3 grooved walls from the outside in. The center is free floating while the walls are lockable. Hand cranked to keep centrifugal force going (the start being a large "skeet" shooting lever), with gyroscopes at 16 points along the outside. Each gyroscope is able to be engaged (by being brought in closer to the center).
extract energy from the Earth's *spin* using *gyro(scopes)*
Gyro Zeppeli was right all along
Agreed
Reducing the earths rotation without applying an external force would violate the conservation of angular momentum. You can do it with the help of the moon or the sun like the tides do.
Since the centripetal force is stronger at the equator than any other point above or under the equator, then I guess we could join a (very) long pipe between any point above /under the equator and the equator itself.
We'd obtain two different pressure at each end of the pipe. The pipe needs to be tangential, not perpendicular to equator's plane.
Except Earth is not a sphere. Since the poles are squashed AKA downhill AKA closer to the center, Earth's gravity is not perfectly perpendicular to the surface along the "slope" from equator down to the poles. This gravitational force component along the surface perfectly cancels out with the force you described above. Otherwise Earth's surface would not be in equilibrium (ignoring Lunar tides).
@@JWQweqOPDH
You mean someone actually calculated that ? If you have any link, I'd be interested. That's quite surprising, considering that earth is not even symmetrical so if what you say is true, it can't work for both sides anyway. But it's a good point.
The average surface of the ocean over time MUST be perpendicular to the net force, or the water would move until it was.
@@JWQweqOPDH
That's not related to the curvature-centripal ratio (unless you have a more detailed answer). The best case to highlight your claim would be to imagine a planet made only of water with a uniform density.
If in that case, the difference between centripetal forces at the equator and any other point can't be used as a source of energy, then yes your hypothesis is valid.
@@En_theo Putting it a different way, harvesting energy requires a lowering of energy within the source. We need to reduce the rotational energy of Earth by some miniscule amount. We can change the moment of inertia by moving mass closer or farther from the axis of rotation. We can't change the angular momentum since we are part of Earth and momentum is conserved unless there is a force interaction with something beyond Earth (such as Lunar tides, which I will be ignoring for now). With angular momentum constant, rotational energy is directly proportional to angular velocity. We want to reduce Earth's rotational energy, thus we want to reduce Earth's rotational velocity. To do so, we can increase the moment of inertia of Earth. For example, space rockets IRL might be trucked/flown closer to the equator prior to launch. Since the equator is "uphill", as I discussed previously, the truck does not roll there naturally. The truck drives normally. However, the rocket now has more kinetic energy near the equator, in relation to an outside reference frame, and the Earth has a miniscule amount less. We could steal rotational energy from the Earth by simply lifting heavy objects, such as pumping water to a mountain reservoir, at the equator, since at the equator "up" is away from Earth's axis of rotation. However, we couldn't harvest that energy as it takes more energy to lift than is stolen from Earth's spin. Instead, we can move mass along Earth's surface from the poles to the equator. However, moving the mass will be difficult, as we'll need many ton-miles moved just to generate some energy. Even worse, we have to store everything we move permanently at the destination. If we let move water and dump it in the ocean, it will just move back. So we will move mass onto land, like a landfill, from the poles to the equator. As the Earth's rotation slows, the centripetal force at the equator lessens. The ocean levels there lowers and ocean levels at the poles rise. The even worse part is, that's where our harvestable energy is! The space rocket needs energy within an external reference frame to get into space, but we're still here on the ground. A mountain at the equator contains more kinetic energy than one at the poles, but it's still a mountain just sitting there. Sure if we built rockets out of it, they'd be slight easier to launch, because it's already moving, but we don't care that it's moving because it's moving with us. We could harvest the movement of the oceans toward to poles, but the oceans already move without human intervention (Lunar tides) why put so much effort into moving them?
If we had a coil of wire around the earth and far enough away so there is an insulation between the magnet (earth) and the copper coil, could you generate a charge? Theoretically?
For this to work out the coil would have to move relative to earth magnetic field.And if we assume that earths magnetic field does nearly not move relative to earths surface,the coil would have to move relative to earths surface. So since initially it would move due to conservation of momentum, you would have to spin it up first. And this will take the same energy to do as you could theoretically extract from it afterwards, cause by doing so, you would slow it down relative to earths surface. So no it would not work.
Nice idea, but as soon as you would take energy from the coil, the coil will begin to spin with the earth because of the electromagnetic force that generates the energy. Eventualy it wil become in sync with the earth and you will need to put as much energy back into it (probably even more due to losses) to get it stationary again. So you would need to tie a rope around the sun or moon to anchor it to something.
But getting energy from the moons rotation is much easier as it already creates the tides in the sea which we can use to extract energy from, another question would be how much are we slowing the moons rotation by harvesting tidal energy ;-)
You need alternating magnetic fields...
@@AndreVanKammen we will not slow down the moon, but the earth,since earth has higher angular speed, than the moon has. (in fact, earths day once where roundabout at 12hours, and it slowed down, due to the tides, while the moon got faster,and is constantly moving away from earth.
@@AndreVanKammen None much? We aren't making moon waste more energy for tides by using them. Tides are already there,.
Something that moves with the tides
As one wise man one said “THERE IS NO FREE ENERGY DEVICE”
The Sun is cool
I mean a watermill is pretty free
LOL
Yepp! Just another misconception about conservation of momentum and energy. Isaac Newton recognized in his famous Lex III, every force creates a reaction force to preserve momentum. Harnessing energy from a gyroscope would provide a reactionless energy extraction. The dream of all perpetua mobile builders. The reason, why this does not work is simple: All accelerations, that form a particular angular momentum cancel out. This is the reason, drift of gyroscopes are not only determined by earth's rotation, but by friction. Proof: Two counterrotating gyroscopes on the same axis cancel their angular momentum: L-L=0. The only physically sound possibility to impart momentum against the fabric of spacetime itself is provided by the Alcubierre metrics (sic).
The problem is, if you're removing 0.001% of Earth's angular momentum, you've gotta put that somewhere. It can't just disappear. So you're putting it into the gyros? Sure. Fine. But they're gonna be saturated very rapidly after which point energy will want to flow the other direction.
The minimum possible energy state of a rotating system is when all parts of the system are rotating at the same speed (not angular speed, though for a rigid body that's the likely outcome). Any other state is a higher energy state.
I don't see how you're gonna drop the energy state of a gyroscope below that of Earth without net input of energy. For the exact same reason that attaching a heat engine to your refrigerator doesn't gain you net surplus energy taken from latent heat.
The only type of (nearly) unsaturable reservoirs I'm aware of are things that have negative potential energy somewhere in the mix.
For examples of negative potential energy, dumping energy into an object in orbit will reduce the speed of the object, though this is saturable once it reaches escape velocity. Dumping energy into a planet, in the form of mass, increases that planets' escape velocity. Dumping heat into the interior of a star (say, from fusion) expands and cools that star. Dumping mass into a neutron star or white dwarf compacts it further and dramatically increases the escape velocity. Dumping anything into a black hole makes it larger but does not affect its escape velocity, and also makes it colder.
The types of objects that work as unsaturable energy reservoirs all have an inverse or zero relation between the ground potential at the object, and the energy input, and this doesn't change regardless of how much you throw in. So even things like orbits or stars only work in the sense that you can wait for them to radiate energy away and THEN dump more energy in. The only ones that work as truly unlimited energy dumping reservoirs are compact objects, especially black holes.
I think the main research problems are obvious. The component materials that you make the gyroscope from and how to cost effectively convert and transmit that constant theoretical energy. Obviously, by up-scaling your gyroscope so that it delivers the energetic results originally theorised, with an electrically induced magnetic current generator gyroscope. Ie. frictionless. I would start my own elemental component dreaming/theorising, with barium sulphate, Weldbond and pure magnetite crystals. Great video you fellas, enormously intriguing.
The Moon 🌚 works this way ,by stealing Earth's 🌍 rotation and launching itself into a higher orbit
Thank you for the video! ☺♥ ☼
It is hardly a free energy, though I think it would be probably more feasible to extract energy from the Coriolis force. The thing is the Earth's rotation is really slow so it is quite hard to extract energy from it. Maybe with some gear shift added as well...
The impossibility of this idea is easy to check - just try to come up with a way to use a gyroscope to spin the carousel on which you yourself are, without relying on anything other than the carousel itself. if you succeed, consider that you have deceived the laws of physics, because a motor is the same as a generator)
How does conservation of angular momentum allow that to happen?
It doesn't, this is pseudoscience.
It doesn't. The video is kind of nonsense. Or at least the "this perpetual motion machine doesn't work, but maybe you can invent one"
If you thought the greenhouse effect was bad, wait until you get a load of Earth rotation stoppage.
LMAO
The atmosphere takes some rotational energy of the earth via coriolis to different latitudes. Some of the wind's energy will be dissipated because of frictional drag (eg tree leaves flapping producing heat) so angular momentum is not perfectly conserved. So wind does slow earth down but not by blowing on mountains etc but by the good old 2 law of thermodynamics. The earth has so much mass it's effect is so small though. If earth were turned to Minecraft blocks and they were laid in a line it would be as big as the milky ways diameter.
yeah i was thinking of similar stuff... like isn't part of what we extract from wind and ocean energies somewhat originated from earth's rotation.... yeah probably not that big compared to all other factors but just thought it'd make sense that overall wind blowing west is stronger than the other direction.
Wind is caused by heat and pressure differentials via the sun. At least the vast majority of the wind
Coriolis forces don't add energy. The energy of wind comes from convection currents from solar heating. Coriolis forces just redirect that energy, conserving angular momentum in the process.
Even if you can harness the power of hurricanes you are NOT taking away from the spin of earth by one bit. The angular momentum of the earth in the end is still perfectly conserved. The total angular momentum of the earth and hurricane combined, plus all satellites in orbit, is still perfectly conserved regardless of how you look at it.
The atmosphere does NOT take the rotational energy out of earth. The wind is blowing because the sun heats it up, the convection causes currents, and then earth's rotation turns those currents into different directions. But the energy that the wind has is not coming from earth's rotation.
Conservation of angular momentum is a thing, just as real as conservation of energy.
Tesla came up with an idea to extract energy from the earth's rotation. He said we just need to build a structure that circles the earth at the equator which when completed, would no longer need any supports as it would float independently because gravity would be pulling on it equally all around the world. He posited that since this structure is now independent from the earth, the earth would rotate under it and generators could be made to turn from the earth's rotation. Genius.
I am wondering if any material could withstand the compressive forces on such a ring. I do think it is a great thought experiment.
@@flamencoprof I believe the entire structure would only be under 1 g. I think the real issue would be supporting the structure while under construction in the areas that cross oceans. Floating platforms may not be stable enough.
Extracting energy from earth rotation sounds like a bad idea since you make earth rotation slower and slower. I know it would take a really long time to significantly slow down earth rotation, but still better to keep it the same way since our life depends on it.
The Moon is already slowing it down. That's why we have leap seconds on occasion.
Our lives also depend on clean energy.
The Earth has a rotational kinetic energy of 2,138×10^29 J. World primary energy consumption fell to 556,63x10^18 in 2020. At that rate it would take approximately 384.097.156 years for the Earth to stop.
If we can use Earth's rotational energy as an environmentally friendly alternative to carbon based fuels right now, in a million years or so we can start to put energy back into the system.
It's already happening and has been for a very long time, 3.5 billion years ago years ago a day was ~12 hours. Tidal forces from the Sun result in the Earths spin slowing down over time. The Earth has already stopped the Moon's rotation via the same process. Given enough time the sun will do the same to the Earth.
IIRC, a guy in Wales did this. He used a big gyro off a cruise ship, he extracted power to light a cabin.
Why does this concept of slowing earth down in order to extract energy sounds like a bad idea? 😅
Nice video nontheless
I don’t know any of the words you are saying, but i just like the thought of free elicticity
Three things no one is talking about: First off, to spin the gyroscope that fast, it takes a bit of energy. Secondly, what if you lock the inner rim on the stand like so that the gyroscope has no way of turning sideways. Thirdly, if that's not possible, or it works poorly, just rotate the entire thing 90° and it will work like it did before.
ya and its even worse if you try to scale it up. imagine the weight of a gyroscope large enough needed to extract energy from the earth. Imagine spinning that thing up super fast and KEEPING it spun up. ya dump idea
I have two gyro balls that produce energy when shaken for a few minutes and it doesn't take much external energy. Very efficient.
@@BIindsid3 flywheels don't have any interent reason that they would slow without external force. Resistance from air or friction or any other way of transferring the rotational energy to anything else basically.
Locking the flywheel orientation to the rod takes the force and applies it to the entire rod instead of just the the flywheel. It TWISTS the rod. The one thing I've noticed hands-on that makes it hard to to extract EXTERNAL energy... the gyro slows down if you resist the twist. Not sure why, but I think it's either transferring the rotational energy of the flywheel into the torque on the rod, then that force ultimate travels into the ground... Or it increases the friction on the axle of the flywheel. Can't really tell with the cheap setup I have. (A toy gyroscope held in my hands with no modifications or measurement devices.)
In other words, in my experience this is only a way to DEPOSIT energy, not really extract it. Maybe there is something I'm missing, but it seems to me that it would be like trying to recover the energy of a rocket by firing the thruster in the opposite direction. It's using energy to resist energy.
Actually... Now I'm wondering if such a setup could be used to desaturate flywheels in space by swinging them them back and forth while locked... Each swing would reduce the speed of the flywheel and cause a torque on the spacecraft. If you then swing it the other direction the flywheel slows more, but counteracts the torque from the previous swing reducing the rational energy of the entire system...
That would violate conservation wouldn't it? I must be wrong. Maybe the energy would become heat or something? Either way I'm gonna have to build out the experiment and see what's up. Saturated flywheels in space is a big ol problem for long term missions.
@@wrencharmratchet7629 Wow that must have taken an eternity to write down lol
@@leolipasti maybe... I lose track of time extremely easily. I had fun.
If I wanted to actually play with this, it would be good to actually do some physics. Maybe simulate. But really, it'd be so cheap to set this up, and the rig could be used for a bunch of different demonstrations.
Here's the ultimate question:
What happens to the angular momentum of Earth?
If you can't dump that somewhere, you can't get energy from moving it there. And you certainly can't just make it disappear.
Moving energy from something rotating quickly to something rotating slowly releases energy. Moving energy from something rotating slowly to something rotating quickly costs energy.
That's a good question. While the conservation of energy holds (we just take energy from the Earth rotation and convert it into work, and then heat), the angular momentum needs to go somewhere.
Maybe we could look at the Earth-Moon system? If we can independently vary the Earth's rotation speed and Moon's orbital speed, we might be able to end up with a net zero change in angular momentum but still move energy around. And we can slow down or (theoretically) accelerate the moon using ocean power.
You can’t extract energy from the spinning globe because the earth is flat with a firmament above.
0:15 the earth is spinning the wrong way
Several years ago I read a paper submitted to the physics journal by a Harvard professor and his students doing an experiment on a vacuum chambered glass container. They wanted to see if they could suspend hydrogen gas in the container using a magnetic field. They discovered that hydrogen gas could be suspended in the container using a weak magnetic field. Then, they wondered what would happen if they passed visible light into the container. They claimed that the light went into the hydrogen and came out as high energy X-rays and heat. They claimed they measured a temperature inside the container around 54,000° F. That was nearly the same temperature that scientists measured in sonoluminescence experiments, suspending an air bubble in water and hitting it with sound. The sound caused the air bubble to vibrate, causing it expand and contract converting the sound into heat and a bright light in the center of the air bubble. They measured a temperature around 50,000° F around the air bubble. I congratulated them on discovering over-unity of energy.
Well, I then got the idea that we could use hydrogen suspended in a vacuum chamber to produce heat. Similar to the thermal energy produced by radioactive particles in nuclear reactors but without the dangerous radiation. Nuclear reactors use thermoelectric generators to convert heat into electricity. The same thing could be done using hydrogen suspended in a vacuum and then hitting the hydrogen with visible light. Lots of thermal energy is produced that could in theory be converted into a constant current of electricity. The only difference is the hydrogen would not be radioactive and would not lose it's ability to generate heat over time like radioactive particles do. Plus hydrogen wouldn't produce radioactive waste.
I'd love to provide the link to the article but I commented on the article congratulating the professor and the next day my comment and the article was gone. Apparently someone agreed with me, the device proved over-unity of energy is possible because they removed the article. I should have kept silent. I doubt they would have figured it out. Something to think about.
Maybe you could try to repeat their experiment to see if the claim was legit?
1) converting light to heat is not novel, it's what a piece of black paper does when exposed to sunlight
2) overunity is impossible
@@matthewmullin8168 Over-unity is indeed possible. The exponentially expanding space with distance is empirical evidence that it is possible, IE dark energy. Scientists just don't know why or how it is possible in space. I figured out how to recreate the effect on Earth to produce clean energy on demand, without having to use radioactive particles or rare elements.
Research sonoluminescence. More energy is produced than what does into the experiments. They take sound with low energy and send it into an air bubble suspended in water and the air bubble expands and collapses to the point where the sound converts into visible light and heat, 50,000° F. Proof that over-unity of energy is possible. Ignoring the evidence for any reason would be an act of ignorance.
if the outer disk is a strong magnet and inner disks are coils, that rotation can be easily converted into electric energy.
Much love from Kenya, East Africa
Friction. The bane of "free energy" everywhere.
That's exactly right.
The bane of mechanical engineering.
I have 3 of those power balls and they're killers! I just want to add that yes they're difficult to start up at first, going against the grain so to speak, you do a kind of circular rotation with the hand from the wrist. But then once its in "flow" its just a wrist rotation left and right and the hand no longer needed to do a rotation. So I'm thinking, if you can start it up and put it in a device that only goes left and right, maybe can generate the resistance via sea waves or wind. to be consistent it would need to harness and spread evenly at the correct speed?
Even if you could convert this into a usable energy source, the earth's rotational energy is a nonrenewable resource. There isn't much we can do to speed the rotation back up. It may not be much, but it will never come back, and humanity isn't historically known for its restraint in energy use.
Yeah the last thing we need is that kind of catastrophe. We already fucked earth big time for the next thousands of generations ...
Flat earthers have left the chat.
Real
True 😂🤣
I know that answers to these free energy questions are always no but I still watch the video every time lol
Earth doesn't spin!
I feel like this inevitably comes back to the same problem mentioned at the beginning of the video with other theoretical methods of harnessing Earth's rotational energy: You need some external element to have it act upon. If we were to set up some type of gyro based generator using this method, it would require the same thing that the exercise ball does to function. A separate, "planetary orbital ring" which wraps entirely around the Earth and yet does not spin alongside it. Then we could use it to generate the friction needed....But at that point there would be far simpler ways to harness the rotational energy, without needed a gyroscope
at this point, then nuclear energy becomes much cheaper compared to wrapping earth in a metallic ball.
@@diamondcreeper0982 by far lol, but to be fair we have spent decades making nuclear better/cheaper. And this wouldn’t necessarily need a full ball wrap around the earth, but a ring would do(even though thats still insane). You could basically just build a tower up to the ring with a roller on top to roll along the ring as we rotate and generate energy…would probably be cheaper than nuclear at that point. Buuut the “point” of having a planetary ring is ridiculous, and to make it not rotate with us would be basically impossible
If you slow the whole earth down for everyone on the planet by 1 second, you could power America for 83k years. That's a very American way of thinking
Yes. This is a disgusting US thinking...
I think the example of using america is because its the largest electrically consuming country on the planet, I think the implied information is "if it does X for America imagine the whole world"
@@jaisere US and Israel is one of the disgusting countries! Now they are stirring up shit in Ukraine! Atom them!
You can get free energy if you made a station in space that has a long foldable pole with some sort of generator that uses wind as a power source. Basically the station is outside the atmosphere and the long pole with the generator will be inside the atmosphere created energy by atmospheric drag
just need a device that can capture the 56k mph energy we travel around the sun! :P
if you look at the gyroball ..you need to provide a lot of energy in form of motion to get a very diminishing amount of energy to be output for a relatively short amount of time, spinning it for 30 seconds gives the LED’s about 20 seconds of power … so a 10 seconds loss of energy wasted…
For the gyroscope power source to work it needs the maximum amount of speed at the equator (1600 KM/h) and that amount needs to be stored and multiplied to be fed back into it before any excess is then send into the grid.
So to get the most out of it you need 2 or more gyroscopes feeding in into each other for maybe a few 100 thousand KWh which if any of the gyroscopes stop will immediately reduce to 0 after a few seconds or minutes
i love how you said "provide America with enough energy for 83000 years" instead of the world for 20000 years or whatever the amount. GO AMERICA!!!! happy 4th guys....
Oh we'd find a way to cut that in half lol
If you use the principle of the magnetic compass, you can harvest the magnetic energy of the earth.
Use 3x electro magnet bars crossed on a center pivot.
Let the wires touch a copper bowtie half positive and half negative, like a brush.
So that only 1 is on at a time.
This magnet wil rotate to North South until it drops off the bowtie.
By this time the next magnet activate and so on.
This will create a motor of which the stator is the earth.
Tidal forces, or ocean waves constant movement would be a perfect unlimited source that never stops.
You know its gonna be a good idea when there is a Futurama episode centered entirely around it. /s
What would happen if you made a gyro out of printed neodymium magnets? You said something in the video that hit a nail on the head for me. Our energy extraction methods leave us wanting. If we could truly create energy from matter and extract 100% of it we'd have unlimited fuel. The atomic realm holds the key by stripping protons and neutrons from the atoms of an object and cultivating the energetic reactions like Doc Browns Delorian in the second movie.
great content thanks
You can extract energy from earths rotation using a look skyhook. Lifting a lump of mass up to the geostationary orbit requires some energy. But at higher altitudes you can extract energy since the mass is pushed up due to the centrifugal force. The amount of energy is just limited by the length of the cable. At the end of the cable the mass is released.
Always wanted to know this
Maybe with a mechanical advantage of "some absurdly huge number" to 1
Where we purposefully rotate the gyroscope with a similar mechanism as the ball (the gyroscope will stay perfectly 90° to the floor at all times)
The Earth's rotation with the mechanical advantage will spin the gyroscope faster and faster to a set point of equilibrium and we extract the energy directly from the gyroscope
Thank you for this video and the work you do. The creator of this video requested input on potential solutions to break the barrier of using gyroscopes to extract energy,. One possibility is incorporating elements of the vandergrah generator using conical levitating bearings, that is, without taking advantage of China’s recent breakthrough extracting energy from quantum entanglement,… (also, incorporating concentric spheres and cyclotronic/collider principles in place of gyroscope rings, suspended via magnetic levitation is another option to completely remove the need for bearings thereby decreasing resistance.) In theory we could even incorporate ionic and/or harmonic frequency stabilization/propulsion to smooth rotational wobble.
Go to the poles, attach a metal bar EXACTLY at the center of rotation, connect the metal bar to your ball, connect your ball to some gears, connect your gears to some load like a spring or a generator, then. Bam! Free energy.
good video @The_Action_Lab this could be used for the future👍👍👍👍👍👍
@0:14 *AAAAAAH! You've extracted too much energy! You've made the earth spin backwards!*
Can we prove that the earth is round and rotates 360 every 24 hours by using gyroscope?
crazy how them space objects seem to operate like your rotation demo. also if you see this action lab, I just happened to be heating up my dab rig that has the same geometry on it! energy is all around.
Maybe applying gyroscopic principals to gears and do make it gear the rotational force of the earth down to the center of the gyroscope to rotate it faster. Then you could make the center out of a giant permanent magnet and make the loops around the gyroscope be the coils for collecting power. You could even potentially stabilize the gyroscopic generator depending on the flow of electricity that's released. To use the eddi currents to stabilize the whole system. Just a thought
This is Great TY
We already did. For example, the tide turbine and the wind turbine. They all extract energy that is ultimately driven by the earth's spinning.
Thanks Bob
In engineering, you have to take power into account, not just energy. The angular velocity of the Eart is quite small, so extracting energy above the one needed to compensate for dissipation (like air resistance, friction, etc) is quite difficult.
The Soviets tried building these things for decades, and only ever got a few watts of power generation. The main issue is the scale; you'd need to build a gyroscope on a scale comparable to a small planet to get a useful output of energy, due to the slow spin speed. Using a series of orbital rings, you might be able to get it to work, but there's much more useful things you could do with orbital rings to provide power.
A much more realistic possibility would be to melt an iron/nickel asteroid into a sphere deep in space using solar-pumped mirrors, then build a flywheel on one of its poles. You could then spin it up with the flywheel, converting the asteroid into a giant mechanical battery (to store nuclear or solar power) and then you could extract that energy from the flywheels on its poles and beam that back to Earth via a MASER and ground Rectenna setup on an as-needed basis. Even if the asteroid was only a few cubic miles, it could store enough power to run entire nations for years, and would have something like 85+% efficiency as a battery.
Intriguing. Where can I read up on this? Even the stuff mentioned in the video is a very hard google search, apparently.
@@janimelender2674 Yeah, hard to find much info these days. I read about the Soviet experiments with gyroscopic energy generation about twenty years ago in college. No idea how to find that info today, sorry.
The flywheel battery thing is pretty well known, though. I'm sure there are multiple RUclips videos that explain it better than I could. Using it to spin up an asteroid is my idea, but it's based on plans for how to control the rotation of O'Neill style orbital habitats that NASA was studying decades ago. It's all fairly easy to understand once you know how flywheel batteries work, though. If you stand on an object, like an asteroid, and spin up a flywheel in your hand, the asteroid below you will start to spin in the opposite rotation. Essentially the same as having two flywheels atop each other, each wanting to counter the spin of the other.
I have thought this over for a few years and I have just found your video.... I think I know.
I think the main issues are that you'd need a frame bigger than the entire earth, connect it to the earth precisely in two places, and then it'd be massive massive generators would be required, that wouldn't just explode with the force. Plus, if you speed up the slowing down of earth's rotation, you could cause all sorts of issues (granted, it'd likely take thousands/millions of years, but still).
Just use the rotating force that you get when a toilet is flushed, not only does the water fall down, it also rotates.
Tidal energy is basically energy from the rotation of the earth.
This
"
0:02 / 7:16
"Can Gyroscopes Provide Free Energy For The Planet?"
No. Thank you for asking.
Next question...
The more I look at your videos, the more you remember me the physics professor in Fellini's movie "Amarcord"...
We are already harvesting rotation energy from earth. It's called wind energy as wind is generated by two forces: Sunlight and earth rotation. There would also be wind if there was no earth rotation but there would be less and weaker wind.
Ok I know how to do it : you put two big masses in balance on an horizontal axe (the axe is on vertical pole), the whole system is at the top (North) of the planet.
If you quickly flip the axe vertically (as if it was a clock's hands spinning), then the two masses will suddenly have a momentum that is in the opposite direction of the spinning of the planet. This should cause a torque in the middle of the horizontal axe relative to the pole.
So long as it uses gravity (which of course is not a force) rather than deplete the rotational energy of the earth.