You then go immediately into pumped storage hydraulic, which is something I have been supporting for decades. However, that is not a "Gravity Battery". You should be embarrassed in that you can not tell the difference apparently.
Scientists disagree Gravity Battery: Storing Electrical Energy In The Form Of Gravitational Potential Energy Abstract A low budget device is designed that is capable of harnessing energy from an object falling under gravity. Object is suspended from the device, through a high strength nylon thread, placed at a certain height. Gravitational potential energy of an object placed at a certain height is converted in to kinetic energy. As the object descends it rotates the wheel which is coupled with gear train. This gear train further rotates the pinion that is mounted on the generator shaft. An electrical output is produced at the armature terminals of the generator which is sufficient for various applications. This device uses mechanical energy produced by a human and converts it into gravitational potential energy that is later converted into electrical energy. Since almost all the renewable sources of energy have limited application due to their operational condition, this device can be used anywhere on earth irrespective of location, weather conditions, time and fuel. The device can be used as mechanical battery as well and has the potential to replace the use of chemical batteries used in solar street lights. The prototype built is ready for on-field applications https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345770820_Gravity_Battery_Storing_Electrical_Energy_In_The_Form_Of_Gravitational_Potential_Energy As with all things in science. There is many ways to skin a cat. The example I used previously incorporated a hydraulic system. But the principle is the same. The only junk science here is your denial of current scientific progress and research
You should fix that type, it should say "Scientist". Bu t tell you what, bubba. You think this proves I am "busted", exactly how many of these are in operation around the world? If this is such a technological breakthrough, how many of them are being built right now? And how many kilowatts of power are stored in these systems on any given day. You think I am busted, fine. Show us the proof of that. Not just an abstract and not even the entire paper and crowing that proves you are right. Oh, and a great many know this is a fool's journey. Oh, and this is nothing new. Over a decade ago there was something similar called "Energy Cache" which used a bucket lift. Guess how well that went also? Want to know a really good way to spot "junk science"? Lots of pretty CGI animations of how it will work. And years later, it seems that they are still at the CGI phase and announcing even more elaborate systems yet to come. Yet, any attempts at making them for real never seem to go beyond a small prototype phase. Energy Vault is just a recycled attempt at the earlier failed Energy Cache. Same snake oil, but with prettier CGI animations.
You keep posting youtube videos to substantiate your junk science Post some scholarly sources why don't you? Like I did.
How about showing me an actual example of one of these working. Hell, I was laughing as I mentioned Gravity Batteries, knowing you were going to jump all over them. And sure enough, you did exactly as I expected. The funny thing is, you show a few abstracts, not even the papers themselves. And you have never mentioned the real world attempts they have made to try and make them a reality. And completely ignoring the fact as I stated that some of those videos are actually made by a nuclear physicist. Who goes into great detail with the math to show why they will never work. But please, show us the examples by Energy Vault and Energy Cache. In fact, if you knew anything about those companies you would not be protesting quite so much. And oh yes, scholarly sources. You know, that is really only done when something is made, right? And here is the kicker, in well over a decade none of these have ever been made past the prototype stage. None has ever been workable and have been abandoned. So why exactly would some scholar write up a scientific paper about an abject failure? Might as well write a paper about pogs, or the Edsel. Or about HD-DVD or the CED disk.
And to just show how little posting "scientific papers" alone are without any kind of real world example, there is one that is famous. Back in 1948, a doctoral candidate in biochemistry at Boston University released a paper called "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline". It was well written, and had a lot of researchers in the field trying to look into it. However, the thing is that it was entirely a joke. And when he submitted it for publication, he insisted that a pseudonym be used as he was afraid it would possibly tarnish his scholastic career. However, that did not happen and it appeared under his own name. And when he actually delivered his Doctoral thesis, one of his examiners then questioned him on those properties. Such as being so stable, that the compound would dissolve in water before the water was even added. And in case some are not aware of that, it was Doctor Isaac Asimov who wrote that. There is another thread in here dedicated to the huge numbers of "scientific papers" that are fraudulent, and nobody should ever take a paper as actual fact. I can vomit up papers about almost anything, because they are just that, papers. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19533184/ Yes, a real scientific paper. However, ultimately meaningless as should be immediately obvious. Otherwise I would become famous by training pigeons to review movies for Hollywood before they were released.
A gravity battery is a type of energy storage device that stores gravitational energy, the energy stored in an object resulting from a change in height due to gravity, also called potential energy You're the one who called the concept of gravity batteries "Junk science" Now youre moving the goal post by saying that the concept has existed for a while. "Abstract A low budget device is designed that is capable of harnessing energy from an object falling under gravity. Object is suspended from the device, through a high strength nylon thread, placed at a certain height. Gravitational potential energy of an object placed at a certain height is converted in to kinetic energy. As the object descends it rotates the wheel which is coupled with gear train. This gear train further rotates the pinion that is mounted on the generator shaft. An electrical output is produced at the armature terminals of the generator which is sufficient for various applications. This device uses mechanical energy produced by a human and converts it into gravitational potential energy that is later converted into electrical energy. Since almost all the renewable sources of energy have limited application due to their operational condition, this device can be used anywhere on earth irrespective of location, weather conditions, time and fuel. The device can be used as mechanical battery as well and has the potential to replace the use of chemical batteries used in solar street lights. The prototype built is ready for on-field applications"
I think you are attacking a specific application, not the fact of gravity based energy storage. You should be clearer about what your argument is. I think YOU pointed out that a list of youtubes doesn't form an argument. In fact youtubes may include false arguments, didn't you?
Does it work anywhere near as promised? Has one actually been built that works as claimed? Has it been anything other than a giant money pit, that largely works to make one person rich?
Nobody goes around calling pumped storage hydro a "gravity battery". That term is almost universally applied to a specific attempt to save electricity. Generally by moving solid blocks of matter up and down. And there is a difference between videos, and videos. The vast majority are made by fanatics that adulate somebody or something. Like all those praising solar freaking roadways, diamonds from air, water from air, hyperloop, etc, etc, etc. And almost universally those that make them know little to nothing about them or the science, they are primarily click-bait for views. However, debunking videos that actually go into the science of the claims and scientifically show how they are not feasible are very different. And videos as you know are not something I do often. But in each of those an actual nuclear physicist goes in great detail to show why such schemes are unworkable. But think on this for a moment. I have actually posted videos about this already. But here is the first one, and notice it is not a debunker, it is the one who claims to have invented this technology.. Yes, that is narrated by Aaron Fyke. For his first such project, Energy Cache. Over 10 years ago. He made two of them, almost the same. And notice, comments are turned off. That is rarely a good sign when comments are not allowed. Now Aaron started Energy Cache about 14 years ago. And until 2017 that was his primary focus. And he managed to raise over $100 million for that company, including a $10 million grant from Bill Gates. And with all that money, they made a single prototype that was able to produce 50 kw. In other words, about the amount of a medium sized generator. Then in 2017, he shut down Energy Cache, and formed Energy Vault. Exact same thing, just using concrete blocks instead of gravel. And has again raised in excess of $100 million. And has built, a single prototype that has generated almost nothing. See a pattern here? Same thing, just a different way to attempt it. And the biggest red flag is why close the old company, and make a new one? They are already trading on the freaking New York Stock Exchange for goodness sakes! With total cash input (primarily from donations) in excess of $300 million. And it has produced nothing so far! A company that is over 5 years old, has produced nothing, and had their IPO earlier this year. And what amazes me is that it is all hype. Not much different than most of Elron Musk's projects, or Theranos.
Videos tend to be sales pitches for one side and usually do not have any vetting. To make a determination would usually mean investigating the issue pretty much from the ground up. Otherwise, one has to accept the problem as framed by the author of the video and assume that there are no arguments left out. There are many battery ideas that don't get called batteries. A flywheel is a battery. Hydrogen as used in a car is a battery. Pumping water to a higher elevation and then reclaiming the energy with a turbine is a battery. We don't always call them batteries because there are more specific terms. But, in terms of energy and physics that is what they are. These batteries can be more or less efficient. But, if the energy is "extra", that is that it will be produced but there isn't a good use, then the efficiency of charging the battery can become less important. I'm absolutely astonished at your comment about Musk. He has dramatically reduced the cost of launching stuff into space - dominating transport to and from the ISS, for example. That alone has crippled the Russian space industry. He is building a communications network that is already bringing fast internet to remote areas that have not been possible to reach with other technology. He has started a car company that is selling more EVs that just about anyone in the world, cars that are in such demand that the wait times for delivery are many months - thus changing the auto industry. Then, you equate him with Theranos, which has been found guilty of damaging US healthcare for money! Sorry. you really went over the line that time.
