As per the manufacturer’s data sheet, the input torque produced by the motor shaft is 3.936 Nm. With the help of the drive train model, the torque is boosted to 10 Nm to lift a 1 kg stack weight to store energy in terms of gravitational potential. When the load is released, the stack weight moves downwards due to gravity and produces 7.2 Nm rotational torque at the load side of the drive train model. These data are recorded using a rotary shaft torque transducer. The measured torque value validates the effective mechanical power transfer within the prototype and offers a reliable performance benchmark for the gravity-based energy storage mechanism.
3.1. Input Characteristics—Motor
The renewable energy source utilized for the proposed experimental setup is a solar panel rated at 12 V and 50 W. This solar photovoltaic (PV) module converts incident solar radiation into electrical energy, which serves as the primary input power to the system. The generated DC power is directly supplied to the square gear motor, which acts as the prime mover in the mechanical subsystem.
The square gear motor converts electrical input energy into mechanical rotational energy, driving the connected load through its output shaft. To evaluate its performance under various loading conditions, the motor was tested with three distinct load cases:
The corresponding electrical parameters, such as voltage, current, and power, were measured and recorded. The measured data are presented in
Table 3, and the comparative results are illustrated graphically in
Figure 9.
From the recorded observations, it was found that under no-load conditions, the motor consumed a voltage of 12.65 V and a current of 292.49 mA, resulting in a power consumption of 3.7 W. This represents the minimum input power required to overcome internal frictional and magnetic losses.
When a single load stack was applied, the motor operated at 12.5 V and 400 mA, consuming 5.0 W of electrical power. This increase in current indicates a higher torque demand due to the external mechanical load.
With the application of two load stacks, the supply voltage slightly dropped to 12.35 V, and the current increased to 454.54 mA, resulting in a maximum input power of 5.7 W. This demonstrates that as the load increases, the current drawn and power consumption also increase to maintain the required torque output.
The variation trend confirms the direct proportionality between load and current consumption in DC motors. The voltage variation remains marginal, signifying stable supply performance from the solar source.
The bar chart shown in
Figure 9 graphically represents this relationship among voltage, current, and power for different load conditions. The plot clearly illustrates that current and power rise with load increment, whereas voltage exhibits minimal fluctuation.
These results validate that the square gear motor performs efficiently under different mechanical load conditions when powered by a solar energy source. The observed characteristics indicate the suitability of this motor for renewable energy-based mechanical drive systems, maintaining stable operation with variable load.
3.2. Output Characteristics—Generator
The electrical motor of 12 V, 60 rpm is chosen as a generator for the proposed system to validate the system operation. The output characteristics (generated voltage, current, and power) with no load, LED load, and rheostat load are shown in
Table 4. The results of single load stack and double load stack with respect to time taken are also tabulated with five sets of readings, and the average value is also indicated in
Table 4.
The experimental evaluation of the gravity-based energy storage system involved measuring the generator output under different load conditions, including no-load, LED load (12 V, 5 W, 72 LED strip), and resistive load (, 2 A). When a single stack load was released, the generator exhibited an average voltage of 9.29 V under no-load conditions, decreased to 7.84 V and 7.62 V under LED and resistive loads, respectively. The corresponding average currents were 7.84 mA and 7.62 mA for LED and resistive loads. The average power delivered was 1165 mW for the LED load and 2704.69 mW for the resistive load, indicating efficient energy conversion.
In case of double load release, the generator output showed a slight increase in average voltage for the loaded condition, reaching 8.21 V for the LED load and 8.06 V for the resistive load, with the average current of 152.59 mA and 333.72 mA, respectively. The corresponding average power outputs were 1251 mW for the LED load and 2691 mW for the resistive load.
The graphical analysis of the experimental data provides a clear understanding of the gravity-based energy conversion system under different load conditions.
Figure 10 illustrates the time duration required for the system to complete its operation for various load setups, indicating a nearly consistent performance with minimal variation across trials.
Figure 11 presents the generated output voltage under no-load, LED load, and resistive (R) load conditions. It is observed that the output voltage remains relatively stable, with a slight reduction under loaded conditions due to increased current demand.
Similarly,
Figure 12 depicts the generated output current for the same set of conditions. The resistive load exhibits the highest current output compared to the LED and no-load cases, validating the system’s ability to deliver greater electrical energy under higher load demands.
Figure 13 represents the corresponding power output variation across different sets, demonstrating that the resistive load condition produces the maximum power, followed by the LED load and no-load conditions.
Furthermore,
Figure 14 compares the generated power when single- and double-load stacks are released. The results indicate a noticeable increase in power generation with double-stack release, confirming the direct relationship between the released gravitational potential energy and the resulting electrical output.
The results presented in
Table 4 and the graphical representations in
Figure 10,
Figure 11,
Figure 12,
Figure 13 and
Figure 14 collectively substantiate the successful conversion of stored gravitational potential energy into usable electrical energy. The consistency of the obtained data highlights the reliability and efficiency of the designed gravity-based energy harvesting system.
These results demonstrate that the system can reliably convert gravitational potential energy into electrical energy, with consistent power delivery across varying load conditions. The consistent power output highlights the scalability potential of the system for increased energy storage capacity.
3.3. Comparison Between Battery and Gravity Storage System
Table 5 illustrates the comparison of battery and gravity energy storage systems, and the pros and cons of gravity storage system parameters with the battery storage system are indicated [
24,
25,
26].
In
Table 5, the comparison between battery and gravity storage systems highlights their distinct characteristics. Batteries offer high energy density, fast response, and low maintenance, making them suitable for short-duration, high-power applications, but their lifespan is limited, and large-scale deployment is challenging. In contrast, gravity storage provides long operational life exceeding 50 years, scalable capacity, and renewable energy utilization, making it ideal for utility-scale integration and grid stability. Although gravity systems involve higher maintenance and complex construction, they offer low operating costs, a reasonable return on investment, and long-term sustainability, despite lower energy density and slower response.
3.5. Scalability of Gravity Storage System
The scalability of a 1 KW battery and gravity storage system is tabulated in
Table 7. The cost of a battery storage system increases when the backup time increases. But in a gravity storage system, the cost increases slightly with respect to backup time. When compared to a battery storage system, the gravity storage system is more efficient and economical [
28,
29].
The graphical representation of a 1 kW gravity and battery storage system with respect to backup time is shown in
Figure 15. The gravity storage system is almost flat while the battery storage system is linearly increasing with respect to backup time [
30,
31,
32].
The gravity storage cost remains nearly constant across varying backup durations. In contrast, the cost of a battery storage system increases linearly. The results highlight gravity storage as a cost-effective and scalable solution for extended energy backup.
The comparison of the gravity and battery storage systems conveys meaningful scientific insights:
Lifetime difference is intrinsic to economic comparison. In the gravity storage system, the lifetime exceeds 50 years with proper maintenance, but the battery system requires a whole replacement every 5 years.
The raw cost data imply that the gravity system avoids very large battery replacements and influences long-term economics when compared to the battery system.
The backup capacity of the battery system is multiple times that of the backup time; in the gravity system, the addition of stack weight is the only concern.
The experimental validation supports the feasibility of gravity storage as a practical alternative.