New type of gravity power plant offers chance to be landmark use of fusion

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by trevor borocz johnson, Nov 13, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    I have a patent that involves creating electricity from explosives and gravity. I was just wondering if anyone has heard of any other ideas to create electricity from explosives. The basic concept is to blast a cannonball up into the air catch it where gravity pauses it then use the weight of the cannonball to pull down on an elevator type generator until the ball is back to where you shot it from at which point you can re load the cannon and start the process all over again. So you re using explosives as the fuel in the system. The second method is instead of using a cannonball as the weight you can fill the cannon with water and blast the water weight into the air which I ve experimented with using fireworks as the explosive and a soup can in the ground as the cannon and I observed that an explosion set off inside a water cannon squeezes the water inside against the walls of the cannon causing the water to shoot straight up pretty high into the air . Now one of the advantages of using a water cannon is you can build it several hundred feet wide and deep enabling one to use a much larger explosive say a fission or fusion explosive to clear the water out. And yet another method in the patent involves pre cutting the earth in a way that you can detonate an underground explosive and pop the piece of pre cut material right out of the ground which I ve also proven works using fireworks and it works really well comparing the weight to the crater i made with a fireworks surface blast. so anyone can look up the full patent by google searching trevor hawthorne and patentscope
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,145
    Hilarious. What's the patent number?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Yeah, my car does that. It moves too.
    Rather than a cannonball, why not just have the "explosives" push on a piston on a cam? Seems like it would be simpler.
     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,145
    Hey, then you can use the electricity to run your explosives factory! Brilliant!
     
  8. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    The best cranks have three names.
     
  9. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    Yeah a car engine I get that a lot. What? what is the problem with my invention?
     
  10. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    It is cumbersome and inefficient.
     
    ajanta and sideshowbob like this.
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,137
    No, you don't have a patent; you have an application. It has not been granted. That's why it has a number of the form "2013172884" and is listed as an application. (2013 is the application date.) If it ever is granted, it will get a patent number like "US 8338991" and will be listed as a grant.
    Nothing; just not all that useful. It's similar to a windmill that hauls giant stones up a hill, then dunks them in a lake, which then overflows and drives a water turbine. Will that work? Probably. But anyone in their right mind is just going to generate electricity from the windmill directly.
     
    ajanta and origin like this.
  12. Fednis48 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    725
    I just wanted to chime in and give you props for going about scientific creativity the right way. You're getting a lot of flak in this thread because, as people having been saying, your idea is a less efficient version of something that's been done many times before. But in principle, it would work, which puts you in a tier above the armchair relativity critics that we get so often around here. Sounds like you even based your idea on experimental observations (with fireworks), so bonus points for that. Keep up that inquisitive spirit!
     
    Bruinthor likes this.
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
    Um, given that you're asking that question does this mean that you've completely forgotten all the replies you got when you tried pushing this on the other forum?
    Or is that you simply didn't understand those replies or chose to ignore them?
     
  14. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,915
    The question you need to be asking yourself is: What do you expect to gain by firing an object high in the air and extracting energy from it as it falls, vs simply using the energy of the explosion to drive a piston connected to a drive shaft and drawing your energy from that?
     
  15. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    Maybe you should go back and review Pascal's law https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/WindTunnel/Activities/Pascals_principle.html.

    Weight displacement power plants allow the sudden release of blast energy to be transferred to the weight being displaced whether that be a cannonball, water, or a large piece of rock. They then also allow the weight to travel freely through the atmosphere. An engine uses pressure in a closed container, a piston, to push up against a mechanical device so the pressureis directly converted to mechanical energy. Without a clear and open path in the direction that the weight is fired in a weight displacement power plant you would blow it apart.

    I certainly wouldn't dream of putting a large explosive force like a stick of dynamite in a car engine and expect the car engine to not sustain damage. Car engines and the piston aren't designed to withstand a strong blast force by a decomposing fuel like nitroglycerin or H2O2.
     
  16. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    yeah but it works with an efficiency of 2-40%. Show me just one other example of a fusion fueled power generating system with those types of efficiency's. You can't. You know why? cause there are none! Edward Teller couldn't think of one. His idea was to collect heat from explosions with circulating a type of salt inside a closed steel container. wikipedia's idea is to use abandoned mines filled with water to try to collect heat. No one has ever thought to convert blast energy into kinetic energy stored in the weight into electricity before.This system will still be used for thousands, even millions of years from now in combination with lasers. And at raw material cost I seriously doubt the energy required to do refining and cutting and the cost of the materials would add up to be more then the energy you create from using the described method.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,137
    Go outside and noon and look straight up. You will see an extremely efficient fusion fueled power generating system. You can tap into this easily for about a dollar a watt. I get about 8000 watts from that particular fusion reactor, and my conversion efficiency is 18%.
    Freeman Dyson thought of it in 1968. He proposed a nuclear pulse propulsion system that converted the kinetic energy from the explosion to electricity via an MHD generator.
    Do the math and you'll see why it won't be.
     
  18. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    do the experiments, you ll see that it will be.
     
  19. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Your experiments involved the use of firecrackers, not any sizeable explosives.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,137
    Things don't scale like that. You can't scale an ant up to the size of an elephant and have it work - nor can you scale up fireworks and chunks of dirt to nuclear weapons and monolithic pieces of earth. For more info google "square-cube law."
     
  21. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    c'mon explosives not weapons, I m careful to be non offensive here, I don't mean anything bad by it just a gifted hobbyist
     
  22. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    We give honorable mention as a peaceful man to Alfred Nobel every time we hand out a peace prize in his name and he's killed a ton of people with his invention not to mention while inventing his dynamite mixture
     
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
    Yeah, what you're forgetting - or ignoring - is that he invented dynamite as a safer (to use) explosive than the then-current nitroglycerin.
    And it was invented to replace that explosive - in the mining, quarrying, demolition and construction industries.
     
    exchemist likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page