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. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Agreed. You should stop.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    fusion lazers*
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,341
    Light Amplification by Ztimulated Emission of Radiation?
     
    Daecon likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    in the meantime here's something interesting I learned from another post:
    In the 1960's there was an actual experiment as part of the US Plowshares program, where one of the multiple research goals of the experiment was to see if it was feasible to use underground nuclear explosions to create steam to generate electricity. They also figured they could collect useful isotopes for other research (such as what the Chalk River plant in Canada is used to create currently).

    The test was done in a tunnel, and a decent sized cavity formed around the bomb location. The concept would have been to detonate bombs intermittently in the same cavity, and collect the heat through pipes in surrounding rock, similar to a geothermal plant.

    6 months later, they drilled a new tunnel to the cavity. Even after that much time had passed, it was still 140 degrees F.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gnome

    Obviously, the long term plan was never followed through on, but they continued to study the concept into the 1970's:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER
     
    exchemist likes this.
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
    ZERO emission...
    It's my new idea.
    And I've already got 305 patents. (And a movie contract).
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,341
    Well I never! How interesting. Thanks for that.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,166
    Yes. It failed. Most of the steam leaked away through cracks, and the steam that was collected was hideously corrosive (and radioactive to boot!) due to all the salts, metals etc that were in solution in the newly-vaporized water. The project showed it was a good way to create caves (provided there were no people in them of course) but that was about it.
     
  11. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    I ran into an invention similar to this when I got the response back from the patent examiner. A lot of people think to use vacuum pressure to convert explosive energy. I suppose I use to think of that sometimes. http://www.eoht.info/page/Gunpowder engine
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    That device is an engine - an energy sink, not an energy source.

    You put energy in to it (in the form of gunpowder), to get work out of it - in this case to raise water.
     
  13. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    neat trick huh?
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Well, I guess if you lived a millennium ago, before engines were invented, it might have seemed like a neat trick...
     
  15. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    2,000 years ago the aeophile invented by Heron of Alexandria was actually the very first steam engine. But you're right there was a lot of development with the steam engine in that era, notably Watt's steam engine 1775.
     
  16. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    Something I haven't mentioned is that a traditional nuclear power plant uses about 5% of the available energy in the fissable material. Detonating instead of slowly burning the fuel uses between 25-40% of the available energy. If you enclosed a water cannon with a loop it would be safe for nuclear fuels. The real problem with this system, or the tokomak, or any fusion system is the shear amount of time it would take to build enough power stations to replace black fuels, that could take centuries.
     
  17. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    So you see it is a working safe system, it's just it would cost a lot to build, the deep water cannon and then the enormous loop on the ground attached. I wonder if the pre-cutting method could save the time of digging. You would make your money back from building it though probably in under a hundred uses. One could further gather more energy from water circulating in the loop and heat energy from the enclosed system, an estimated 85% efficiency to the explosion power. No, even after all your great responses I still see nothing wrong with this idea and am great advocate of it, I mean shit, its the first known use of fusion, I would like it even if it was someone else's idea. By the way would still sell equity on the future utility application for lowww low cost. This is the chance to get in on microsoft at its first days.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2016
  18. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    If you STILL see nothing wrong with your idea even after our "great responses" then you're obviously not smart enough to understand what people are saying.
     
  19. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    Boy there are some comedians on this forum, let me tell you, there's no shying away from modern social trends to be whimsical, sarcastic, compulsive and make a joke out of anything. No, actually Deacon I answered all of your questions, ignoring the one's that people continuously re-asked, bringing up the questions that remain on my own, how long does it take to construct? I'll build it with a shovel, that could take a while, if you use the pre-cutting and blasting idea it my be done in a matter of years. Now building the loop that is attached to the top , that could take a while as well. The opening would have to be several hundred feet wide and the loop itself several thousand feet in diameter. It's a perfectly plausible idea. You would only need ten uses to hypothetically equate the same energy it took to lift out the enormous cavity and may cost in the low billions based on kwh of the water cannon's empty space. People who read this agree I bet cause I would.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2016
  20. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
  21. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    I read it and do not agree. You idea will not efficiently produce energy.
     
  22. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    GIve me some credit man! all three methods of the OP are the most efficient conversion of explosives into electricity that there is available. The estimates I give: pre cutting 5%, water cannon 2-40% and cannonball 30-85% are based on the efficiency of the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sedan_Plowshare_Crater.jpg Crater from the 1962 "Sedan" nuclear test as part of Operation Plowshare. The 104 kiloton blast displaced 12 million tons of earth and created a crater 320 feet deep and 1,280 feet wide.

    Comparing the crater I made from an underground blast with fireworks to the weight displaced with the same firework in the described methods, try it yourself you'll see.
     
  23. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    Sorry, can't do it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page