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

Status
Not open for further replies.
359443_orig.png


Here is the original drawing from the patent. The loop isn't included cause I hadn't thought of it yet as apart of the water cannon. The shape of the water cannon in this drawing would be similar to that of a mixing bowl. This shape may be around 6% efficient to the blast energy. You would fill the cavity about one third of the way. The explosion pushes water out horizontally over the sides opposed to vertically high up in the air using the soup can method. I prefer the long narrow water cannon method as opposed to the bowl shaped method because the efficiency is higher and the system can be enclosed easier.
 
trevor borocz johnson said:
Method to Generate Energy from Explosives
Click to expand...
To be clear, it is not generating energy.

It is converting energy (stored in the chemicals) - chemicals created by us (using energy) - brought to the site (using energy) and converted into a different form of energy. It is a zero-sum system. You get no more energy out of it than you put into it. Less, because of all the energy you would not be able to contain.

You would do better to simply burn the chemicals in a controlled fire, where you can capture a much higher percentage of the energy given off.

Gasoline is an excellent form of chemical energy. One of the best we have. Much more efficient than any explosives.

Replace the whole rig with a gasoline generator and you've got a far more efficient system that will allow you to transport energy to a remote locale and use it there to power things.

But neither system captures otherwise "free" energy, such as is done with geothermal, solar, wave or wind generators.
 
DaveC426913 said:
It is converting energy (stored in the chemicals) - chemicals created by us (using energy) - brought to the site (using energy) and converted into a different form of energy. It is a zero-sum system. You get no more energy out of it than you put into it. Less, because of all the energy you would not be able to contain.
Click to expand...
I m not talking about conventional explosives I m talking about using nuclear. Anyways from about 10-20 uses of the pictured system you should gain your money back from building it and every use after that would be profit. Fusion fuel can't just be thrown on a fire. And Dave, check yourself, it is so a method for generating energy in the form of electricity.
 
Last edited:
trevor borocz johnson said:
I m not talking about conventional explosives I m talking about using nuclear.
Click to expand...
You might want to add that detail to you diagram...

Yes. We have those. They're called nuclear reactors.
Let the reaction occur at a containable rate and you can extract most of the energy from it and keep it under control.

But let it create a chain reaction and explode - and there is no material that can contain it. You will lose 99.9% of your energy to the surrounding environment. It is most definitely going to vaporize the ground around the explosion, and heat up a lot more volume area that. That is all lost energy.

And that doesn't even address the destruction of our planet by way of regularly setting off nuclear explosives.

Are you, like, Satan, come here to see if you can get us to destroy ourselves??
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but the idea and the pictures seem like they are from a 12 year old
 
hey I know you group of highly intelligent scientists get a lot of flak from newbies to this site who aren't expecting to get bashed by bully's when they come on with their inquizitive non offensive nature, but I just want to hand it to the 4 guys who made the last four responses. That's some of the most brilliant feedback a person has ever gotten on anything! where do you guys come up with these intelligent responses? it must be your heavy brains just shitting out useful information and intelligent questions. :)

And by the way it doesn't boast well for any of you that you can't recognize the difference between what I m saying and the stereotypical goofy idea. It's kind of like all your responses have just been compulsive whim that blabs out of your subconscious onto the page. but um haha?
 
Last edited:
trevor borocz johnson said:
... I just want to hand it to the 4 guys who made the last four responses...
Click to expand...
Hey, I resemble that remark.

I'm trying to give you useful feedback. It may not be what you want to hear, but I'm not just bashing you.

(Surely you did consider the wantonly destructive nature of your idea before I mentioned it. You are thoughtful enough to recognize that - on that basis alone - this is an idea that should not be pursued.)
 
trevor borocz johnson said:
scan-2-jpeg.856
Click to expand...

DaveC426913 said:
destructive nature of your idea
Click to expand...

One of the key concepts of this system is it won't blow itself apart. The path of the blasted weight is un-inhibited. If you tried firing the weight into a spring or a piston or gathered energy from the loop you would badly damage the system you're firing the weight into. I would close off the ocean in the drawing as it is not needed. This is what I ve been trying to say is the system doesn't have to be outdoors it can be entirely enclosed. I still maintain after all the comments that its a valuable use of the billions of years supply of fusion fuel on this planet and a more efficient system to go along with the use of fusion ignition lasers then what is currently proposed.
 
trevor borocz johnson said:
The path of the blasted weight is un-inhibited.
Click to expand...
You are vastly, vastly underestimating the energy released.

A nuclear explosion vaporizes everything within its radius - i.e. it will turn the chamber, the cannon, the very ground around it into expanding atomic dust at millions of degrees.
 
origin said:
OK, so isn't about time to move this to pseudoscience or at least alternative theories?
I will request the mods move this. If others feel the same way it would probably help if they also made the request.
Click to expand...

Tricky. It's bonkers in practice but not really pseudoscience or alternative theories, it seems to me (......though I guess if I were an engineer I might take a harsher view :biggrin:.)


.....and, lo and behold, it seems the mods are engineers........pseudo it is!
 
Last edited:
I don't know what to say anymore. On a scale of 1-10 I would rate the information you guys have given me somewhere around a .0001 in usefulness which is why I posted in the first place. Is this a site for science or for BFF's scratching each others butts?
 
trevor borocz johnson said:
I don't know what to say anymore. On a scale of 1-10 I would rate the information you guys have given me somewhere around a .0001 in usefulness
Click to expand...
It is certainly a .00001 in terms of telling you what you want to hear. But the information you have gotten is quite accurate, and would be useful if you had any intention of actually building a conversion device.

If you want to get people to just tell you how great your idea is and how smart you are, post on Facebook.
Is this a site for science or for BFF's scratching each others butts?
Click to expand...
Science. If you need your butt scratched or your head patted, again, Facebook is better.
 
trevor borocz johnson said:
On a scale of 1-10 I would rate the information you guys have given me somewhere around a .0001 in usefulness
Click to expand...
Of course you did.
Because you're clueless.
And because you wilfully ignore all of the science/ engineering you were given here (and on the other site where you tried this crap) while persisting with unsupported claims like "I still maintain..." for one simple reason - you'd rather believe your own bullsh*t than approach the subject rationally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top