Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
trevor borocz johnson

Pre-cutting the ground above explosive

171 posts in this topic

This experiment can be easily done with a firework and a rock. By pre cutting the ground above an underground explosion the piece of rock just pops right out of the ground.  This increases the efficiency of the explosive's weight displacement to 5% or higher. So if you use a billion kw fusion explosive you could get back 50 million kw of power through a generator lowering weight back into the cavity like a dam. you could also use smaller explosives like H2O2 to create all different shapes like basements, any digging project, mining, pools, etc. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What?

Wouldn't be easier to force 42 fairies to spin electric generator?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

What?

Wouldn't be easier to force 42 fairies to spin electric generator?

C'mon you can do better then that. Seriously this is my best invention. people have been trying to use explosives to generate energy for hundreds of years, even recently this guy had this book https://www.google.com/patents/US8215111 in 2012. I know of another guy from 1987 as well. Christopher Huygens had an idea. My digging and power plant ideas increase efficiency on using explosives, something they've been trying to do since project plowshare geothermal power plant in the 1970's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

C'mon you can do better then that. Seriously this is my best invention. people have been trying to use explosives to generate energy for hundreds of years, even recently this guy had this book https://www.google.com/patents/US8215111 in 2012. I know of another guy from 1987 as well. Christopher Huygens had an idea. My digging and power plant ideas increase efficiency on using explosives, something they've been trying to do since project plowshare geothermal power plant in the 1970's.

Just because it was patented, doesn't mean its viable. People patent all sorts of things, for example

spank.JPG

(more here)

What you need to do is to compare specific energies and prices (per weight unit) of, say, TNT/C4 and fuels (coal, for example). Not to mention requirements for hardware to be able withstand abrupt pressure changes. Did you get the clue?

 

BTW, here is an idea you can patent: car propulsion by explosives. You put TNT sticks on the back of the car, and by exploding one by one, you propel the car. Doable? Yes. Stupid? Oh yes, certainly.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

What you need to do is to compare specific energies and prices (per weight unit) of, say, TNT/C4 and fuels (coal, for example). Not to mention requirements for hardware to be able withstand abrupt pressure changes. Did you get the clue?

 

BTW, here is an idea you can patent: car propulsion by explosives. You put TNT sticks on the back of the car, and by exploding one by one, you propel the car. Doable? Yes. Stupid? Oh yes, certainly.

So you don't think it will work? I already know that it works. And like I said in the OP there are other uses for digging this way other then to use nuclear fusion to make electricity. On a much smaller scale you could build basements.  you could cut and remove huge chunks of land, you could put out coal fires, you could cut the piece of land that the fukashima disaster is on and remove it. you could bury it in an even deeper crater so the chunk of land fits in to it. Places are running out of places to put garbage so you could dig them huge pits. what else? canal digging. 

Edited by trevorhbj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well unlike the drawing in post 4 I think this idea will be around a little longer. Probably still being used when the earth can't sustain life in millions of years and then used on other planets to sustain life for a while. Interesting you could use craters on the moon dug by meteorites as an energy source.

if you watch at 2 min 40 seconds you can see weight displacement in the water at the top of the fish tank. not a lot, but still a little. most of the energy is seismic and sound because the tank is too deep and wide for that little explosive.

Edited by trevorhbj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your are generating ideas like 5 year old...

Since you said in other thread that you haven't studied physics, I'm sure you have no clue what energy density is. Without understanding it, all your blabber is just that - blabber.

Heck, I can give few ideas you can patent: why not cut Everest and place it over the Fukushima NP? You can heat your house with matches, instead of chipped wood. You can build internal combustion engine out of plastics. Why not mine iron from Earth's core? You can fly to the Sun, scoop hydrogen, and bring it back to Earth. Want more?

 

BTW, explosives are being used in construction, where needed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 8/7/2017 at 7:16 AM, bmk1245 said:

duh what make sentence out of any words to prove smart point

Edited by trevorhbj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

that is correct. Anyways I post this for other's to see is a viable use of fusion for the first time ever, and to try it out themselves to see if it works. All the blast energy would be focused into the one piece of material and would limit fallout if you used nuclear explosives. In fact there would be no fallout. That is for this digging method. surface blasts create a lot of fallout, that's why they were not prefered for digging previously. 

 

Edited by trevorhbj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

that is correct. Anyways I post this for other's to see is a viable use of fusion for the first time ever, and to try it out themselves to see if it works. All the blast energy would be focused into the one piece of material and would limit fallout if you used nuclear explosives. In fact there would be no fallout. That is for this digging method. surface blasts create a lot of fallout, that's why they were not prefered for digging previously. 

 

Bit of reality:

Quote

Dr. David Hafemeister of California Polytechnic State University described the radioactive effects of a pure fusion weapon to be much higher than that of a fission-triggered device. He also described a pure fusion weapon as having twice the radioactive output than current fusion-based weapons. The destruction, however, is lessened given the fact that a pure fusion weapon contributes a smaller blast energy than that of fission-based weapons, which are recorded as having a greater kinetic energy than fusion devices.[7]

(link)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read this so many times and still can't understand what the idea is.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is your idea that you would cut the outer shape of the earth you wanted to excavate so that less energy is required by blasting?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

17 hours ago, Timonthy said:

Is your idea that you would cut the outer shape of the earth you wanted to excavate so that less energy is required by blasting?

Yes. By cutting the earth into single piece above the explosive you increase the efficiency of the cratering. A surface blast is .4% efficient and an underground explosive .1% efficient. how ever by pre cutting the ground you could increase the amount of energy used in the explosive to weight displacement from 4-20% or higher depending on the design. Those estimates are based on experiments with fireworks. You could then use the crater as a power plant or for any reason, pools etc,

Edited by trevorhbj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

Yes. By cutting the earth into single piece above the explosive you increase the efficiency of the cratering. A surface blast is .4% efficient and an underground explosive .1% efficient. how ever by pre cutting the ground you could increase the amount of energy used in the explosive to weight displacement from 4-20% or higher depending on the design. Those estimates are based on experiments with fireworks. You could then use the crater as a power plant or for any reason, pools etc,

I just think that you're grossly oversimplifying the idea of blasting.

Can you post the scientific reports from your experiments? Then we might be able to make something of it.

Right now this is just another one of your ideas with seemingly no realistic basis. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eg. Here's a rough guide as to what you should be doing when you present these ideas: http://www.monash.edu.au/lls/llonline/writing/science/7.xml

Or more simply: 

  • Title
  • Abstract
  • Introduction
  • Method
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Reference List
  • Appendices

You can start basic obviously, but you need to give people something to work with. Not just an idea and some random numbers.

So, do you have anything you can present to the group? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'm aware of methods of writing. Hey if I could I would make crazy photoshop and video of my experiments. I lack that expertise though and you get what you get... scribbling rough drafts from my mind, That's about all I have to say about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

Yeah I'm aware of methods of writing. Hey if I could I would make crazy photoshop and video of my experiments. I lack that expertise though and you get what you get... scribbling rough drafts from my mind, That's about all I have to say about that.

Crazy photoshop and video would be good, but are not required, being able to explain what you're doing is.

Scribbling a draft of your experiment with an explanation of the method and the data you recorded and calculations to make your conclusions is all you need to do. Can you do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Timonthy said:

Crazy photoshop and video would be good, but are not required, being able to explain what you're doing is.

Scribbling a draft of your experiment with an explanation of the method and the data you recorded and calculations to make your conclusions is all you need to do. Can you do that?

The experiment was simple. I dug a hole in the ground, put an explosive in the hole, and jammed the rock into the ground. In comparison with a surface crater I made with the same firework, I was able to remove ten times the amount of weight. With water in a can in the ground I was able to remove seven times the weight of the surface crater. Surface crater's are known to be .4% efficient. So that 's how I came up with those numbers. 

The pre digging method eliminates fallout and earthquakes as well because the blast energy all goes into the weight displacement of the huge rock. Previously digging with explosives was hindered by these two things. In any event its a viable use of fusion and extends this planet's life of modern technology and energy consumption for billions of years. It just will take a long time to build enough systems to get everyone dependent on fusion fuel. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have followed this thread and understand that pre cutting the ground will make it easier for explosives to remove the chunk being blasted.

I simply cannot understand the rest:

you could get back 50 million kw of power through a generator lowering weight back into the cavity like a dam.

And

because the blast energy all goes into the weight displacement of the huge rock

How do you gain energy back from a blast? Isn't the crater being used for a construction purpose or does the energy from the blast hang around forever? It simply makes no sense as you are describing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

The experiment was simple. I dug a hole in the ground, put an explosive in the hole, and jammed the rock into the ground. In comparison with a surface crater I made with the same firework, I was able to remove ten times the amount of weight. With water in a can in the ground I was able to remove seven times the weight of the surface crater. Surface crater's are known to be .4% efficient. So that 's how I came up with those numbers. 

The pre digging method (1)eliminates fallout and (2)earthquakes as well because (3)the blast energy all goes into the weight displacement of the huge rock. (4)Previously digging with explosives was hindered by these two things. In any event (5)its a viable use of fusion and (6)extends this planet's life of modern technology and energy consumption for billions of years. (7)It just will take a long time to build enough systems to get everyone dependent on fusion fuel. 

 

How did you control the experiment? It sounds like there are too many variables and the only constant was the firework.

And my bold, again, where have you pulled the .4% from? I can't find anything relating to that...  Google brings up nothing I can easily see. Got a link?

And your second paragraph is complete BS.

1. What fallout? 2. There's no evidence to suggest blasting creates earthquakes. It would have to at least be an extremely large scale blast at extreme depths. 3. If you pre-cut, then you will lose blast energy out of the cuts. 4. When has that ever been the case? Any evidence? 5/6/7. How do you figure that? 

With every new claim you create a bunch of new questions and no answers. From where I'm sitting, your experiment is such an amateur attempt to support your idea and it's hard to not sound patronising while replying to your posts, not my fault. 

If it's too hard for you to detail how you designed and controlled your 'experiment' and provide any real results, then it's not really an experiment, it's playing with fireworks.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Timonthy said:

1. What fallout? 2. There's no evidence to suggest blasting creates earthquakes. It would have to at least be an extremely large scale blast at extreme depths. 3. If you pre-cut, then you will lose blast energy out of the cuts. 4. When has that ever been the case? Any evidence? 5/6/7. How do you figure that? 

With every new claim you create a bunch of new questions and no answers. From where I'm sitting, your experiment is such an amateur attempt to support your idea and it's hard to not sound patronising while replying to your posts, not my fault.

Whatever everything I said is true, you're not focusing on the four energy conversions of blast energy.

Edited by trevorhbj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, South Alabam said:

How do you gain energy back from a blast? Isn't the crater being used for a construction purpose or does the energy from the blast hang around forever? It simply makes no sense as you are describing it.

Once the blast occurs and the cavity is dug, the energy of the weight removed is converted into electricity by lowering the weight back into the cavity. understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort of, but what does the converting?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A turbine attached to a conveyor belt that lowers the weight into the cavity. or you could use piping and use a turbine like a dam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O.K. I see, thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.