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

173 posts in this topic

5 minutes ago, Parsec said:

No, he's suggesting that your idea is economically inefficient. 

The amount of money and resources you put in is less than what you get. 

Have you got official numbers on that? cause mine show that it is profitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
19 minutes ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

Have you got official numbers on that? cause mine show that it is profitable.

Present to me the suggested infrastructure utilized to extract the energy without itself being disintegrated or otherwise rendered USELESS for CYCLIC energy production.

I think what you are envisioning is a "1 shot" affair without even one ounce of understanding as to the physics involved in the infrastructure necessary to extract "electricity" from the exploded mass.

You cite a "conveyor belt"

That is absolutely ludicrous from any engineering stand-point.

Your scheme, from a true technological perspective fails on many, many levels.

You can't just, say, nuclear blast a 1 million ton tungsten target into the air, have in fall down (or go up) controllably, and extract energy WITHOUT enormous infrastructure costs.

But you want to use blasted earth and rock instead of a tungsten weight?

Go for it... No-one will even think of funding such a ridiculous idea... No offense intended.

Go back to school. You are obviously far too young to have serious, practical discussions on this issue.

 

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

Have you got official numbers on that? cause mine show that it is profitable.

Which numbers have you got again? 

Because so far from you I've seen only guesses, estimates, approximations, admission of ignorance (you admit you don’t know), hearsay and wishful thinking. 

 

Since you are the one proposing your idea, show us a business plan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, pallidin said:

You cite a "conveyor belt"

That is absolutely ludicrous from any engineering stand-point.

Your scheme, from a true technological perspective fails on many, many levels.

how does a conveyor belt stoop a great engineer like yourself LOL.

 

27 minutes ago, pallidin said:

You can't just, say, nuclear blast a 1 million ton tungsten target into the air, have in fall down (or go up) controllably, and extract energy WITHOUT enormous infrastructure costs.

What infrastructure costs?

27 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Go for it... No-one will even think of funding such a ridiculous idea... No offense intended.

Go back to school. You are obviously far too young to have serious, practical discussions on this issue.

Nothing you ve said is valid and anyone who reads all the posts in this thread will see that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ok, well, go for it.

Do not be surprised if your idea is countered by legitimate engineering arguments.

Edited by pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Parsec said:

 

Since you are the one proposing your idea, show us a business plan. 

buisness plan is simple: extract 700 times the energy it took to prepare the fuel by using it in either of the two systems listed in this thread. That times the efficiency of the system which I know to be between 4-65%, equals profits earned from each use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

buisness plan is simple: extract 700 times the energy it took to prepare the fuel by using it in either of the two systems listed in this thread. That times the efficiency of the system which I know to be between 4-65%, equals profits earned from each use.

Talk about the actual infrastructure you goof.

Ya know... The actual build plan.

Specifics.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Uh, I don't have any specifics, just an idea I got from blowing up rocks and dirt with fireworks, and now I want to go nuclear"

Good God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Talk about the actual infrastructure you goof.

Ya know... The actual build plan.

Specifics.

What like blueprints of the conveyor and the turbines and things? I don't have to draw those because they are already inventions. I don't have to start from scratch here or anything. 

Well if an aluminum soup can can withstand a the blast of a firework, then I imagine some thickness of steel would contain a much larger explosion. Why should I think otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

What like blueprints of the conveyor and the turbines and things? I don't have to draw those because they are already inventions. I don't have to start from scratch here or anything. 

Well if an aluminum soup can can withstand a the blast of a firework, then I imagine some thickness of steel would contain a much larger explosion. Why should I think otherwise?

Uh, because you are dealing with nuclear, not chemical explosions; you know, things like radiation weakening of structural components, massive shock wave influences, etc..

But don't that get in your way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One day (hopefully) you will look back at this and think "Oh my, what a ridiculous idea since I have no foundation of its true engineering"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pallidin said:

Uh, because you are dealing with nuclear, not chemical explosions; you know, things like radiation weakening of structural components, massive shock wave influences, etc..

But don't that get in your way.

We talked about this before. Why would the properties of an explosion: weight diplacement, heat, sound, and seismic change over scale of the explosive? They wouldn't. Structural components would weaken over time but that's true for any system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pallidin said:

One day (hopefully) you will look back at this and think "Oh my, what a ridiculous idea since I have no foundation of its true engineering"

Yeah and currently the most efficient use of fusion fuel that there is. If it doesn't sell as an alternative energy it will make a great science fiction novel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'll just monitor this thread versus saying anything more... It's so amusing I might get offensive.

Good luck!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

We talked about this before. Why would the properties of an explosion: weight diplacement, heat, sound, and seismic change over scale of the explosive? They wouldn't. Structural components would weaken over time but that's true for any system.

I think you should read up on the difference between a chemical and a nuclear reaction. They have fundamentally different characteristics. You simply can't just scale up from a fire cracker to a nuclear explosion.

A nuclear explosion is not just a bigger explosion, it also produces things like x-rays, neutrons and gamma rays that chemical explosions doesn't. A nuclear explosion will produce a lot of high energy neutrons, which will in turn produce a lot of radioactive material and weaken structures. This process is called neutron activation and is one of the main reasons why nucelar reactors produce radioactive waste from material that is not normally radioactive.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_activation

In addition a chemical reaction produces temperatures on the order of a couple of thousand degrees centigrade. A nuclear explosion is measured in millions of degrees. 

You really need to take things like this into account.

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

buisness plan is simple: extract 700 times the energy it took to prepare the fuel by using it in either of the two systems listed in this thread. That times the efficiency of the system which I know to be between 4-65%, equals profits earned from each use.

No, that's what my latin professor would call flatus culi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you'd actually tried to write a real business plan with detailed costs, revenue and profit, you'd start to understand how idiotic your idea is. 

 

It's unfortunate you are so arrogant that you are unable to see beyond your beliefs. 

Everybody here is telling you how your idea is not going to work from different points of view and on different levels and yet you don't even stop for one second to re-evaluate it and double check your assertions. 

 

The fact that you have no idea about the difference between a chemical and a nuclear explosion is disarming. 

The fact that you still have no idea after 2 threads on the same topic and literally hundreds of posts explaining you that very difference, is alarming. 

 

The fact that you are completely oblivious to the logistics and infrastructures that such an endeavour would imply, is again shocking. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

how does a conveyor belt stoop a great engineer like yourself LOL.

 

What infrastructure costs?

Nothing you ve said is valid and anyone who reads all the posts in this thread will see that.

Actually it's the opposite. 

Everybody here sees that what @pallidin wrote is valid and what you write is not. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so do you guys have answers to any of you questions? you blame me of assumptions? phew!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

so do you guys have answers to any of you questions? you blame me of assumptions? phew!

Can’t believe you’re still pushing this. 

It’s been 6 years (correct me if I’m mistaken) on those two websites I found and no one was willing to fund your ideas.

Did anyone even show any interest? Anyone credible? 

And here’s a good guide to writing a business plan. The only way that you will get any interest is if you have a comprehensive plan with some possibility of a profit: https://www.business.gov.au/info/plan-and-start/develop-your-business-plans/writing-a-business-plan

You will pretty quickly start to see that it’s not economically viable...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just did some numbers. A 3,000 foot cube of earth would be able to take an estimated 25 megatons to remove. The energy being around 30,000 million kilowatts times 5% efficiency could bring in 1.5 billion kwh. This would provide the highest yield from the fission and include a good percentage of fusion making it 'cleaner'. As we discussed the bomb would provide 650 times the energy required to make it at these ranges which at a 5% efficiency is profitable and the most efficient and only use of fusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2017 at 9:07 PM, trevor borocz johnson said:

where did you hear that?

David Hafemeister "Physics of Societal Issues: Calculations on National Security, Environment, and Energy" Springer (2014), and references therein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2017 at 6:43 PM, Parsec said:

If you'd actually tried to write a real business plan with detailed costs, revenue and profit, you'd start to understand how idiotic your idea is. 

 

It's unfortunate you are so arrogant that you are unable to see beyond your beliefs. 

Everybody here is telling you how your idea is not going to work from different points of view and on different levels and yet you don't even stop for one second to re-evaluate it and double check your assertions. 

 

The fact that you have no idea about the difference between a chemical and a nuclear explosion is disarming. 

The fact that you still have no idea after 2 threads on the same topic and literally hundreds of posts explaining you that very difference, is alarming. 

 

The fact that you are completely oblivious to the logistics and infrastructures that such an endeavour would imply, is again shocking. 

So somehow it doesn't work? My experiments are false because you can't range up explosives. And that's the reason for calling me an arrogant idiot. Because you know for sure. The explosion of a nuke doesn't move any weight? That its entirely inefficient? What is your point again? You make loud statements like the one above, but I know everything you know and more. Has anyone brought up the fact that nukes are more thermal then conventional explosives? Nope. You guys just mimic each other in this nonsense argument that a nuke has some magical bull**** properties that I don't know cause I'm not a 'genious'(LOL) like you pestsec.

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.