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

Pre-cutting the ground above explosive

178 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

trevor borocz johnson

So yeah, this is the first efficient use of fusion, something big scientists have been fighting for. My P.H.D for electronics. Anyone have any good questions?

Share this post


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

So yeah, this is the first efficient use of fusion, something big scientists have been fighting for. My P.H.D for electronics. Anyone have any good questions?

How would you induce fusion? You'd still need fission charge, with all consequences.

BTW, have you heard about Operation Plowshare?

Share this post


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

So yeah, this is the first efficient use of fusion, something big scientists have been fighting for. My P.H.D for electronics. Anyone have any good questions?

This is just... grotesque.

My good question: Are you wilfully trolling?

I understand you method, and can agree with your estimates of efficiency. It is a viable method of generating electrical power.

It is not, however, a practical method.

All of those big scientists have been fighting for a method that uses fusion to generate more energy than is originally put in, and ideally in a sustained manner.

By your own admission the energy regained from a thermonuclear blast is a small fraction of the energy emitted by the blast. Furthermore, the total energy of the thermonuclear blast is less than the energy required to construct a thermonuclear bomb, thermonuclear bombs are obviously not reusable, and you would also have to frequently re-dig your pit and re-cut your top stone (unless it is all made of mithril, or adamantium, or vibranium, or unobtainium, or some other fictional element).

So even ignoring the environmental damage caused by this method, the energy generated is miniscule compared to the energy spent setting up the system.

I am sorry; I generally try to be supportive, but this idea is totally idiotic.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

It is not, however, a practical method.

Why because it is big? Do you know how long they have been looking for a method to generate electricity with explosives? They've tried creating vacuum's, they've tried using heat energy. This is a breakthrough in the science, I was extremely excited to think of it, and in no way do I think its idiotic. It has potential to create millions of dollars in energy from just one single use. The only thing not practical about it is building enough craters in time to stop global warming. neither are attempts to switch to green energy. 

6 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

All of those big scientists have been fighting for a method that uses fusion to generate more energy than is originally put in, and ideally in a sustained manner.

There are three kinds of fusion: laser, tokomak, and thermonuclear. Laser would be the most useful to me but I could use thermonuclear as well. one day they will have lasers and this will be a clean method to generate power. Like many inventions of its sort it will probably be used a lot more in the distant future then now in the present. I even imagine them using this system on other planets in the dying days of humanity. Pretty impressive to have your invention survive that long.

You can't get more energy then you put in you know that. Any amount of energy that is gained from adding fusion fuel to the Tokomak is going to be divided up between losses and useful electricity.

6 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

Furthermore, the total energy of the thermonuclear blast is less than the energy required to construct a thermonuclear bomb, thermonuclear bombs are obviously not reusable, and you would also have to frequently re-dig your pit and re-cut your top stone

You're just saying this without doing any math for it. It obviously takes a lot less energy to remove the surface area of the block of land being removed then excavating the entire block of land. All the bombs they already have built could just be donated. What other use would they have for them? You would gain energy overall not lose it.

Don't call me an idiot Sepulchrave I don't bash on you for silly things like the speed of gravity waves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave

I am going to address one aspect of your post first, even though it was not the first thing mentioned, because I want to make 100% you understand it.

9 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

You can't get more energy then you put in you know that. Any amount of energy that is gained from adding fusion fuel to the Tokomak is going to be divided up between losses and useful electricity.

We (humanity) can get more energy out than we put in. The Universe cannot, but we can.

We did not make the oil, we just dig it up. Burning it gives us more energy than it takes to dig it up, so it is a net win (in terms of immediate energy gain, anyway; environmental effects are something else).

We did not create the uranium in the Earth's crust, we just dig it up and process it. Using the radioactivity from processed uranium fuel rods in a controlled manner gives us more energy than it takes to make the whole thing, so again it is a net win.

We, however, are making the thermonuclear bombs. Because making a viable thermonuclear warhead is an extremely complicated and precise process, and because - by your own admission - recapturing the energy released in an explosive blast is extremely inefficient, this method is a complete loss for humanity in terms of generating energy.

9 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

Why because it is big? Do you know how long they have been looking for a method to generate electricity with explosives? They've tried creating vacuum's, they've tried using heat energy. This is a breakthrough in the science, I was extremely excited to think of it, and in no way do I think its idiotic. It has potential to create millions of dollars in energy from just one single use. [snip]

Don't call me an idiot Sepulchrave I don't bash on you for silly things like the speed of gravity waves.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from thinking of big ideas. But you are only fooling yourself if you overstate the importance of your ideas.

And, while it doesn't exactly excuse my rudeness towards you, I do distinctly recall you being rather rude towards me regarding the gravity wave thing.

9 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

You're just saying this without doing any math for it. It obviously takes a lot less energy to remove the surface area of the block of land being removed then excavating the entire block of land. All the bombs they already have built could just be donated. What other use would they have for them? You would gain energy overall not lose it.

Alright, let's work the numbers.

  1. Wikipedia says that the USA has 7100 active, inactive, or decommissioned nuclear warheads.
  2. Wikipedia says that the total yield of the USA active nuclear arsenal of 1890 warheads is 490 Mt. (Same link as above.)
  3. Assuming inactive and decommissioned warheads had similar yields, this suggests a maximum explosive capacity of around 2000 Mt.
  4. Wikipedia says that the 2012 energy consumption of the USA was 4070 TWh.

Making the appropriate unit conversions between Mt and TWh, my math suggests that IF we could detonate 100% of the USA nuclear arsenal (not all warheads are still capable of detonation) and IF we could recapture 100% of the energy of those explosions (which, by your own admission, we cannot), and IF we could convert 100% of that energy into electricity (which we cannot; friction, heat, and other losses always occur), then we would have enough energy to power the USA for almost 7 months.

After you reduce that number due to the various unavoidable inefficiencies, think about the number of holes, and the size of these holes, that would need to be dug; the cost of preventing radioactive contamination of water and soil; the cost of building the apparatus to generate electricity from the blast; and the area of land that would be made useless for generations to come; is all that cheaper than just generating electricity by more conventional means?

Share this post


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

extremely inefficient, this method is a complete loss for humanity in terms of generating energy.

how are efficiency's of my my invention between 5 and 50% inefficient? compete's with all other systems I can think of, except a dam.

11 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

the cost of building the apparatus to generate electricity from the blast; and the area of land that would be made useless for generations to come; is all that cheaper than just generating electricity by more conventional means?

There is limited nuclear exposure with this method. Traditionally cratering would create a huge plume of nuclear fallout using surface blasts. This would then land somewhere, wherever the wind took it, and cause a problem. Not death but poisoning. With this method, and based on my observations with the firework experiments, all the blast energy that would send a huge plume into the sky is absorbed by the monolithic piece of rock which tumbles away from the crater. 

Conventional means have a time limit on them. Gas, and coal will run out someday. Fusion is the future I think you know that. I think you also know that no one else has successfully came up with a way to use fusion yet. If you really want to be safe from contamination you could use the water cannon system instead. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/300512-system-uses-fusion-as-fuel/

 

 

Share this post


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

how are efficiency's of my my invention between 5 and 50% inefficient? compete's with all other systems I can think of, except a dam.

If you are just going to make up numbers, then I why not claim it is 99% efficient? Your earlier posts suggested 4% to 20% based on your experiments with fireworks. Even if we assume it scales linearly (which it doesn't - a small firework may not even crack a stone, but a nuclear blast will completely vaporize or melt a great deal of rock) where do you get 50% from?

Wikipedia says that the conversion of heat into mechanical energy in a coal- or gas-fired plant is between 33% and 60%, depending on the design. Since your design also turns thermal energy into mechanical energy (raising the rock), I think it is a fair comparison: This range is higher than your original 4% to 20%.

Of course the efficiency in terms of $$ of fuel to $$ of electricity is over 100%, otherwise they would not build it. Your method is less than 100% - it costs more to build the nuclear bombs and dig the holes then you would get back in terms of electricity.

19 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

There is limited nuclear exposure with this method. Traditionally cratering would create a huge plume of nuclear fallout using surface blasts. This would then land somewhere, wherever the wind took it, and cause a problem. Not death but poisoning. With this method, and based on my observations with the firework experiments, all the blast energy that would send a huge plume into the sky is absorbed by the monolithic piece of rock which tumbles away from the crater.

I am genuinely impressed that you tried this method with fireworks.

But as I mentioned above, the process does not scale linearly. There is no substance on Earth that can withstand the heat from a nuclear blast without being seriously deformed. Some of the rock/sand/dirt on either side and below the nuclear blast would be vaporized, and when the monolithic piece of rock that was capping the hole is ejected by the blast, you would again have a plume of nuclear fallout.

What exact material do you propose to use for the monolithic slab and the surrounding hole?

19 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

Conventional means have a time limit on them. Gas, and coal will run out someday. Fusion is the future I think you know that. I think you also know that no one else has successfully came up with a way to use fusion yet. If you really want to be safe from contamination you could use the water cannon system instead. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/300512-system-uses-fusion-as-fuel/

I can agree that fusion is the future; but it must be sustained and controlled fusion.

Share this post


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

a small firework may not even crack a stone, but a nuclear blast will completely vaporize or melt a great deal of rock)

The weight placed on top of the firework is proportional to the explosive or it doesn't work. Interesting note from the experiments that a small crater would form in the blast hole and could only be used one time, So the crater would form from blasting but would be a compression crater that doesn't release any plume of debris.

 

4 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

What exact material do you propose to use for the monolithic slab and the surrounding hole?

bedroick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parsec
On 28/8/2017 at 8:50 PM, trevorhbj said:

This is a breakthrough in the science, I was extremely excited to think of it, and in no way do I think its idiotic. It has potential to create millions of dollars in energy from just one single use.

[...]

Like many inventions of its sort it will probably be used a lot more in the distant future then now in the present. I even imagine them using this system on other planets in the dying days of humanity. Pretty impressive to have your invention survive that long.

Well, it has to be nice being such an humble person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parsec
1 hour ago, trevorhbj said:

The weight placed on top of the firework is proportional to the explosive or it doesn't work. Interesting note from the experiments that a small crater would form in the blast hole and could only be used one time, So the crater would form from blasting but would be a compression crater that doesn't release any plume of debris.

 

bedroick

Have you estimated how much bedrock lid you'd need for a thermonuclear explosion? 

 

How big should be the dig (exact dimensions, diameter/depth)? 

 

Do you really think the soil walls won't be affected by a thermonuclear blast? 

 

Are you sure a lid made of bedrock will be enough to withstand a thermonuclear blast? 

 

Do you realise that fireworks and thermonuclear explosions have completely different properties and affect the surrounding environment in two different ways?

It would be like simulating a TNT explosion using diet coke and mentos. 

They are not comparable. 

 

By the way, have you thought of using soda geysers for your idea instead of thermonuclear warheads? 

You know, if you drop 1 ton of mentos in a pool of diet coke, you'll have a massive reaction, without the downside of dealing with fission fuel. 

It would be cheaper, cleaner and less messy. 

And pretty sweet. 

Ok, maybe stickier, but I'd go with sticky rather than radioactive. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Have you estimated how much bedrock lid you'd need for a thermonuclear explosion? 

 

How big should be the dig (exact dimensions, diameter/depth)? 

 

Do you really think the soil walls won't be affected by a thermonuclear blast? 

 

Are you sure a lid made of bedrock will be enough to withstand a thermonuclear blast? 

I don't know but a block a thousand feet in dimensions was what I was figuring on back when I was working on this a few years ago.

 

soil would lay on top of the pre cut bedrock. but you could blast smaller shapes in soil alone with conventional explosives. 

 

Its all about doing experiments and sizing an appropriate pre cut area to the size of the explosive

 

The properties for an explosion are the same when it is caused by heat. The heat turns into blast energy through rapid decomposition. The blast energy converts to sound, seismic, weight displacement, or heat. This system and my water cannon invention both convert as much of the initial blast energy into weight displacement as possible. 

Share this post


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

I don't know but a block a thousand feet in dimensions was what I was figuring on back when I was working on this a few years ago.

 

soil would lay on top of the pre cut bedrock. but you could blast smaller shapes in soil alone with conventional explosives. 

 

Its all about doing experiments and sizing an appropriate pre cut area to the size of the explosive

 

The properties for an explosion are the same when it is caused by heat. The heat turns into blast energy through rapid decomposition. The blast energy converts to sound, seismic, weight displacement, or heat. This system and my water cannon invention both convert as much of the initial blast energy into weight displacement as possible. 

Is there anything that could make you doubt your idea could not work on a bigger scale than fireworks? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
11 minutes ago, Parsec said:

Is there anything that could make you doubt your idea could not work on a bigger scale than fireworks? 

You are trying to argue with door bell.

Heck, I have an idea: move Antarctic into Pacific. Blow some crust here, there, and elsewhere, and push whole continent northwards with directed explosions. Just imagine how much land we will have...

Share this post


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

Is there anything that could make you doubt your idea could not work on a bigger scale than fireworks? 

Some people have said this. I understand that nuclear is more thermal then conventional. Why would the properties of an explosion change? One can see and hear that they don't watching different explosions. If done correctly then it should work on any scale.

Share this post


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

Some people have said this. I understand that nuclear is more thermal then conventional. Why would the properties of an explosion change? One can see and hear that they don't watching different explosions. If done correctly then it should work on any scale.

The explosions don't change that much. The response of the material to an explosion changes significantly.

You can kick a pebble and send it flying, your kick will not crack or damage the pebble.

If you apply a force 1000x greater to do the same thing to a rock 1000x larger, the rock may crack or even shatter.

The properties of materials do not scale linearly with the material size. Glass will vapourize at 3000 C, regardless of how big it is. A firework will never vapourize a small glass bottle, but a nuclear bomb will vapourize at least part of a large glass container.

Your idea to cap a nuclear blast with bedrock will not work because the nuclear blast will vapourize part of the rock and crack the rest of it. The rock will be thrown upwards, but will break into little pieces.

Share this post


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

Your idea to cap a nuclear blast with bedrock will not work because the nuclear blast will vapourize part of the rock and crack the rest of it. The rock will be thrown upwards, but will break into little pieces.

Well as long as it leaves behind a good sized crater what do I care. IMO it would not fall apart because that's what I observed and I see no reason to stray from what I see. Sepulchrave, did you understand the other experiment I described in fusion to electricity thread? It is a reusable crater. It uses water weight instead of dirt or rock. A third idea is to use a cannonball but that could only take so much blasting as it would be limited in size. 

On 8/30/2017 at 10:02 AM, sepulchrave said:

Wikipedia says that the conversion of heat into mechanical energy in a coal- or gas-fired plant is between 33% and 60%, depending on the design. Since your design also turns thermal energy into mechanical energy (raising the rock), I think it is a fair comparison: This range is higher than your original 4% to 20%.

Those seem like pretty high estimate's. I got my estimate's comparing the weight of the rock removed compared to the weight removed by the same firework in a surface blast. The surface blast was amazing, and left behind a perfect little shallow crater. The debris hit and broke a twig off of a tree overhead about 50 feet in a split second after blast. I'd never done that before with all the fireworks I've set off in my life. 

 

Share this post


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

Well as long as it leaves behind a good sized crater what do I care.

Now I am confused, because I thought you were planning using the blast to raise up the block, then lowering it slowly to power a generator..?

4 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

IMO it would not fall apart because that's what I observed and I see no reason to stray from what I see.

That is a valid opinion, but records from actual nuclear blasts report significant destruction to whatever material is immediately next to the blast. Wikipedia has a nice table of the radius of rock that would be melted, pulverized, cracked, or strained based on the size of bomb used in an underground nuclear blast.

4 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

Sepulchrave, did you understand the other experiment I described in fusion to electricity thread? It is a reusable crater. It uses water weight instead of dirt or rock. A third idea is to use a cannonball but that could only take so much blasting as it would be limited in size.

I think I understand it. I still don't think it will work. Unconstrained explosions - whether nuclear or conventional - are not usually considered good methods to reliably raise mass. The propelling force is too strong and quick, and even if the blast did not destroy the container, repeated use would rapidly degrade the container.

Just think about gunpowder weapons - note the difference in thickness between a musket barrel (relatively small explosive) and a cannon barrel (relatively large explosive); then scale that up again to be large enough to use in your proposed power generation system.

4 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

 Those seem like pretty high estimate's. I got my estimate's comparing the weight of the rock removed compared to the weight removed by the same firework in a surface blast. The surface blast was amazing, and left behind a perfect little shallow crater. The debris hit and broke a twig off of a tree overhead about 50 feet in a split second after blast. I'd never done that before with all the fireworks I've set off in my life.

They do seem high, but they were made by studying the actual operation of full-sized coal/gas powerplants. Your estimates were made by visual inspection of small fireworks and then making an inductive leap to a large-scale device. That sort of extrapolation has previously caused disaster.

Share this post


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

Now I am confused, because I thought you were planning using the blast to raise up the block, then lowering it slowly to power a generator..?

No! the block is broken up and lowered back down in pieces on a conveyor belt. Power from the conveyor belt chops into the block and is self automated. 

 

11 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

The propelling force is too strong and quick, and even if the blast did not destroy the container, repeated use would rapidly degrade the container.

Yes the sides of the container did crack after a lot of uses so they would have to be built appropriatley. 

 

11 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

Just think about gunpowder weapons - note the difference in thickness between a musket barrel (relatively small explosive) and a cannon barrel (relatively large explosive); then scale that up again to be large enough to use in your proposed power generation system.

Did you know water is highly energy absorbent? Duh they use it to put out fires. I was thinking the walls would only have to be an inch thick with steel. They are less attached to the energy of the explosive and more attached to rebounding the wave of energy through the water which absorbs it again and transfers finally into weight displacement. It all happens in a flash of a second.

A cannon is 40% efficient to weight displacement I saw that on wikipedia. Since its stuffed with a steel ball and the explosive is directly in contact with the container, I suppose a cannon large enough to sustain a nuclear blast is pretty silly. My original idea was to shoot a cannonball straight up in the air catch it where it pauses, and then lower it back down against a generator. Then I thought of the loop at the top to catch it. Then I thought of taking energy out of loop as well as the heat in the blast chamber. All could add up to 70-85% efficiency of the explosive.

Share this post


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

No! the block is broken up and lowered back down in pieces on a conveyor belt. Power from the conveyor belt chops into the block and is self automated.

So now your system has to catch many pieces of rock, all with random sizes moving at different speeds and going in slightly different directions?

And furthermore once the system has been used you have to go an cut another piece of bedrock to do it over again?

I am pretty confident that the energy gained from lowering the blocks is less than the energy cost of cutting a new bedrock slab.

4 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

Yes the sides of the container did crack after a lot of uses so they would have to be built appropriatley. 

This connects back to Badeskov's questions in your other thread. What magic material are you going to use that is resistant to a thermonuclear explosion?

4 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

Did you know water is highly energy absorbent? Duh they use it to put out fires. I was thinking the walls would only have to be an inch thick with steel. They are less attached to the energy of the explosive and more attached to rebounding the wave of energy through the water which absorbs it again and transfers finally into weight displacement. It all happens in a flash of a second.

I was aware that water has a high specific heat capacity. I am also aware that water is basically incompressible. The shockwave from the blast is not significantly reduced by travelling through water. Inch thick steel won't be enough for any reasonably sized explosive, and laughably insufficient for any nuclear or thermonuclear explosion.

Incidentally, this is how depth charges for submarine hunting work. The submarine isn't damaged by the blast directly, but by the shockwave in the water. Because water is incompressible while air is not, shockwaves do more damage in water than in air.

4 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

A cannon is 40% efficient to weight displacement I saw that on wikipedia. Since its stuffed with a steel ball and the explosive is directly in contact with the container, I suppose a cannon large enough to sustain a nuclear blast is pretty silly. My original idea was to shoot a cannonball straight up in the air catch it where it pauses, and then lower it back down against a generator. Then I thought of the loop at the top to catch it. Then I thought of taking energy out of loop as well as the heat in the blast chamber. All could add up to 70-85% efficiency of the explosive.

This would work, but I still have my doubts on the 70-85% efficiency you predict.

It also does not avoid the problem that making explosives costs more energy than is obtained by the blast; and if your mechanism is only getting 85% of that energy back into usable energy humanity would have more available energy by simply not making explosives in the first place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parsec
On 31/8/2017 at 7:18 PM, bmk1245 said:

You are trying to argue with door bell.

Heck, I have an idea: move Antarctic into Pacific. Blow some crust here, there, and elsewhere, and push whole continent northwards with directed explosions. Just imagine how much land we will have...

I know, but wanted to see if he really thinks of himself as the new almighty god of science or if there was the tiniest room for doubt and self evaluation (and thus critical thinking). I can't say I'm disappointed, just not surprised. 

 

Brilliant idea regarding Antarctica!

But I suggest to move it into the Atlantic and attaching it to Africa: with all the melted ice we could both store some of the water for drinking usage and irrigate the whole continent.

Basically while solving the world energy demand we'll solve the world hunger as well! 

I wonder why no one ever thought about it before. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So now your system has to catch many pieces of rock, all with random sizes moving at different speeds and going in slightly different directions?

You don't catch the rock that you blast out of the crater, it tumbles off to the side of the crater it creates and just sits on the ground. Then you break it up and gradually lower it back in over a long time or as you energy needs see fit.

 

12 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

And furthermore once the system has been used you have to go an cut another piece of bedrock to do it over again?

I am pretty confident that the energy gained from lowering the blocks is less than the energy cost of cutting a new bedrock slab.

Yes once the crater is full you move on. That is what the other invention for using a steel container to re blast is for, so it can be re usable. However from one single blast of fission/fusion explosion you could spend your entire lifetime filling that hole and make millions of dollars doing it.

 

12 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

It also does not avoid the problem that making explosives costs more energy than is obtained by the blast; and if your mechanism is only getting 85% of that energy back into usable energy humanity would have more available energy by simply not making explosives in the first place.

Yes it is true that all other explosives would be a waste of energy to use in this system because of the cost to make them unless you were digging holes for another purpose, not to create energy. However when you use a 50/50 fission fusion bomb, you use 8 times the amount of energy in the fissable materials as you would with the same of amount in a traditional power plant. Fusion fuel is supposedly very abundant, which in the long run must make it cheap. I really support the use of fusion lasers to detonate the explosive. It's not my fault they don't have those working yet. I imagine someday it will be lasers and my power plant vs the tokomak and traditional steam powered turbines. Do you think there is any way to stop global warming from causing an extinction? I don't which is why I suggest people move to or around the Great Lakes, where we have the best water in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
On 8/28/2017 at 9:32 AM, sepulchrave said:

and you would also have to frequently re-dig your pit and re-cut your top stone

Do you understand how it works? You wouldn't dig the pit, you would cut along the outside of the piece of earth being removed so that it is seperated from the ground entirely. The explosive underneath acts like a punching glove and knocks the piece out of the ground. The piece of rock laying on the ground is lowered or you could use water from the surface like a dam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave
On 2017/09/03 at 2:14 AM, trevorhbj said:

You don't catch the rock that you blast out of the crater, it tumbles off to the side of the crater it creates and just sits on the ground. Then you break it up and gradually lower it back in over a long time or as you energy needs see fit.

Yes once the crater is full you move on. That is what the other invention for using a steel container to re blast is for, so it can be re usable. However from one single blast of fission/fusion explosion you could spend your entire lifetime filling that hole and make millions of dollars doing it.

Just stop and think. There are still plenty of open mine shafts in the world. There are still plenty of mountains. If slowly lowering rocks downhill could make millions of dollars worth of energy, people would be doing it with mountains and mine shafts.

Here is a nice comic about energy density of fuels. For reference, you would need to have a hole 100 km deep for the rocks to have an energy density of 1 MJ/kg.

Yes, fissile materials have very high energy densities. But releasing all of that energy at once and converting it into elevated rock is a ridiculous waste.

On 2017/09/03 at 2:14 AM, trevorhbj said:

Do you think there is any way to stop global warming from causing an extinction?

I am not sure if we can stop global warming. I suppose causing nuclear winter (due to all the thermonuclear warheads you propose setting off) may help mitigate global warming, but I don't think most people would consider that an improvement.

Otherwise your proposed scheme - because it relies on man-made products (pre-cut bedrock, buried explosives, not to mention the bombs themselves) and is less than 100% energy efficient (i.e. humanity spends more energy building these contraptions then we would get back by using them) - would only make global warming worse: We would have to burn more fossil fuels then we normally would just to build these silly power plants.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I suppose causing nuclear winter

As we have evolved to this point in time, a large population was necessary to invent and come up with the theories that we have. Since 1950 we have come up with the majority of things that surround us, esp electricity. It's amazing all the inventions since 1800. All the great minds that have existed were during this time of population increase. I think its a necessary evil. However From the point of enlightenment, just as we will always have electricity and cars from this point on in the earth's future, so too will we need a system of ONE PERSON CAN HAVE ONE CHILD, so that we don't exhaust resources yadda yadda yadda. 

Speulchrave, have you read revelations? It talks about in end times the sea life dying and the green grass and that 1/3 and 1/4 of man dying by a plague. This is what leads me to believe there is no reversal of global warming. I also believe form a prophet who wrote about the bible that we only have seven years from 2017 until end times begins. http://destination-yisrael.biblesearchers.com/destination-yisrael/2012/12/rabbi-judah-ben-samuels-jubilee-prophecy-gives-the-year-of-the-messiah.html  I think its of grave importance that people start moving themselves out of cities on the ocean borders, and away from the danger into Canada especially above the great Lakes. The lake water is so plentiful. We can't just ignore this thing like Trump seems to be doing building walls. 

5 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

Otherwise your proposed scheme - because it relies on man-made products (pre-cut bedrock, buried explosives, not to mention the bombs themselves) and is less than 100% energy efficient (i.e. humanity spends more energy building these contraptions then we would get back by using them) - would only make global warming worse: We would have to burn more fossil fuels then we normally would just to build these silly power plants.

It works! it increases the efficiency's of cratering. It's not like the conductive grid where I haven't performed any experiments. It's a viable method for using fusion as the tokomak,  but for reasons stated above is only a novelty at this point in evolution. Just do the math Sep 5-20% efficiency of a 10 million kw explosive would return .5-2 million kwh in electricity. It's easy. This one's a winner trust me.

Share this post


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

As we have evolved to this point in time, a large population was necessary to invent and come up with the theories that we have. Since 1950 we have come up with the majority of things that surround us, esp electricity. It's amazing all the inventions since 1800. All the great minds that have existed were during this time of population increase. I think its a necessary evil. However From the point of enlightenment, just as we will always have electricity and cars from this point on in the earth's future, so too will we need a system of ONE PERSON CAN HAVE ONE CHILD, so that we don't exhaust resources yadda yadda yadda. 

Speulchrave, have you read revelations? It talks about in end times the sea life dying and the green grass and that 1/3 and 1/4 of man dying by a plague. This is what leads me to believe there is no reversal of global warming. I also believe form a prophet who wrote about the bible that we only have seven years from 2017 until end times begins. http://destination-yisrael.biblesearchers.com/destination-yisrael/2012/12/rabbi-judah-ben-samuels-jubilee-prophecy-gives-the-year-of-the-messiah.html  I think its of grave importance that people start moving themselves out of cities on the ocean borders, and away from the danger into Canada especially above the great Lakes. The lake water is so plentiful. We can't just ignore this thing like Trump seems to be doing building walls. 

It works! it increases the efficiency's of cratering. It's not like the conductive grid where I haven't performed any experiments. It's a viable method for using fusion as the tokomak,  but for reasons stated above is only a novelty at this point in evolution. Just do the math Sep 5-20% efficiency of a 10 million kw explosive would return .5-2 million kwh in electricity. It's easy. This one's a winner trust me.

Seriously? You invoke the Bible?!

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.