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

sepulchrave
12 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

The method in the OP doesn't catch any fast moving projectiles, unless you want to say the ground catches the huge mountain of rock being moved.

Exactly. A substantial amount of kinetic energy is lost as the rock impacts with the ground. You also have random sizes and shapes of rock. The distribution of rock is random and over a very large area. Finally, you have to keep the site clear of people and belongings since sharp pieces of rock hitting the ground obviously is very dangerous.

To reclaim this energy the scattered rock needs to be recollected by the side of your hole and you need a system that can handle various shapes and sizes (i.e., a single large rock can probably drive conveyer belt, but the equivalent mass in gravel will probably just slide down the belt without turning it).

Share this post


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

Exactly. A substantial amount of kinetic energy is lost as the rock impacts with the ground. You also have random sizes and shapes of rock. The distribution of rock is random and over a very large area. Finally, you have to keep the site clear of people and belongings since sharp pieces of rock hitting the ground obviously is very dangerous.

This is where I said that you would get back around 5 % and not 40% like you said. The crater I measured doing experiments was also around 5% comparred to a surface blast crater which has a know efficiency of .4%. You would lose energy through heat, sound, and seismic as well. But I really like this idea and think it will be used for a very long time. I wish I had more support for the fact that there are several novel and useful ideas presented that increase efficiency to some old ideas. The new method of digging, the water cannon power plant, both carry implications of lasting long into the future. It sounds like science fiction but I have tested the methods and they do work. Is it important to science to have a method for using explosives that is efficient? I mean it's good news from a sustainability viewpoint right? Since it is technically feasible to use fusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave
On 10/30/2017 at 11:24 AM, trevor borocz johnson said:

This is where I said that you would get back around 5 % and not 40% like you said. The crater I measured doing experiments was also around 5% comparred to a surface blast crater which has a know efficiency of .4%. You would lose energy through heat, sound, and seismic as well. But I really like this idea and think it will be used for a very long time. I wish I had more support for the fact that there are several novel and useful ideas presented that increase efficiency to some old ideas. The new method of digging, the water cannon power plant, both carry implications of lasting long into the future. It sounds like science fiction but I have tested the methods and they do work. Is it important to science to have a method for using explosives that is efficient? I mean it's good news from a sustainability viewpoint right? Since it is technically feasible to use fusion?

5% efficiency is really very low for a power generation scheme. (A good wind generator can get 40%, top-of-the-line solar cells reach 44%, so unless the wind is blowing or the sun is shining only 12% of the time these are better than your method.) Why not use the fissionable nuclear material in a slow-poke reactor?

I do not think it is very important for science to have a method for using explosives to generate electricity. It is an interesting idea, but I don't think it is practical or advisable. Especially if you are concerned about environmental damage. Look to new designs for fission nuclear power plants instead. The energy-return-on-investment for new nuclear plants is better than even for hydroelectricity (not to mention coal, natural gas, or oil).

Of course we can't build new nuclear plants because Fukushima killed everyone in Japan. (Oh, Japan is generally ok? Well it is still a bad idea because nuclear is scary.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
On 11/1/2017 at 10:06 AM, sepulchrave said:

I do not think it is very important for science to have a method for using explosives to generate electricity. It is an interesting idea, but I don't think it is practical or advisable. Especially if you are concerned about environmental damage. Look to new designs for fission nuclear power plants instead. The energy-return-on-investment for new nuclear plants is better than even for hydroelectricity (not to mention coal, natural gas, or oil).

Fine if you're going to hold the opinion that it is a useless system then please explain with concise detail how fusion lasers will gather energy, because if it is true a laser could set off a pure fusion explosion, and it is true they can only be fired every couple days, and if it is true that they gather heat inefficiently from the explosions, then I would say your wrong and that this system is important to fusion and the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
18 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

Fine if you're going to hold the opinion that it is a useless system then please explain with concise detail how fusion lasers will gather energy, because if it is true a laser could set off a pure fusion explosion, and it is true they can only be fired every couple days, and if it is true that they gather heat inefficiently from the explosions, then I would say your wrong and that this system is important to fusion and the future.

Why you are so hooked on explosives?

From David Hafemeister's Physics of Societal Issues:

Quote

Most fission energy appears as fission-fragment kinetic energy, which heats bomb debris to produce a blast wave. Pure fusion contributes less blast energy since escaping neutrons carry considerable energy away from the weapon.

Mind bolded part.

Do I have to elaborate where your "invention" leads?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
On 30/10/2017 at 4:24 AM, trevor borocz johnson said:

I wish I had more support for the fact that there are several novel and useful ideas presented that increase efficiency to some old ideas. 

Why do you continue as if it is actually your idea to use fusion bombs for energy production ?

If you had done your homework you would know that it was proposed back in the 50's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER 

The guys at Los Alamos National Laboratory found it to be impractical, but I guess you are smarter than them ?

The system was based on detonating two bombs a day, so just one powerplant would need 730 bombs a year, each one three times the Hiroshima bomb. Thats just one power plant. The US would need tens of thousands of bombs per year.

Anyway as I said earlier your idea is a violation of the Test Ban Treaty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
5 hours ago, bmk1245 said:
Quote

Most fission energy appears as fission-fragment kinetic energy, which heats bomb debris to produce a blast wave. Pure fusion contributes less blast energy since escaping neutrons carry considerable energy away from the weapon.

Mind bolded part.

Do I have to elaborate where your "invention" leads?

Yeah according to his theory there's less blast energy? what percentage less? I m betting its nothing. Which cancels out the rest of what you said.

Share this post


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

The guys at Los Alamos National Laboratory found it to be impractical, but I guess you are smarter than them ?

The system was based on detonating two bombs a day, so just one powerplant would need 730 bombs a year, each one three times the Hiroshima bomb. Thats just one power plant. The US would need tens of thousands of bombs per year.

Anyway as I said earlier your idea is a violation of the Test Ban Treaty.

Yes to gather heat, I've heard it all before, did you know they wanted to use abandoned mines filled with water to try to capture some of the heat with water? my system is more efficient because it gathers heat and blast energy. Feeling like a broken record here. If you guys could quit lunging at me with facts that don't prove anything or answer my questions that would be super. Anyways one can only speculate if the true cost of the initial energy used is greater then the electricity you generate. On several sites that's what was concluded because NOBODY knows for sure. Knowledge of this idea is only being told on forums, when I try to explain it in person or in an e-mail, it doesn't really get acknowledged because there is no chance to discus it further.

I m reading lasers were said to have reached fusion in 2014, Anybody acknowledge that as true? they haven't and aren't expected to reach ignition where they keep a fusion fire burning by feeding pellets into it? as I understand it? Does anyone understand otherwise? Well anyways a fusion laser sounds pretty promising that it could ignite a larger explosion. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
8 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

Yeah according to his theory there's less blast energy? what percentage less? I m betting its nothing. Which cancels out the rest of what you said.

Twice+ lower than for fission blasts. And its not just theory, but numerous experiments (actual nuclear/thermonuclear tests) as well.

I have a question for you: why we waste money on developing rocket engines, instead of lifting cargo to the space by explosions, huh?

Share this post


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

I m reading lasers were said to have reached fusion in 2014, Anybody acknowledge that as true?

The laser at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) have indeed achieved fusion.

9 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

they haven't and aren't expected to reach ignition where they keep a fusion fire burning by feeding pellets into it? as I understand it? Does anyone understand otherwise?

NIF wasn't really designed as a fusion power system, it was designed as an aid in testing nuclear weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility#NIF_and_ICF

9 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

Well anyways a fusion laser sounds pretty promising that it could ignite a larger explosion. 

As I have told you before if you use a laser to ignite explosion on the scale you envision you destroy the laser in the process. 

The thing is you can't just fire a single laser beam at the fuel and achive fusion. What you need is to have the lasers compress the fuell so much that the pressure and temperature is enough for fusion to occur. In order to do that you need to hit the fuel from multiple directions at the same time.

Inertial Confinement Fusion at the National Ignition Facility

Let me repeat what I said earlier, if you use a laser to produce a large explosion the laser is detroyed in the explosion ! Its such a fundamental problem in your idea that I can't comprehend why you don't understand that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245

NEtiaC, you are giving away jnfo in too big chunks at once. It will take eons for tbj to process that...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
10 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

NEtiaC, you are giving away jnfo in too big chunks at once. It will take eons for tbj to process that...

I don't know how I can make it any more simple ?

Blowing up your fusion laser is a bad business model !

Is that simple enough ? :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
7 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I don't know how I can make it any more simple ?

Blowing up your fusion laser is a bad business model !

Is that simple enough ? :P

No. Start with what laser is.

:rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
2 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

No. Start with what laser is.

:rolleyes:

But that would involve terms such as photons, electrons, wavelenghts, frequency and other concepts like that. Do you think he is ready for that ? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy

Bmk1245 I think Weitter Duckss and Trevorhbj would be a great match. Just imagine what World changing ideas they could come up with ? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
12 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

But that would involve terms such as photons, electrons, wavelenghts, frequency and other concepts like that. Do you think he is ready for that ? :rolleyes:

Start with photons.

7 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Bmk1245 I think Weitter Duckss and Trevorhbj would be a great match. Just imagine what World changing ideas they could come up with ? :lol:

NOW, THAT would be the epic Battle of Wits, way more funnier than Beetlejuice vs Gary the R.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yes to gather heat, I've heard it all before, did you know they wanted to use abandoned mines filled with water to try to capture some of the heat with water? my system is more efficient because it gathers heat and blast energy. Feeling like a broken record here. If you guys could quit lunging at me with facts that don't prove anything or answer my questions that would be super.

I'm sorry you feel like a broken record, but I've addressed the issue with blast energy before. The best way to capture blast energy efficiently is to buffer it and convert it to heat. Heat engines are simple and efficient, that is why they are so common. Capturing blast energy is inefficient, the yield is random, and the probability of catastrophic failure is significant.

10 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

Anyways one can only speculate if the true cost of the initial energy used is greater then the electricity you generate. On several sites that's what was concluded because NOBODY knows for sure.

That's a good indication that it doesn't work. Your method involves basically all of the difficult parts of conventional nuclear power, plus even more difficult parts (vastly higher enrichment, exponentially higher risk factors, etc.). Conventional nuclear power is good, and profitable, but not extremely profitable - otherwise everyone would be doing it regardless of public opinion.

You claim, without validation, that nuclear explosions release 8x more energy than conventional nuclear fuel rods. Accepting that, the fact that nuclear warheads require a minimum of 20x more enrichment (i.e. energy input) than conventional nuclear fuel rods still makes it look like your system is not feasible.

(As was concluded decades ago by project PACER, as you have been told repeatedly by numerous people.)

10 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

I m reading lasers were said to have reached fusion in 2014, Anybody acknowledge that as true? they haven't and aren't expected to reach ignition where they keep a fusion fire burning by feeding pellets into it? as I understand it? Does anyone understand otherwise? Well anyways a fusion laser sounds pretty promising that it could ignite a larger explosion.

To add you what Noteverythingisaconspiracy has said, and to repeat what I have said frequently and often on these forums, achieving fusion is relatively easy.

Achieving fusion that produces more output energy than input energy has, so far, never been reliably demonstrated by human technology (obviously the Sun does it).

Many scientists suspect that the primary goal of the National Ignition Facility is nuclear weapons research, the whole set up is just a way to get around the test ban treaties. Inertial confinement fusion may eventually produce more output energy than input energy but it is still very dubious whether this system could provide a working power plant.

A ``fusion laser'' as you call it (they are ordinary lasers, by the way) could not ignite a larger explosion very effectively. The size of the fuel pellets is very limited by the size of the focal point of the laser beams. Scaling this focal point larger is difficult to the point of being unfeasible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yes to gather heat, I've heard it all before, did you know they wanted to use abandoned mines filled with water to try to capture some of the heat with water? my system is more efficient because it gathers heat and blast energy. Feeling like a broken record here. If you guys could quit lunging at me with facts that don't prove anything or answer my questions that would be super. Anyways one can only speculate if the true cost of the initial energy used is greater then the electricity you generate. On several sites that's what was concluded because NOBODY knows for sure. Knowledge of this idea is only being told on forums, when I try to explain it in person or in an e-mail, it doesn't really get acknowledged because there is no chance to discus it further.

I m reading lasers were said to have reached fusion in 2014, Anybody acknowledge that as true? they haven't and aren't expected to reach ignition where they keep a fusion fire burning by feeding pellets into it? as I understand it? Does anyone understand otherwise? Well anyways a fusion laser sounds pretty promising that it could ignite a larger explosion. 

 

 

I'll try to explain this to you again, your experiment that you did with a fire cracker is not in any way representative of a nuclear explosion and all your assumption on the energy you would get out of it is heavily flawed.

As I said before a chemical explosion, like the fire cracker, works on completely different properties then a nuclear explosion and trying to use one to compare the other is only possible in the most rudimentary way, essentially only way they can be compared is initial energy released.  A chemical explosion works by turning normally a solid but sometimes a liquid that occupies a small volume into a gas or gases that occupy a very large volume in a very short period of time, nuclear explosions work by super heating the surrounding area and causing it to expand in volume.  The difference while it may seem minor is extremely significant.

In your experiment with the firecracker the solid firecracker was changed to gasses that wanted to fill a much larger space then the space the firecracker was in.  This caused an insane increase in pressure that was pushing on all boundaries equally.  Since there was a boundary, the rock, that could move easier then the other boundaries it ended up being the only boundary that moved, effectively the pressure was directed to move in one direction which lets it move the mass effectively.

As for a nuclear bomb for your idea as it has already been stated only 50% of it's total energy release is in the blast force with the other 50% being heat and radiation.  Of the 50% that is blast force you will not be able to capture anywhere close to all of it to generate energy.  Unlike with the chemical explosion that will retain high pressure until it reaches equilibrium the blast from a nuclear bomb will basically have the initial blast and that's it, there will be no where near the same increase in pressure.  Since the blast force will be expanding as a sphere in all directions only a very small percentage of it will be of any use to you in energy generation.  The exact percentage would depend on the geometry, with one extreme it would approach 50% and with the other extreme would approach 0% but neither of those extremes are possible in reality as they involve infinite length walls but any blast force captured must be between those two extremes.  Once you factor in that blast force decreases with the cube of the distance if one was inclined one could calculate the ideal geometry with consideration for cost of construction and from that determine what percentage of blast force you would capture.  I am not so inclined to do it in its entirety but from some quick calculations it should be around 22% of the blast force.  Assuming no other losses, which friction would undoubtedly play a massive part among other losses, the most energy you could get per nuclear bomb is around 11% of the energy released.  Maybe I missed something but I don't remember seeing anything from you that explains how your idea captures the energy released as heat.

Once you factor in losses due to friction and efficiency losses you would more then likely at best capture 5% of the energy but probably somewhere between 2.5% and 1%.  

Share this post


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

The best way to capture blast energy efficiently is to buffer it and convert it to heat.

See when you say things like this so assuredly I begin to doubt the other things you say. I have thoroughly searched and would like to know where you came up with this method of converting blast energy into heat? As far as I can tell your just making it up or basing it on something you've loosely heard before. I can show you other examples of attempts to generate energy from explosives, none involve converting blast energy to heat.

 

4 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

As I have told you before if you use a laser to ignite explosion on the scale you envision you destroy the laser in the process. 

Not if the lasers were put on springs, located far away, underground, and the explosion was contained in the water cannon.

 

3 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

Accepting that, the fact that nuclear warheads require a minimum of 20x more enrichment (i.e. energy input) than conventional nuclear fuel rods still makes it look like your system is not feasible.

Ok how about if the energy to enrich the fuel rod is 50 Watts and the energy gained back is 5000 watts. By detonating it you would use 1000 Watts enriching the fuel, and gain back 40,000 Watts in energy. Thats ten times the amount of energy you would have gotten from slow burning the fuel. Understand? 

3 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

A ``fusion laser'' as you call it (they are ordinary lasers, by the way) could not ignite a larger explosion very effectively. The size of the fuel pellets is very limited by the size of the focal point of the laser beams. Scaling this focal point larger is difficult to the point of being unfeasible.

It's the heat from the laser that causes the pressure right? All I know is what I've heard that there is a possibility of both the tokomak and Lasers igniting a pure fusion explosion. I can't argue with you that the fuel pellet is small. It seems since they use 50 trillion watts to ignite it, that despite its size it is a fairly large explosion. And I have THOROUGHLY LOOKED and there are no other efficient ideas of converting explosive energy to electricity so don't throw that at me again, I'm not stupid.

And another point, watch this movie at 3:30 in. It talks about how anytime their is a new idea, people will reject it regardless if its good or not and reasons why.  https://www.coasttocoastam.com/videos#!/19798/64064/Petroglyph-Controversies

Share this post


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

Not if the lasers were put on springs, located far away, underground, and the explosion was contained in the water cannon.

I have tried to explain this to you before, but let me try again. You can't achieve fusion just by pointing a laser at the target, you need to have laser beam hitting the fuel from different direction in order to achieve the pressure and temperature for fusion to occur. The way you do that is to have the laser light split into several beams (See image in post #110)  instead of one and to do that you need sophisticated optics and there is no way to ensure that those aren't destroyed everytime you set of an explosion. So even if you could make a laser that would survive the explosion the optics will be destoyed everytime you fire it. Do you understand what I am talking about here ?

The NIF laser that I linked to earlier is estimated to have cost on the order of 4 billion $ and even then it is way too small to be usefull in your concept. How do you propose to make a laser that is economically viable for use in your system ? 

Anyway there is no laser powerfull enough to be used in your powerplant, so any discussion of it is purely theoretical at present.

Share this post


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

See when you say things like this so assuredly I begin to doubt the other things you say. I have thoroughly searched and would like to know where you came up with this method of converting blast energy into heat? As far as I can tell your just making it up or basing it on something you've loosely heard before. I can show you other examples of attempts

Fair enough, I guess my language is a bit sloppy. Generating electricity from the sudden release of energy (burning fuel, exploding bombs) is only effective as a thermodynamic process, all of these can be described as heat engines (all gas/oil power plants, internal combustion engines in cars, etc.).

The expansion of gas, or a pressure wave in water, can all be efficiently used to do mechanical work, and thus generate electricity. The internal combustion engine in a car does use an explosion, of a sort, but it is the thermodynamic expansion of the gases generated that drives the piston. 

If you want to call this ``blast energy'' that is ok; based on your previous descriptions for ejecting rocks from a hole I was assuming you meant ``ballistic motion due to the explosion''.

Large explosions also generate ballistic motion of molecules/atoms, these have substantial energy but it is almost all wasted as the atom/molecule gets embedded in the piston: you can push a piece of cheese with the flat of your hand; applying equal energy to a sharp knife will just end up cutting the cheese without much motion. Large explosions can cause blast waves to exceed the speed of sound; this ballistic motion of the atoms does not provide the smooth pressure wave required to effectively and efficiently drive a piston.

Furthermore, most power plants avoid explosions because a substantial amount of energy from the expanding gas is wasted in collisions with the rigid walls of the container. A slow heating processes reduces this waste. We burn gas very rapidly in cars because we want the car to go from 0 to 60 mph in a few minutes. We do not need a gas power plant to go to 100% in a few minutes, so we improve efficiency by reducing the speed that energy is delivered to the thermodynamic working medium (water for the power plant, air for the internal combustion engine).

12 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

Ok how about if the energy to enrich the fuel rod is 50 Watts and the energy gained back is 5000 watts. By detonating it you would use 1000 Watts enriching the fuel, and gain back 40,000 Watts in energy. Thats ten times the amount of energy you would have gotten from slow burning the fuel. Understand? 

Sure, but the limiting rate is the energy input, not the use of fuel (so far, anyway; uranium ore is still cheap and plentiful). Spending 1000 W to use conventional power would then get 100 000 W back; 2.5x what you would get from exploding the bomb.

Where did you get the 8x energy factor from, by the way?

12 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

It's the heat from the laser that causes the pressure right? All I know is what I've heard that there is a possibility of both the tokomak and Lasers igniting a pure fusion explosion. I can't argue with you that the fuel pellet is small. It seems since they use 50 trillion watts to ignite it, that despite its size it is a fairly large explosion. And I have THOROUGHLY LOOKED and there are no other efficient ideas of converting explosive energy to electricity so don't throw that at me again, I'm not stupid.

Basically. The lasers heat the casing of the fuel pellet, vaporizing it. The rapid vaporization of the fuel pellet case causes the pressure.

Magentic confinement (tokomaks and other various designs) and inertial confinement (lasers) are the only methods right now that are possibly feasible. Nobody in the scientific community is holding their breath that one of these will work, however.

I believe you that you have looked for other efficient ideas for converting explosive energy to electricity.

The reason why I (and others as well, I'm assuming) doubt your intelligence is that after finding no other efficient ideas for converting explosive energy to electricity you conclude ``this means that I am a super genius for doing tests with fireworks and assuming that swapping fireworks for thermonuclear bombs will make the system even better'' rather than ``hmm, nobody is looking at this issue... maybe that's because generating electricity from explosives is not a good idea.''

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The expansion of gas, or a pressure wave in water, can all be efficiently used to do mechanical work, and thus generate electricity. The internal combustion engine in a car does use an explosion, of a sort, but it is the thermodynamic expansion of the gases generated that drives the piston.

Here's a patent that does just that,  uses gasses from the explosion to turn a turbine. https://www.google.com/patents/US8215111   It came out in 2012, and I know other examples of people filing similar patents for using vacuum created by explosives and several others. I know because I ve had a patent examiner search for my idea at the patent office.

 

10 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

Nobody in the scientific community is holding their breath that one of these will work, however.

That's very pessimistic as I talk to you more and more you seem to say these sorts of things a lot.

 

10 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

Sure, but the limiting rate is the energy input, not the use of fuel (so far, anyway; uranium ore is still cheap and plentiful). Spending 1000 W to use conventional power would then get 100 000 W back; 2.5x what you would get from exploding the bomb.

Where did you get the 8x energy factor from, by the way?

So what happened to your original arguement that because it took 20x the energy refining the fuel and only 8x the energy gained back from exploding it, that 20 was more then 8? You wrote that off the top of your head. Anyways I got the the 8x figure from the efficiency of a fusion boosted fission bomb on wikipedia which is around 40% and just in asking google found out what percentage of energy is used inside the fuel rod's which is around 5%, they become to hot after this and a stored in a cooling pool.

11 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

The reason why I (and others as well, I'm assuming) doubt your intelligence is that after finding no other efficient ideas for converting explosive energy to electricity you conclude ``this means that I am a super genius for doing tests with fireworks and assuming that swapping fireworks for thermonuclear bombs will make the system even better'' rather than ``hmm, nobody is looking at this issue... maybe that's because generating electricity from explosives is not a good idea.''

 PLEASE!!!! explain why the explosion of a nuclear bomb would have different properties then that of a smaller one and if you mention thermal energy I ll  tell you to watch a video of a nuke. How much weight does it send thousands of feet into the air? A LOT!! the conversion of energy is the same for both explosives: Weight displacement, sound, seismic and heat!!!!!! PLEASE enlighten me if you know something I don't before ram bling off to some other reason you can throw together with words you know off the top off your head.

They were looking for ways to generate energy with explosives in the 60's. They abandoned their projects because they were inefficient and had HUGE PROBLEMS like fallout and earthquakes. This idea and the water cannon idea are both more efficient then their cratering, which I have proven, as well as far fewer problems with fallout and earthquakes. 

 

Share this post


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

Here's a patent that does just that,  uses gasses from the explosion to turn a turbine. https://www.google.com/patents/US8215111   It came out in 2012, and I know other examples of people filing similar patents for using vacuum created by explosives and several others. I know because I ve had a patent examiner search for my idea at the patent office.

Yes, and the internal combustion engine has been around for over 100 years. These devices generally use a rapid chemical reaction to drive the thermodynamic expansion of gas. The ``rapid chemical reaction'' is usually considered an explosion, BUT it is a limited explosion - as small as possible to achieve the desired result.

7 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

That's very pessimistic as I talk to you more and more you seem to say these sorts of things a lot.

Is also realistic.

Research into fusion is valuable, and should be funded. But one should not harbour illusions about current technology - which is based on refinements of decades-old techniques - to suddenly start working.

If controlled fusion becomes a reality I suspect it will be from a new and unexpected design.

7 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

So what happened to your original arguement that because it took 20x the energy refining the fuel and only 8x the energy gained back from exploding it, that 20 was more then 8? You wrote that off the top of your head. Anyways I got the the 8x figure from the efficiency of a fusion boosted fission bomb on wikipedia which is around 40% and just in asking google found out what percentage of energy is used inside the fuel rod's which is around 5%, they become to hot after this and a stored in a cooling pool.

The original argument stands... 20x is more than 8x; if you want to maximize your energy output use conventional fission and you will get 2.5x more than from your device.

Actually, now that I see where you get your 8x number from, your argument is even weaker. The nuclear bomb requires 20x more raw uranium ore than the fuel rod, so per pound of original ore your device produces less energy than the conventional method.

Your method is worse than the conventional method based on both environmental efficiency considerations (maximize energy output for energy input) and environmental resource scarcity considerations (maximize use of available fuel).

[Admittedly, resource scarcity does not seem to be a problem as available uranium ore is still fairly plentiful, but if you want to minimize mining operations it may be worth considering.]

7 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

 PLEASE!!!! explain why the explosion of a nuclear bomb would have different properties then that of a smaller one and if you mention thermal energy I ll  tell you to watch a video of a nuke. How much weight does it send thousands of feet into the air? A LOT!! the conversion of energy is the same for both explosives: Weight displacement, sound, seismic and heat!!!!!! PLEASE enlighten me if you know something I don't before ram bling off to some other reason you can throw together with words you know off the top off your head.

This is the big stumbling issue for you, that myself and many others have tried to explain.

A firework explosion send dirt and rock flying, and creates a pressure wave in air.

A thermonuclear explosion transmutes the atoms next to it to different (and radioactive) elements. It chemically changes the phase of material further away (vapourizing, melting, etc.). Atoms, molecules, and ions are sent flying ballistically and can deeply penetrate shielding material. A substantial amount of X-ray and gamma radiation are created, potentially transmuting or at least ionizing elements even further away from the blast.

A thermonuclear explosion DOES provide weight displacement. But it also provides a substantial amount of the things explained above, which CANNOT be produced by a firework.

Transmutations, ion implantation, and phase changes - to distances of 100s of metres away - create serious problems in safely containing nuclear explosions, especially if you want to reuse the container.

Share this post


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

This is the big stumbling issue for you, that myself and many others have tried to explain.

A firework explosion send dirt and rock flying, and creates a pressure wave in air.

A thermonuclear explosion transmutes the atoms next to it to different (and radioactive) elements. It chemically changes the phase of material further away (vapourizing, melting, etc.). Atoms, molecules, and ions are sent flying ballistically and can deeply penetrate shielding material. A substantial amount of X-ray and gamma radiation are created, potentially transmuting or at least ionizing elements even further away from the blast.

I don't see how this makes the four fundamental energy conversions of explosives, Weight displacement, heat, sound and seismic any different. Are you trying to say that the surface crater I made with a firework would have been different if it was nuclear? That's what Im basing this system being more efficient on. That's what I figure people mean when they say that scaling up BS. But I'm telling you the numbers were true from the experiments and based on a .4% efficiency of a surface blast I get around 5% for the cratering and 10-15% for the water cannon. Both a considerable step up. 

 

52 minutes ago, sepulchrave said:

Your method is worse than the conventional method based on both environmental efficiency considerations (maximize energy output for energy input) and environmental resource scarcity considerations (maximize use of available fuel).

You say that in BOLD figures when you've admitted one, you don't know how efficient this system is, and two you don't know how much energy input there truly is? Why should I believe anything you say?

54 minutes ago, sepulchrave said:

The original argument stands... 20x is more than 8x; if you want to maximize your energy output use conventional fission and you will get 2.5x more than from your device.

I thoroughly explained how 20x is not more then 8x in this situation! Maybe you can support your gravity waves with maths but you sure can't spot your own mistakes if  have to explain why again.

1 hour ago, sepulchrave said:

Actually, now that I see where you get your 8x number from, your argument is even weaker. The nuclear bomb requires 20x more raw uranium ore than the fuel rod, so per pound of original ore your device produces less energy than the conventional method.

are you serious? I would say word salad but then I would succumb to the cable forum that worships sepulchrave and his gravity waves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter

Since I had some free time figured I would post this link.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/conversion-enrichment-and-fabrication/uranium-enrichment.aspx

Going to enrichment processes provides a lot of interesting figures and graphs on uranium enrichment like that out of 1 ton of uranium ore mined between 130 kg if 4% enriched and 120 kg if 5% enriched will be suitable for power plants.  To enrich to 4% it requires 6.25 SWU/kg and for 5% it requires 8.25 SWU/kg, compared to weapon grade uranium where out of a ton only about 5.6 kg will be suitable at about 227 SWU/kg.  To produce a small uranium based bomb about 16 kg of weapon grade uranium is going to be required but that is more for tactical warheads like those designed for the Davy Crocket weapon system or nuclear artillery shells.  To produce the explosion necessary for a fusion bomb detonation you will have to be closer to 60 kg of weapon grade uranium.  

To do some quick math you will need approximately 10 tons of uranium ore to create the first stage of a fusion weapon.  To enrich that 10 tons of uranium it will require 12,712 SWU.  That brings up the question of what SWU is and it is separation work unit and is a unit used in nuclear science for comparing enrichment essentially.  Luckily later on it has SWU to kWh conversions for various enrichment processes.  The most common enrichment process by far is centrifuge and it's conversion factor is between 40 to 50 kWh per SWU.  Using that to produce just the first stage of a fusion bomb it would take between 508,480 and 635,600 kWh.  

To compare that to nuclear power plants that same 10 tons of uranium would of produced between 1200 kg and 1300 kg of nuclear fuel with an energy cost between 9,900 kWh and 8,125 kWh depending on if you want 5% enrichment or 4% enrichment.

For further comparison a 1000 MW nuclear power plant will go through about 25 tons of fuel grade Uranium a year, with that Uranium being used for bombs instead you would get about 23 bombs that would require between 11,603 MWh and 14,618.8 MWh to enrich to weapon grade.  The nuclear power plant on the other hand would only require between 20,312 kWh and 24,750 kWh (20.3 MWh and 24.7 MWh) while producing around 7,884,000 MWh in that year.  

  • Like 1

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.