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 4
trevor borocz johnson

Fusion Power Plant

109 posts in this topic

I posted a picture of this idea about a year ago without any description. Someone said they couldn't even see the picture that it just said image. So I will instead describe step by step how this invention works.

Step 1: Build a cavity in the ground ten times as deep as it is wide. The deeper the cavity the more you increase the efficiency of the system to a point. 

Step 2: Line the bottom 10% of the cavity with steel

Step 3: operate a turbine generator by lowering water weight from the top of the cavity to the bottom and dumping the water in the cavity.

Step 4: Once the cavity is about 10-15% full of water a fusion explosive is detonated near the bottom of the pool of water. The water is cleared out of the cavity and caught inside a loop connected to and situated on the ground at the top of the cavity that eliminates exposure to radiation and allows for the weight to circulate to burn off any extra momentum energy it has.

Step 5: The process is repeated So that the system can be re used.

One could build several cavity's around one loop and use fusion lasers to set off the explosive. I estimate through experiments that this system could be 10-20% efficient from just the weight displacement . You could also gather heat out of this system As the water circulating through it would heat up over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've experimented with fusion explosions?

What effect does the water have on the laser beam as it travels through the water?

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, seanjo said:

You've experimented with fusion explosions?

What effect does the water have on the laser beam as it travels through the water?

 

no I've experimented with smaller explosives. And I don't know Ive never used a laser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how is it better than, say, steam turbine?

Share this post


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

no I've experimented with smaller explosives. And I don't know Ive never used a laser.

Is this thread going to go any differently than your other 'trevor's wild theories' threads? Maybe a real and properly designed experiment? Data? Conclusions? I feel I'm expecting too much...

Forgive me for being cynical, but you've set a pretty low bar for yourself.

And I'm really not just trying to be a dick, but you have to realize why you get so much criticism when you post stuff like this.

Who knows, if you prove my opinion wrong I'll sincerely send you a gift (<=$50AU). If that ain't incentive, I don't know what is. :su

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only other current method for using fusion, which we discussed on the other thread, is to get heat from explosions in underground cavity's notably salt mines. The system in the OP gathers heat more efficiently because the water is so energy absorbent, AS WELL AS a novel approach to gathering a high percentage of the blast energy, which for an explosive is 50% OF THE ENERGY!

Share this post


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

Is this thread going to go any differently than your other 'trevor's wild theories' threads? Maybe a real and properly designed experiment? Data? Conclusions? I feel I'm expecting too much...

Forgive me for being cynical, but you've set a pretty low bar for yourself.

And I'm really not just trying to be a dick, but you have to realize why you get so much criticism when you post stuff like this.

Who knows, if you prove my opinion wrong I'll sincerely send you a gift (<=$50AU). If that ain't incentive, I don't know what is. :su

Let's just be thankful that Trevor hasn't the resources to realize his delusuons

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read that both the Tokomak and the Laser Ignition Facility are discussing the idea that a pure fusion explosive could be set off by either of those systems. What I haven't read is how they will gather the energy from those explosions. Therefore I think an efficient method for converting explosives to electricity is important to science. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you already given a name to your plant? 

I was thinking "old chestnut". 

Share this post


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

I think I found the drawing you’re talking about, from https://fusiontoelectricity.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/0/1/12018957/inventions.pdf

How did you find that? That takes me back. That drawing is six years old. I made it before I did experiments. The water at the top wouldn't just spill over the sides, it goes straight up into the air. That is why I made a loop to attach to the top of the cavity for the water to circulate in and be caught and re used. 

Share this post


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

How did you find that? That takes me back. That drawing is six years old. I made it before I did experiments. The water at the top wouldn't just spill over the sides, it goes straight up into the air. That is why I made a loop to attach to the top of the cavity for the water to circulate in and be caught and re used. 

Just googling your name since you changed it on here, not trying to be overly stalky or anything. 

I assume it’s your web page? https://fusiontoelectricity.weebly.com/index.html

Also: https://www.equitynet.com/c/gravity-powerplants

Share this post


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

Have you already given a name to your plant? 

I was thinking "old chestnut". 

why old chestnut?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2017 at 2:28 AM, trevor borocz johnson said:

why old chestnut?

 

Because it's the same old trite story you propose regularly. 

 

And, regularly, you dismiss and don't consider all the scientifically valid points raised by other posters, since, regularly, they show how scientifically and pragmatically wrong your proposal is.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

And, regularly, you dismiss and don't consider all the scientifically valid points raised by other posters, since, regularly, they show how scientifically and pragmatically wrong your proposal is.

Oh! I dance around questions? How many times do I have to bring up the fact in comment 8 and nobody acknowledge it before I have to address your brilliant scientific points?

Share this post


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

Oh! I dance around questions? How many times do I have to bring up the fact in comment 8 and nobody acknowledge it before I have to address your brilliant scientific points?

If this was your first thread on the topic you could have a point, but since it's at least the third (that I remember of) you can't expect people to go through it every now and then. 

 

Your last thread that I remember was about a power plant using "water displacement" in order to generate electricity and fusion power was simply a mean, now it looks like you shifted your attention to the fusion part. 

Or you simply switch the order, at the end of the day you are still proposing to use a thermonuclear bomb in a hole, covered with water. 

Ah no, there's a difference this time: you didn't mention a lid. 

 

You experimented with fireworks, if I remember correctly, and yet you think that a thermonuclear explosion is exactly the same, only bigger. 

 

At this point I will ask you the same question I've already asked you in the previous thread, to which you never replied: are you familiar with soda geysers? 

Have you ever tried or tested them? 

They produce, proportionally, big eruptions as well. 

I suggest you to give it a try, if you haven't yet. 

You could fill your pool with coke instead of water and pour in tons of menthos instead of exploding a thermonuclear bomb. 

For sure you wouldn't bother about radioactive waste and you'd always have a fresh breath. 

 

Comparing firework explosions to thermonuclear explosions is like comparing soda geysers to firework (better, to dynamite) explosions. 

They can look like similar, just on different scales, but they are actually completely different processes that affect the surrounding environment in completely different ways. 

Share this post


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

Because it's the same old trite story you propose regularly. 

Its not even an original idea. He is basically just imitating project PACER and claiming that it is his own idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

If this was your first thread on the topic you could have a point, but since it's at least the third (that I remember of) you can't expect people to go through it every now and then. 

 

Your last thread that I remember was about a power plant using "water displacement" in order to generate electricity and fusion power was simply a mean, now it looks like you shifted your attention to the fusion part. 

Or you simply switch the order, at the end of the day you are still proposing to use a thermonuclear bomb in a hole, covered with water. 

Ah no, there's a difference this time: you didn't mention a lid. 

 

You experimented with fireworks, if I remember correctly, and yet you think that a thermonuclear explosion is exactly the same, only bigger. 

 

At this point I will ask you the same question I've already asked you in the previous thread, to which you never replied: are you familiar with soda geysers? 

Have you ever tried or tested them? 

They produce, proportionally, big eruptions as well. 

I suggest you to give it a try, if you haven't yet. 

You could fill your pool with coke instead of water and pour in tons of menthos instead of exploding a thermonuclear bomb. 

For sure you wouldn't bother about radioactive waste and you'd always have a fresh breath. 

 

Comparing firework explosions to thermonuclear explosions is like comparing soda geysers to firework (better, to dynamite) explosions. 

They can look like similar, just on different scales, but they are actually completely different processes that affect the surrounding environment in completely different ways. 

Yeah thanks for posting more nonsense on my thread. I don't address a lot of the "scientific points" because it takes about five seconds of thought to dismiss them. Have you ever seen a nuke on video? That's a lot of weight getting shot up in the air, I ve never seen that with fizzies thank you.

And to my recollection this is the first time I have posted a description of this particular invention, I posted a drawing a year ago but the file size was to big. So the forum really hasn't discussed this one yet. 

27 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Its not even an original idea. He is basically just imitating project PACER and claiming that it is his own idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER

according to the patent office there is no other ideas out there that are exactly the same as mine. This would definitely include any of the ideas proposed in project PACER.  Perhaps you know something differently?

Share this post


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

Oh! I dance around questions? How many times do I have to bring up the fact in comment 8 and nobody acknowledge it before I have to address your brilliant scientific points?

Why not just a conventional fusion reactor though?

Share this post


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

Why not just a conventional fusion reactor though?

Because from what I understand the pellet of fuel in a Laser system explodes when the beams hit it. It doesn't provide heat the way the Tokomak would by feeding fusion fuel into it.

Share this post


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

Because from what I understand the pellet of fuel in a Laser system explodes when the beams hit it. It doesn't provide heat the way the Tokomak would by feeding fusion fuel into it.

The fuel is meant to explode, that’s where the energy comes from. But a reactor harnesses the energy from a controlled and sustained reaction, your method uses a single explosion. 

Harnessing the energy from the same amount of fuel in a conventional fusion reactor would probably be close to infinitely more efficient than what you’ve proposed.

I don’t know what the Tokomak is.

Edit: After briefly reading up on the Tokomak, I fail to see how it has any real similarity with what you’re proposing at all? It is one of the ‘conventional’ experimental approaches.

Edited by Timonthy
Edit.
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Its not even an original idea. He is basically just imitating project PACER and claiming that it is his own idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER

Cheers. 

I actually did remember that bit from his previous thread, but a reminder is always welcome! 

Share this post


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

Yeah thanks for posting more nonsense on my thread. I don't address a lot of the "scientific points" because it takes about five seconds of thought to dismiss them. Have you ever seen a nuke on video? That's a lot of weight getting shot up in the air, I ve never seen that with fizzies thank you.

And to my recollection this is the first time I have posted a description of this particular invention, I posted a drawing a year ago but the file size was to big. So the forum really hasn't discussed this one yet. 

Here's a refreshes (menthos included):

Possibly not exactly the same thing, initially you talk about a rock lid, but the concept is the same: dig big hole, place thermonuclear bomb, go boom, gain energy back by lowering the flying lid (or it's pieces when breaks). 

Then in post #43 you started to talk about adding water to the process. 

 

Trevor, have you ever seen 1 ton of menthos poured in a deep pool filled with coke as the one you want to use? 

 According to your own reasoning, if 6 menthos in a 2 litre bottle of coke produce a geyser 50 cm high, obviously 1 ton menthos in a pool of coke will do great.

 

My example follows the same fallacy of your proposal: you simply scale up what you have experimented with fireworks and substitute (in your head) fireworks with thermonuclear bombs. 

The reality of the world doesn't work like that. 

If it did, we'd already have "Menthoke" plants everywhere.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Yeah thanks for posting more nonsense on my thread. I don't address a lot of the "scientific points" because it takes about five seconds of thought to dismiss them. 

So, do you realise that your method is extremely inefficient and the total net gain is negative? 

 

Have you considered the energy required to dig the hole? 

The energy required to line the bottom of the hole with steel? 

The energy required to produce the steel slab? 

The energy required to produce steel in the first place (it's not a natural element)? 

The energy required to bring water to the hole? 

The energy required to build the thermonuclear bomb? 

The energy required to bring the thermonuclear bomb to the hole? 

The energy required to build the contraption that will harness the ejected water? 

 

These are just a few of the things to consider when you think in terms of a power plant net output. 

And all of them will have to be taken into account for every hole you want to dig. 

 

On top of that, can you provide specific data about your plant? 

You say the hole will be deep. How much? 10 meters like in your previous thread? 100 metres? 

If you fill 10-15% of that hole with water, it means there will be 1-1.5 meters or 10-15 meters of water. You do realise that with a thermonuclear explosion that water will be vaporised by the heat? Depending how "deep" your hole is, it will evaporate completely or in part.

Did you take that into consideration when you thought about your contraption that will gather it? 

And when you made your calculations about weight displacement (you will not lower down the vapour)? 

 

Do you realise that the walls of your hole will have to withstand a thermonuclear explosion without collapsing? 

Which material will you use for them? 

Rock/soil? 

 

Please, take 5 second of your time and answer my questions.  

Share this post


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

Have you considered the energy required to dig the hole? 

The energy required to line the bottom of the hole with steel? 

The energy required to produce the steel slab? 

The energy required to produce steel in the first place (it's not a natural element)? 

The energy required to bring water to the hole? 

The energy required to build the thermonuclear bomb? 

The energy required to bring the thermonuclear bomb to the hole? 

The energy required to build the contraption that will harness the ejected water? 

 

These are just a few of the things to consider when you think in terms of a power plant net output. 

And all of them will have to be taken into account for every hole you want to dig. 

All the money it takes to build it would be earned back by multi million dollar profits from setting of large explosions. 

 

7 hours ago, Parsec said:

On top of that, can you provide specific data about your plant? 

You say the hole will be deep. How much? 10 meters like in your previous thread? 100 metres? 

If you fill 10-15% of that hole with water, it means there will be 1-1.5 meters or 10-15 meters of water. You do realise that with a thermonuclear explosion that water will be vaporised by the heat? Depending how "deep" your hole is, it will evaporate completely or in part.

Did you take that into consideration when you thought about your contraption that will gather it? 

And when you made your calculations about weight displacement (you will not lower down the vapour)? 

 

Do you realise that the walls of your hole will have to withstand a thermonuclear explosion without collapsing? 

Which material will you use for them? 

Rock/soil? 

I haven't done the calculations for the size of cavity needed for explosions in the megatons in a while. As I remember it, a 2,000 foot wide cavity at ten percent efficiency would withstand a several megaton explosive. A pool this big would not be totally vaporized and a lot of the water weight would be cleared out. That's why I have my fingers crossed for lasers because then you could scale down the explosion and how big the cavity need be.

The part of the cavity the explosive is set off in is lined with steel, the blast energy from the explosive is highly absorbed by the water. This is why the explosive is apropriatley  sized for the dimensions of the cavity, to avoid damage.

The dimensions for the cavity could be built by the method in the other thread of pre-cutting the earth and removing the pre cut piece with an explosive.

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 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.