Fusion Power Plant

[trevor borocz johnson]

2 minutes ago, The Silver Thong said:

This

I'm sorry what? I enjoy talking about these things cause they've been bottled up for a while. what waas ] your point?

 

[+DieChecker]

17 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

Yeah they did hundreds of blasts, and if they did just one in the pre cutting method they could make millions even billions of dollars in fuel. 

How do you propose to pre-cut out a cylinder a mile deep and 500 feet across and not have what you excavate fall in? At best you are going to have rock/earth fall into the cut area and increase friction by a tremendous amount. The pre-cutting is still going to cost like a billion dollars, if the technology to do so even exists.

Quote

Do you understand what I'm saying about pre cutting?  One would cut down into the earth and cut around the shape to be removed. Then an explosive could be used to remove the very large piece. The method maybe more efficient then traditional digging methods by a factor of thousands. Also much faster. 

So, let's assume you use four explosions to move a quarter of the 500 foot across 5000 foot deep out at a time. That is a volume of a billion cubic feet (as I posted last time). A quarter would be 250 million cubic feet, with a cubic foot of rock being 175 pounds per cubic foot (which is limestone, and so being generous as an estimate), which comes to a total of about 44 billion pounds to move 10200 feet for just the first bomb. Other bombs would have to move that much more each time, in order to clear the hole. If they don't clear the hole, then what is the point, since you're going have to clear it out conventionally anyway. If you mean to clear the whole thing in one go, then it is 170 billion pounds.

That 44 billion pounds moving 1200 feet is 5x10^13, or 50,000,000,000,000 foot pounds needed. Or, (times 1.356) 72,000,000,000,000 joules.

A  nuclear fission bomb gives off about 50% of its energy as blast energy, 15% is radiation and 35% is thermal energy. And a 1 MT (megaton) nuke puts out about 4.2 x10^15 joules of energy. Being able to use 50% of that to move things, you would need 0.035 MT (35 kt) bomb to move a quarter of your hole. And that is if the blast can be contained under the block of stone, and if friction losses can be contained at a low amount. So assume something like 10% lost due to friction and 30% lost due to escaping blast pressure. That means you still need a 60 kT bomb under the first plug of rock.

Then for the second you need to move the rock 2500 feet, so that will mean a 120 kT bomb. And so on with a 180 kT bomb and a 240 kT bomb. And if you choose to try to remove all the rock at once, that will be a 170 billion pounds moving 5000 feet, needing a 770 kT bomb.

Seems very ambitious to think you could detonate a (basically) one Megaton nuke and have it completely lift a huge rock and not have any radioactivity or thermal issues with the surrounding area. Is there a area you had in mind for this power plant? Maybe central Africa where life is cheap and environmental laws are nonexistent?

Quote

I don't understand what you're saying here. The water goes up from the pit and circulates in the loop. More energy can be gained from putting a system in the loop to catch momentum energy, further increasing efficiency.

How far is it supposed to go up before looping back around? How far that is will determine how deep your hole has to be, and determine how big a nuke you need to clear the hole.

Quote

Yes its true that fission is dirty and probably should be severely limited. I would agree that this system is probably better used with lasers and a pure fusion explosion. But that's sci fi right now. So I don't know how freely I would allow the use of this system with fission in the countries I have it patented in.

You have actual patents? On this technology/idea?

What is the going rate on a 1MT nuke or a 80kt nuke, and where would a energy company get a cheap supply of them from?

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

9 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

That's a whole different topic that has nothing to do with this, and I'm neither crediting nor discrediting what I said in that post. You guys are just mindlessly bashing my idea now. You haven't made any points in the last 10 posts (if at all). Not much to say but have a little love and try to resist the urge to be a jerk. The information in these posts and the OP should be something that is useful for the reader, not just bias forum bullying. Grow up guys!

 

 Back to the topic 

The links are on topic because it confirms your lack of scientific understanding.

I, and many others, have given you several reasons why your idea wouldn't work, but you refuse to acknowledge them. Your ideas are almost entirely made on assumptions. 

Its basically a slight variation on project PACER. PACER was abandoned as impractical, expensive and politically unacceptable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER

Edited November 18, 2017 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[trevor borocz johnson]

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

How do you propose to pre-cut out a cylinder a mile deep and 500 feet across and not have what you excavate fall in?

So unlike the other things I've posted, this one still is actually theoretical, I've never blasted out the shape I'm suggesting, so not sure if it works. If its like the method of blasting a cube shape, then once the material is ejected, it didn't land back in the hole it created once in all the experiments. It may be placement of the explosive is not center so the blasts propels the object sideways.

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

The pre-cutting is still going to cost like a billion dollars, if the technology to do so even exists.

I was told on an engineering forum that the cutting could be done with a laser. And assuming an inch of earth removed from everyside, I have estimates in the tens of thousands of dollars.

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

How far is it supposed to go up before looping back around? How far that is will determine how deep your hole has to be, and determine how big a nuke you need to clear the hole.

I estimate the loop to be about three times as big around as the cavity is deep to fully circulate all the water.

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

What is the going rate on a 1MT nuke or a 80kt nuke, and where would a energy company get a cheap supply of them from?

we discussed this on the other forum. At around 25 Mt is highly efficient of the fission fuel. you would get back around 650 times the energy in an explosion then it took to refine the fission fuel. so for every dollar in fission fuel at 100% efficiency you would get a return of 650 dollars.

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Seems very ambitious to think you could detonate a (basically) one Megaton nuke and have it completely lift a huge rock and not have any radioactivity or thermal issues with the surrounding area. Is there a area you had in mind for this power plant? Maybe central Africa where life is cheap and environmental laws are nonexistent?

technically I don't think they should build this power plant until they have pure fusion explosives using lasers or the tokomak. In my experiments the pre cutting method was the cleanest as the water cannon leaked a lot of vapors after use, the rock in the ground didn't.

 

[trevor borocz johnson]

15 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I, and many others, have given you several reasons why your idea wouldn't work, but you refuse to acknowledge them. Your ideas are almost entirely made on assumptions. 

Its basically a slight variation on project PACER. PACER was abandoned as impractical, expensive and politically unacceptable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER

I say the same thing back to you as reasons that it does work and you give no reply. The only cratering experiments in the PACER project were underground and surface blasts, both highly inefficient when compared to the two methods I have disclosed.

[toast]

The whole idea sunk in post 1 and with by the words - fusion explosive - already. 

[trevor borocz johnson]

14 minutes ago, toast said:

The whole idea sunk in post 1 and with by the words - fusion explosive - already. 

I have more hope for the fusion experiments then I do someone will actually say something intelligent on these forums.

[toast]

Just now, trevor borocz johnson said:

I have more hope for the fusion experiments then I do someone will actually say something intelligent on these forums.

If thats the case, and looking at the comments here in this thread, there seems to be an issue with your IQ only.

[trevor borocz johnson]

5 minutes ago, toast said:

If thats the case, and looking at the comments here in this thread, there seems to be an issue with your IQ only.

duhhhh! good one. make lot sense you said, you sure put sentence into words!! great job!!

[Erno86]

Based on my double UAP sighting one night in November, 1976 --- I propose a micro-mini black hole fusion power plant: To do so, would require for us to capture or manufacture a micro-mini black hole the size of a proton...confine it in a stasis sphere. Besides using one as a means for photon propulsion for an interstellar starship ---this micro-mini BH (used in a stationary confined power plant here on Earth), would have to be a non-spinning BH (compared to a spinning BH onboard a starship), so the accretion disc would not expel polar plasma jets at near the speed of light. 

The spherical magnetic field of the micro-mini BH...would have to be construed into two magnetic fields outside the stasis sphere, in the containment vessel --- Then simply inject a small amount of seawater (laden with deuterium atoms), between the two magnetic fields, and somehow compress the two magnetic fields together, with extreme pressure against the deuterium atoms, until the fusion reaction occurs (much like our sun). The outside of the stasis sphere. would be protected against neutron radiation from the fusion plasma with a layer of seawater --- Same goes for the inside of the containment vessel, bordering the outside of the magnetic fields; which would be heated by the plasma to drive the turbines.

Edited November 19, 2017 by Erno86
deleted a few words

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

40 minutes ago, Erno86 said:

Based on my double UAP sighting one night in November, 1976 --- I propose a micro-mini black hole fusion power plant: To do so, would require for us to capture or manufacture a micro-mini black hole the size of a proton...confine it in a stasis sphere. Besides using one as a means for photon propulsion for an interstellar starship ---this micro-mini BH (used in a stationary confined power plant here on Earth), would have to be a non-spinning BH (compared to a spinning BH onboard a starship), so the accretion disc would not expel polar plasma jets at near the speed of light. 

The spherical magnetic field of the micro-mini BH...would have to be construed into two magnetic fields outside the stasis sphere, in the containment vessel --- Then simply inject a small amount of seawater (laden with deuterium atoms), between the two magnetic fields, and somehow compress the two magnetic fields together, with extreme pressure against the deuterium atoms, until the fusion reaction occurs (much like our sun). The outside of the stasis sphere. would be protected against neutron radiation from the fusion plasma with a layer of seawater --- Same goes for the inside of the containment vessel, bordering the outside of the magnetic fields; which would be heated by the plasma to drive the turbines.

Congratulations you have managed to make TrevorBJ look positively reasonable with that post. Good work. 

 

 

Warning: The above sentence contains more than you daily recommended dose of sarcasm.

Edited November 19, 2017 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[trevor borocz johnson]

On 11/19/2017 at 3:34 PM, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Congratulations you have managed to make TrevorBJ look positively reasonable with that post. Good work

So when a laser implodes a fuel pellet like you said what happens after that? It explodes right? I don't understand your argument against lasers.

[+DieChecker]

On 11/18/2017 at 9:56 AM, trevor borocz johnson said:

So unlike the other things I've posted, this one still is actually theoretical, I've never blasted out the shape I'm suggesting, so not sure if it works. If its like the method of blasting a cube shape, then once the material is ejected, it didn't land back in the hole it created once in all the experiments. It may be placement of the explosive is not center so the blasts propels the object sideways.

One thing to consider is that using small scale explosions to move physical objects does not scale directly. Because the blast strength increases, while the compressive strength remains static. So, for example, if a 20 pound sandstone block can be thrown 100 feet with 50 pounds of explosive, that doesn't mean a direct scaled block and 1kT explosion will perform the same. At some point the strength of the material will fail, and thus limit the amount of material that can be effectively moved.

Quote

I was told on an engineering forum that the cutting could be done with a laser. And assuming an inch of earth removed from everyside, I have estimates in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Simple logic would suggest that not to be true, or at least not as simple as you suggest. Otherwise we'd have trucks with lasers on them digging ditches for under a dollar a mile. That no such thing exists would seem to imply it will cost substantially more then you are suggesting. Perhaps you mean after the technology is refined, that the energy cost would be only tens of thousands of dollars. That I might agree with. However no laser aims itself, or maintenances itself, or builds itself, or clears debris, and so on.

I'd really be interested in a laser that can cut dirt and rock down to a mile deep. You'd need to vaporize the material/rock, as simply liquefying it wouldn't be good enough.

Quote

we discussed this on the other forum. At around 25 Mt is highly efficient of the fission fuel. you would get back around 650 times the energy in an explosion then it took to refine the fission fuel. so for every dollar in fission fuel at 100% efficiency you would get a return of 650 dollars.

Well, unfortunately the efficiency of most nuclear explosives isn't anywhere near 100%. Usually it is closer to 50%, with 15% of the rest being hard radiation. If you take out of that profit to account for maintenance costs, radiation storage costs, payroll, environmental and health care studies, infrastructure, and god knows what else, I suspect you'll be looking at less the $50 per dollar of fission material. And the profit left over goes almost entirely to whatever corporate entity is running the place. I can't imagine it going to reduce electrical costs. Fuel costs are artificially low even now. 

[trevor borocz johnson]

I first thought of this basic invention when I was 9. They showed us the crater that nukes made in a school book and said dam? So I logically thought of filling the crater with water and operating a ferris wheel type generator placed in the crater. When it was full I thought you could blast the water out of the crater or blast another adjacent crater. I clearly remember thinking that when I was 9. When I was 12 or so I thought of ways to get energy from a cannonball including firing it into a loop and directly into a spring as well as firing up in the air against gravity I think. However my patent lawyer says nobody has ever thought of this stuff before. 

Anyone say they remember this basic idea one time somewhere back in your head?

[Timothy]

1 hour ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

I first thought of this basic invention when I was 9. They showed us the crater that nukes made in a school book and said dam? So I logically thought of filling the crater with water and operating a ferris wheel type generator placed in the crater. When it was full I thought you could blast the water out of the crater or blast another adjacent crater. I clearly remember thinking that when I was 9. When I was 12 or so I thought of ways to get energy from a cannonball including firing it into a loop and directly into a spring as well as firing up in the air against gravity I think. However my patent lawyer says nobody has ever thought of this stuff before. 

Anyone say they remember this basic idea one time somewhere back in your head?

That’s not logical. That’s a child’s thoughts. And you haven’t moved past that since. 

Who’s your patent lawyer? Those patent sites I found didn’t suggest you had anyone to support your ideas at all. 

[bmk1245]

6 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

I first thought of this basic invention when I was 9. They showed us the crater that nukes made in a school book and said dam? So I logically thought of filling the crater with water and operating a ferris wheel type generator placed in the crater. When it was full I thought you could blast the water out of the crater or blast another adjacent crater. I clearly remember thinking that when I was 9. When I was 12 or so I thought of ways to get energy from a cannonball including firing it into a loop and directly into a spring as well as firing up in the air against gravity I think. However my patent lawyer says nobody has ever thought of this stuff before. 

Anyone say they remember this basic idea one time somewhere back in your head?

Thing is, you stuck at that age... You've been given helluva arguments why its not viable.

Anyway, build working prototype, and power your house (start with TNT). BTW, don't forget to install live feed so we could see all your neighborhood flying sky high...

[trevor borocz johnson]

19 hours ago, Timonthy said:

Who’s your patent lawyer? Those patent sites I found didn’t suggest you had anyone to support your ideas at all. 

A patent lawyer doesn't 'support your ideas' he examines the patent office for similar ideas, which there was one but it wasn't quite the same. A similar idea in 1987 was to use a cannon to clear out a room full of water at the bottom of a deep reservoir. The room is then closed off by a gate to keep water from flowing back into the room from the reservoir. So no one has ever claimed the idea before. 

It already feasibly works from just observation so I don't need any support with that. what are you trying to say support my ideas?

[Timothy]

4 minutes ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

A patent lawyer doesn't 'support your ideas' he examines the patent office for similar ideas, which there was one but it wasn't quite the same. A similar idea in 1987 was to use a cannon to clear out a room full of water at the bottom of a deep reservoir. The room is then closed off by a gate to keep water from flowing back into the room from the reservoir. So no one has ever claimed the idea before. 

It already feasibly works from just observation so I don't need any support with that. what are you trying to say support my ideas?

I didn't suggest that your patent lawyer supported your ideas, I asked who they were.

What I did say is ' Those patent sites I found didn’t suggest you had anyone to support your ideas at all.'

So, has anyone reputable ever supported your ideas, and is there any evidence of this?

[trevor borocz johnson]

15 hours ago, Timonthy said:

So, has anyone reputable ever supported your ideas, and is there any evidence of this?

Again what do you mean by support? I ve been told nice work by a number of people including teachers and professors. As far as those people taking a shovel and physically creating my idea? are you nuts?

[Timothy]

29 minutes ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

Again what do you mean by support? I ve been told nice work by a number of people including teachers and professors. As far as those people taking a shovel and physically creating my idea? are you nuts?

I mean someone who was willing to back your ideas, not a ‘well done’ from a teacher or professor. 

In all respect, teachers and professors also say ‘well done’ when people are wrong but complete a learning outcome or display some level of intelligence etc. It’s not an assertment that your idea is a good one.

[trevor borocz johnson]

49 minutes ago, Timonthy said:

In all respect, teachers and professors also say ‘well done’ when people are wrong but complete a learning outcome or display some level of intelligence etc. It’s not an assertment that your idea is a good one.

Dude, they asserted that they liked the idea. I don't know who's thread you read before that you could imply that you knew more then the poster but its not on this one. Everytime I call you guys out on on your 'points' you have nothing viable to say. I think that speaks volumes for the fact that you can't break this idea and that it does work. 

[Timothy]

15 minutes ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

Dude, they asserted that they liked the idea. I don't know who's thread you read before that you could imply that you knew more then the poster but its not on this one. Everytime I call you guys out on on your 'points' you have nothing viable to say. I think that speaks volumes for the fact that you can't break this idea and that it does work. 

It’s not that it wouldn’t work, it’s that it would be so inefficient and costly with so many downfalls that no one would consider building it. You would need years of R&D to invent new technologies to create a working system, and even if you did somehow manage to get more energy out than you put in, the cost would be phenomenal and wouldn’t make it viable. If you did then manage to make it cost effective, more conventional systems would still be far safer, efficient and cheap in comparison.

And even if they asserted they liked the idea, it still doesn’t make it a good one. With what you’ve presented to us on UM in pages of discussion, all I can imagine is they were being supportive to nurture a developing education. 

Yeah it would be impressive to see it work, but you’d still end up with nuclear fallout and a hole in the ground almost as big as the hole in your wallet. 

[trevor borocz johnson]

8 minutes ago, Timonthy said:

the cost would be phenomenal and wouldn’t make it viable. If you did then manage to make it cost effective, more conventional systems would still be far safer, efficient and cheap in comparison.

You can tell from reading this you haven't done the numbers. Do you even know the equation to figure out the energy required to lift weight? Anyways I agree that its enormous for the current methods of fusion, but in the future they could considerably downscale the size of the cannon, although it would still be useful to make it as big as possible.

16 minutes ago, Timonthy said:

inefficient

show me a more efficient system

 

17 minutes ago, Timonthy said:

but you’d still end up with nuclear fallout

fallout is contained in the design in the OP. 

[Timothy]

17 minutes ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

You can tell from reading this you haven't done the numbers. Do you even know the equation to figure out the energy required to lift weight? Anyways I agree that its enormous for the current methods of fusion, but in the future they could considerably downscale the size of the cannon, although it would still be useful to make it as big as possible.

show me a more efficient system

 

fallout is contained in the design in the OP. 

I haven’t done the numbers, but I am aware of basic equations, and a frictionless simple perfect system looks good on paper. But using a nuclear explosion to produce the energy, I have no idea what that equation would look like when you factor in all of the variables it creates.

Any viable method we use to produce power now is a better and more efficient system.

You’re design needs to be far more complex, I would not want to be anywhere nearby when you test it for the first time. The system would be destroyed and fallout would not be contained (unless you’re using sci-fi materials for the whole thing).

[trevor borocz johnson]

56 minutes ago, Timonthy said:

and a frictionless simple perfect system looks good on paper

I'm not sure where you get the idea I was implying the system would be without friction. I talked about it's efficiency earlier. Do you understand what the efficiency represents?

59 minutes ago, Timonthy said:

You’re design needs to be far more complex, I would not want to be anywhere nearby when you test it for the first time. The system would be destroyed and fallout would not be contained (unless you’re using sci-fi materials for the whole thing).

none of this is true. The only thing that keeps this system from be widely implemented is radiation. Until we have clean pure fusion explosives, the idea is seriously handicapped by the fact that it needs fission.