Fusion Power Plant

[Merc14]

I am sure people would be thrilled to have nuclear explosions regularly going off in their state in order to make electricity.  LMAO.  What a thoroughly mad man idea, utter absurdity.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

33 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I am sure people would be thrilled to have nuclear explosions regularly going off in their state in order to make electricity.  LMAO.  What a thoroughly mad man idea, utter absurdity.

It looks like he have abandoned the idea of using nuclear bombs, now he wants to use laser fusion to make the explosions. The minor inconvenience that no such laser exists isn't holding back a genius like him. 

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=310235&content_commentid=6220898

[trevor borocz johnson]

2 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

It looks like he have abandoned the idea of using nuclear bombs, now he wants to use laser fusion to make the explosions. The minor inconvenience that no such laser exists isn't holding back a genius like him. 

Brass tax, it works, its efficient, and gains more energy then it spends probably. 

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

2 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

Brass tax, it works, its efficient, and gains more energy then it spends probably. 

What's brass tax ?

[trevor borocz johnson]

 bottom line

[Merc14]

5 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

Brass tax, it works, its efficient, and gains more energy then it spends probably. 

Brilliant, I'll invest a billion.  

[trevor borocz johnson]

3 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

What's brass tax ?

brass tacks* sorry. The phrase get down to brass tacks (not brass tax) is an Americanism dating from the 19th century. In the idiom, brass tacks means (1) the essentials, or (2) the basic facts, so to get down to brass tacks is to focus on the essentials. The phrase's exact derivation is unknown, though there are a few theories

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

16 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

Brass tax, it works, its efficient, and gains more energy then it spends probably. 

Underlined the keyword here. You just keep making unfounded assumtions. If you were really serious about this you should listen to all the problems we point out in your idea, instead you simply ignore them.

Like I said before, in order to make what 2000 Mw powerplant (about 2 normal fission powerplants) you need the equivelant of 700 50 kilotons explosions a year. This is going to to into the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of nuclear explosions a year if you want a significant part of the US energy production this way. At its height the US had around 30.000 nuclear weapons and you are proposing detonating way more than this every year. Thats just not going to be acceptable anywhere and is a break of the Test Ban Treaty anyway. 

Why are you so hung up on making explsions instead of making sense ?

[trevor borocz johnson]

7 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Underlined the keyword here. You just keep making unfounded assumtions. If you were really serious about this you should listen to all the problems we point out in your idea, instead you simply ignore them.

Like I said before, in order to make what 2000 Mw powerplant (about 2 normal fission powerplants) you need the equivelant of 700 50 kilotons explosions a year. This is going to to into the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of nuclear explosions a year if you want a significant part of the US energy production this way. At its height the US had around 30.000 nuclear weapons and you are proposing detonating way more than this every year. Thats just not going to be acceptable anywhere and is a break of the Test Ban Treaty anyway. 

Why are you so hung up on making explsions instead of making sense ?

Replacing the whole grid with any type of fusion at this point is probably a century away. Building one of these systems would be of benefit to me personally because I have a patent. I understand that replacing the worlds present energy needs uses an absurd number of bombs per year. In the future they will have lasers like we've discussed. At present it just represents a novelty in that its first of its kind as well as a small proportion of power added to the list of other alternative ideas to get energy.  

[trevor borocz johnson]

My math shows that a 500 foot wide water cannon would take an estimate 80 kiloton explosive to clear out. A 1,000 foot wide cannon could take around 1.3 megatons in explosive power to clear out in the manner in the OP. This would be a good range of how big I'm thinking, that would be pretty deep into the earth but not impossibly deep. At six miles the earth becomes to hot for a drill to work anymore. If the dimensions of the cannon could be cut in the ground and then an explosive used to remove that pre cut piece, it might be done in fairly short period of time as opposed to digging it. 

Edited November 16, 2017 by trevor borocz johnson

[+DieChecker]

So..... Just dig a hole a mile deep and 500 feet wide, and line it with enough steel to withstand a (80kiloton?) nuclear device. And then create pipeworks over it (again strong enough to contain a 80 kiloton explosion) that will route hypersonic water back underground. And this will simply move water up so it can move back down? Can't a windmill do that for free? And I suppose this device is going to be used regularly? And it will need maintenance how often? Maybe after 10 bombs? And correct me if I am wrong, but fusion bombs do use a fission reaction to start the fission. So, your going to have Radiation in your water. Probably hundreds of thousands of tons of HIGHLY radioactive water. Especially after it's been used maybe 10 times.

What happens when there is a containment breach? Where is all that radioactive water going to be stored?

How many coal plants would this replace? 

I think this is a Dead End idea. The startup costs would make Trump's billion dollar wall look like patching a pot hole. The maintenance and storage costs would be astronomical, and Dangerous. Very dangerous. You're going to be building way below the water aquifer, so any damage to the (50 foot thick?) hole casing is going to contaminate the ground water at a level underground were there will be Nothing that can done about it.

Bad idea.

Even if you did this on the Moon, it would be a bad idea. 

[+DieChecker]

9 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

My math shows that a 500 foot wide water cannon would take an estimate 80 kiloton explosive to clear out. A 1,000 foot wide cannon could take around 1.3 megatons in explosive power to clear out in the manner in the OP. This would be a good range of how big I'm thinking, that would be pretty deep into the earth but not impossibly deep. At six miles the earth becomes to hot for a drill to work anymore. If the dimensions of the cannon could be cut in the ground and then an explosive used to remove that pre cut piece, it might be done in fairly short period of time as opposed to digging it. 

So use a nuke to dig out the hole? And the fallout? 

Math does show things a being possible, like building a tether to the Moon, or building a ship that could enter the Corona of the Sun, but many such things are Non-feasible.

[Merc14]

12 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So..... Just dig a hole a mile deep and 500 feet wide, and line it with enough steel to withstand a (80kiloton?) nuclear device. And then create pipeworks over it (again strong enough to contain a 80 kiloton explosion) that will route hypersonic water back underground. And this will simply move water up so it can move back down? Can't a windmill do that for free? And I suppose this device is going to be used regularly? And it will need maintenance how often? Maybe after 10 bombs? And correct me if I am wrong, but fusion bombs do use a fission reaction to start the fission. So, your going to have Radiation in your water. Probably hundreds of thousands of tons of HIGHLY radioactive water. Especially after it's been used maybe 10 times.

What happens when there is a containment breach? Where is all that radioactive water going to be stored?

How many coal plants would this replace? 

I think this is a Dead End idea. The startup costs would make Trump's billion dollar wall look like patching a pot hole. The maintenance and storage costs would be astronomical, and Dangerous. Very dangerous. You're going to be building way below the water aquifer, so any damage to the (50 foot thick?) hole casing is going to contaminate the ground water at a level underground were there will be Nothing that can done about it.

Bad idea.

Even if you did this on the Moon, it would be a bad idea. 

The idea entire thread has gone beyond the absurd but great summary of how preposterous this ridiculous idea is.   I think he is just trolling for attention now (not sure why the thread is still open to be honest) but I am unfollowing to deny him that attention.  

[trevor borocz johnson]

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

And then create pipeworks over it (again strong enough to contain a 80 kiloton explosion) that will route hypersonic water back underground.

There are no pipeworks that catch the supersonic water. There is a hollow loop on the ground attached to the cavity that allows for the fast moving water to be caught and contained.

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Can't a windmill do that for free?

windmills burn more coal energy to make then they produce in their lifetime.

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

So use a nuke to dig out the hole? And the fallout? 

There is no fallout in the precutting method of digging the cavity with an explosive. It is a new method no one has ever thought of that can excavate any size piece of land by cutting the land and removing the piece with an underground explosive.

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

And correct me if I am wrong, but fusion bombs do use a fission reaction to start the fission. So, your going to have Radiation in your water. Probably hundreds of thousands of tons of HIGHLY radioactive water.

Yeah, maybe radioactivity will shut it down, or maybe it can be as 'clean' as a normal fission plant, I do not have the expertise to design the safety features to prevent radiation. The fact that the system is enclosed entirely is one safety feature.  The nuclear powerplants put there spent fuel in pools. Maybe if we had to we could to the same.

 

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

You're going to be building way below the water aquifer, so any damage to the (50 foot thick?) hole casing is going to contaminate the ground water at a level underground were there will be Nothing that can done about it.

I was thinking an inch thick for the wall. The water absorbs most of the energy from the blast. It's a great buffer between the wall and the explosion. People sleep on water, they use it to put out fires.

Yes fission is dirty the way they use it at conventional nuclear power plants is no better. Someday in a better world they will have lasers that can ignite a pure fusion explosion and this system will be more widespread and usable. 

 

[trevor borocz johnson]

Some of you guys need to calm down and take a step back in your responses. You seem to be demanding that I have to believe anything you say without any references or reason to believe you in the first place especially on the scaling up of explosives. yeesh!

[trevor borocz johnson]

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I think this is a Dead End idea. The startup costs would make Trump's billion dollar wall look like patching a pot hole.

Startup costs are below that of a traditional nuclear power plant. Might as well be your not ever going to find out. hahahaha! from what I remember it was in the millions for the steel needed. and millions to excavate with traditional methods maybe adding up to abilion. So around 100 uses you would earn your money back and another 100 uses would earn you what it took to build the system.

Also five hundred feet isn't that enormous, almost the size of a football field.

Edited November 16, 2017 by trevor borocz johnson

[+DieChecker]

13 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

Startup costs are below that of a traditional nuclear power plant. Might as well be your not ever going to find out. hahahaha! from what I remember it was in the millions for the steel needed. and millions to excavate with traditional methods maybe adding up to abilion. So around 100 uses you would earn your money back and another 100 uses would earn you what it took to build the system.

Also five hundred feet isn't that enormous, almost the size of a football field.

Digging the hole alone could cost more then a regular power plant. At 5000 feet deep and 500 feet wide that is just under a billion cubic feet, or around 40 million cubic yards. At roughly 130 dollars per cubic yard, that would be around 5 billion dollars just to dig the hole.

A conservative guess would be 10 to 20 billion dollars just to construct the thing. Maintenance would be nearly impossible, and thus it would be impossible to keep the thing from contaminating the ground water. The steel would quickly become too radioactive to be near, even if there was somewhere safe to move the billions of gallons of highly radioactive water to. 

For an example, a NY skyscraper, which is much less then a mile high, and has a LOT less steel, costs about 1.5 billion to build. While a coal power plant costs about 2 billion to build. You really think this huge hole/steel/radioactive water/fusion bombs is going to cost less then 2 billion dollars?

You might mathematically earn back what you cost in 100 uses, but that's ignoring lots and lots of realities about this thing.

14 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

There are no pipeworks that catch the supersonic water. There is a hollow loop on the ground attached to the cavity that allows for the fast moving water to be caught and contained.

So, is that going to mean that the pit this thing is built into is going to have to be that much deeper?

Quote

windmills burn more coal energy to make then they produce in their lifetime.

Having a degree in Mechanical Engineering, I can say that is simply, insanely, not true.

Quote

There is no fallout in the precutting method of digging the cavity with an explosive. It is a new method no one has ever thought of that can excavate any size piece of land by cutting the land and removing the piece with an underground explosive.

I simply am not going to believe that a nuclear device could be used to lift a huge piece of rock/soil (completely out of the ground?) and not throw out radioactive contamination into the environment. Past underground testing in Nevada shows that even small scale testing with the devices sealed completely underground still results in radioactive dust escaping and contaminating the local environment for decades to one degree or another.

Quote

Yeah, maybe radioactivity will shut it down, or maybe it can be as 'clean' as a normal fission plant, I do not have the expertise to design the safety features to prevent radiation. The fact that the system is enclosed entirely is one safety feature.  The nuclear powerplants put there spent fuel in pools. Maybe if we had to we could to the same

Because you don't have that expertise... and frankly neither do I... you really aren't fit to judge what such a thing would cost, or would require to be safe. The fuel in a fission plant is Static. You are using a system that is HIGHLY Dynamic. Static systems are always going to be much, much safer then dynamic systems.

The problem with spent fuel rods and what you are suggesting is that spent fuel rods take up a tiny fraction of an acre big cooling pond. While your billions of pounds of radioactive water is going to need to be pumped a mile straight up and then stored somewhere that is the size of three Astrodomes.

Quote

I was thinking an inch thick for the wall. The water absorbs most of the energy from the blast. It's a great buffer between the wall and the explosion. People sleep on water, they use it to put out fires.

Yes fission is dirty the way they use it at conventional nuclear power plants is no better. Someday in a better world they will have lasers that can ignite a pure fusion explosion and this system will be more widespread and usable. 

The surface area of a cylinder is 2(pi)rh + 2(pi)r^2. So with 5000 foot long and 500 foot wide cylinder that is 8 million square feet of one inch steel. at ~40 pounds per one inch thick square foot of steel, that is 320 million pounds of steel. And at (the ultra low end) 300 dollars per ton, we're looking at 36 million dollars simply for the steel alone. Who knows what the cost of installing it would be. I assume it would have to have a framework to connect to, which itself would need to be able to withstand the PSI pushing on the steel casing.

I really don't think you understand the SCALE of what it is you are proposing. 

[trevor borocz johnson]

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I simply am not going to believe that a nuclear device could be used to lift a huge piece of rock/soil (completely out of the ground?) and not throw out radioactive contamination into the environment. Past underground testing in Nevada shows that even small scale testing with the devices sealed completely underground still results in radioactive dust escaping and contaminating the local environment for decades to one degree or another.

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. 

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Digging the hole alone could cost more then a regular power plant. At 5000 feet deep and 500 feet wide that is just under a billion cubic feet, or around 40 million cubic yards. At roughly 130 dollars per cubic yard, that would be around 5 billion dollars just to dig the hole.

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. 

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

So, is that going to mean that the pit this thing is built into is going to have to be that much deeper?

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.

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

The problem with spent fuel rods and what you are suggesting is that spent fuel rods take up a tiny fraction of an acre big cooling pond. While your billions of pounds of radioactive water is going to need to be pumped a mile straight up and then stored somewhere that is the size of three Astrodomes.

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.

 

[toast]

The whole idea seems to be born in the mind of a 9yo boy.

[Parsec]

I came to the logical conclusion that, being impossible you are that stupid, you must be trolling us. 

 

I thank you because with your threads you provided a fantastic chance to learn from other posters, but that's it. 

I will probably keep following for the abovementioned reason, but I will not post further. 

[toast]

Scammer?

 

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

2 hours ago, toast said:

Scammer?

 

Nice catch.  I wonder why he haven't linked to this website ?

We have asked repeatedly for schematics of the system, so why on earth didn't he link to those ? https://fusiontoelectricity.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/0/1/12018957/inventions.pdf

[Merc14]

3 hours ago, toast said:

Scammer?

 

Trevor, you state that you are a gifted astronomer, what differentiates you from a normal astronomer and from what university did you receive your astronomy degree?

Edited November 18, 2017 by Merc14

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

Looking around a little I found this gem aswell: 

 

[Merc14]

45 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Looking around a little I found this gem aswell: 

 

Yikes!