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 -

100% safe for the atmosphere, new power plant


trevor borocz johnson

Recommended Posts

My new power plant idea is 100% safe for the atmosphere. The idea is to bury a cannon pointing up about 500 feet in the ground, then a long vertical pipe to the surface that is attached at the surface to a loop on the ground. A cannonball is shot up from deep below the surface until gravity slows it down and it enters the loop on the ground fairly slowly. The cannonball is taken out of the loop and placed in a bucket that is lowered back down to where the cannon is as it spins a generator.

The nice thing I thought of today as this invention is 11 years old is that when you use an explosive as fuel you don't hurt the atmosphere at all. 50% of the energy in an explosive is blast energy which is divided into 3: seismic, sound, and weight displacement. None of which hurt the atmosphere. The other 50% of the energy is heat, but most of that would stay in the cannon which is deep in the earth so that's not going to hurt the atmosphere, as for hot gasses that are supposedly 'greenhouse gasses' they would be caught in the loop. So 100% of the energy from this idea would be NOT entering the atmosphere.

Edited by trevor borocz johnson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to 100% safe for the atmosphere, new power plant
 

That seems complicated.

 

What if we instead roll humans down an incline and convert their potential energy into electricity? Once they reach the bottom they can climb the incline and repeat the process. It would be fun!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds inefficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds a bit like gravity batteries, which are being developed at present- a massive weight is cranked up using off-peak power, then released when needed, slowly releasing kinetic energy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

Sounds inefficient.

All processes that generate and transfer energy are inefficient. The real question is by how much?

10 hours ago, Ell said:

What if we instead roll humans down an incline and convert their potential energy into electricity? Once they reach the bottom they can climb the incline and repeat the process. It would be fun!

It would be better to put them into a treadmill, feed them minimally and work them to death. While still being inefficient to some extent, it would also solve the world's overcrowding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ozymandias said:

All processes that generate and transfer energy are inefficient. The real question is by how much?

It would be better to put them into a treadmill, feed them minimally and work them to death. While still being inefficient to some extent, it would also solve the world's overcrowding. 

Already thought of it. Why do you think we are making plans to leave the ECHR?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not inefficient, cannon's are 40% efficient to weight displacement, absorbing most of the heat from the cannon with water and extracting that heat would make efficiency even better. Anyways I think its the heat, not greenhouse gasses, that we just pour into the atmosphere with every fire we burn, the hot gasses from an explosion are going to make up a low percentage of the overall amount of energy released, they could be captured but I'm more worried about extracting the heat from the cannon. As someone pointed out the energy from the cannon isn't like that of deep in the earth and that it would eventually rise, so I need good methods to convert heat in the cannon to electricity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

It's not inefficient, cannon's are 40% efficient to weight displacement, absorbing most of the heat from the cannon with water and extracting that heat would make efficiency even better. Anyways I think its the heat, not greenhouse gasses, that we just pour into the atmosphere with every fire we burn, the hot gasses from an explosion are going to make up a low percentage of the overall amount of energy released, they could be captured but I'm more worried about extracting the heat from the cannon.

40% efficient means a 60% loss of energy over the process.

48 minutes ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

As someone pointed out the energy from the cannon isn't like that of deep in the earth and that it would eventually rise, so I need good methods to convert heat in the cannon to electricity. 

Another process that incurs energy loss or, in other words, another inefficient process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

All processes that generate and transfer energy are inefficient. The real question is by how much?

Firing a cannon ball and catching it in a bucket?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

It's not inefficient, cannon's are 40% efficient to weight displacement, absorbing most of the heat from the cannon with water and extracting that heat would make efficiency even better. Anyways I think its the heat, not greenhouse gasses, that we just pour into the atmosphere with every fire we burn, the hot gasses from an explosion are going to make up a low percentage of the overall amount of energy released, they could be captured but I'm more worried about extracting the heat from the cannon. As someone pointed out the energy from the cannon isn't like that of deep in the earth and that it would eventually rise, so I need good methods to convert heat in the cannon to electricity. 

So firing cannons to boil water?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

So firing cannons to boil water?

I don't know i read somewhere that hot conductors will provide a current to a conductor of room temperature, maybe if that's true its something that could be worked on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2022 at 8:03 AM, trevor borocz johnson said:

My new power plant idea is 100% safe for the atmosphere. The idea is to bury a cannon pointing up about 500 feet in the ground, then a long vertical pipe to the surface that is attached at the surface to a loop on the ground. A cannonball is shot up from deep below the surface until gravity slows it down and it enters the loop on the ground fairly slowly. The cannonball is taken out of the loop and placed in a bucket that is lowered back down to where the cannon is as it spins a generator.

The nice thing I thought of today as this invention is 11 years old is that when you use an explosive as fuel you don't hurt the atmosphere at all. 50% of the energy in an explosive is blast energy which is divided into 3: seismic, sound, and weight displacement. None of which hurt the atmosphere. The other 50% of the energy is heat, but most of that would stay in the cannon which is deep in the earth so that's not going to hurt the atmosphere, as for hot gasses that are supposedly 'greenhouse gasses' they would be caught in the loop. So 100% of the energy from this idea would be NOT entering the atmosphere.

Or we could just milk the Earth's sodium reaction for heat, which it produces continuously. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If we could train raptors to lift and drop those cannon balls, we would not require a cannon and explosives.

We might simply glue a dead mouse or a dead cow to the cannon ball, have the raptor lift his prey and the cannon ball and then radiographically release the cannon ball from the carcass when it is in the appropriate position.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a much simpler method:

  1. Dig a very deep hole.
  2. Insert a U-shaped tube
  3. Put water down one end of the tube
  4. The water is heated by higher temperatures deep underground
  5. Steam comes out of the other end of the tube
  6. Use steam to drive turbines.
  7. Zero pollution and zero fuel costs (assuming you have a river or sea nearby for water)

Of course, if you live in Iceland you'll know this :D 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Doing some number crunching, looks like your guys automatic on debate machine might lose. We really haven't even discussed using this idea as a fission powerplant. One idea to use the more efficient cannonball idea would be to drop the cannonball into the cannon from a height that would smash a SMALL pellet of fissile material. This could reduce the explosion energy from the smallest staged fission explosion they have. You guys think that's possible? The whole cannonball power plant idea could be operated by computer robuts? Oh yeah and its like 30% efficient use of the stored energy in the fissile fuel compared to traditional power plants which is like 1-2%. I remember that from about 11 years ago. So if we can get 50 times the energy out of the fuel then traditional power plants, and we get 6% of our energy from nuclear, that's 300% what we need each year. So our nuclear bill will be cut down to about 30% of what it is and replace all other forms of energy including dams!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darn it! Who knew about critical mass? I sort of did but threw it out of my knowledge system. Dang man well that puts most of yesterday's idea on the fire. 

Link to comment
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.