New type of gravity power plant offers chance to be landmark use of fusion

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by trevor borocz johnson, Nov 13, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    251
    Yeah and there are probably a dozen or so other ideas to generate electricity from wave motion in the ocean to lowering rocks off of mountains to wind, solar, coal, gas, dams etc.etc.. This is just one more.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,025
    Yes. Are you? What do fusion lasers have to do with explosives?
     
    ajanta likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,025
    Yes. Directly from waves and other sources of energy. Not some intermediary.

    The shorter your path from source to electricity, the less loss to friction and heat waste.

    Oh, why do I bother. You'll learn all this in your senior classes.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,798
    By the way, what happened to my request that you provide the Canadian patent application number, so that we can read this invention for ourselves? You did say you had filed an application in Canada, didn't you?
     
  8. ajanta Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    611
    Trevor ! There is no personal problem about your intention. Its about efficiency. Think about solar panels, now their efficiency is close to 50%. But 30 years ago may be it was less than 20%. Now a days on one want this about less than 20%. Fossil fuel is not unlimited. So new energy source and the efficiency of all kind of generators is really important that I think.
     
  9. Edont Knoff Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    547
    If you can trigger fusion of a hydrogene pellet, you can make a nice fusion cannon. Magnetic inclusion, open in one direction, then trigger the fusion and focus the particle beam to the target. Very nice. Much better than conventional explosives and grenades. The recoil is insane though, and the cannon is only suitable for surface mounts or capital ships.

    Kidding, but actually I expect this to be coming soon ... and I'm curious how to solve the problem of the recoil.
     
  10. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    251
    A fusion laser uses a lot, and I mean A LOT, of energy in one blast. So much energy has to be used to cause the fusion that the lasers can only be shot once or twice daily. Current thinking is that our technology will advance into a laser that just shoots a continuous beam at those levels and fusion pellets be fed into the beam one at a time to try to gather heat with heat shields surrounding the whole setup. With the weight displacement power plants you could convert that one shot from the laser into millions even billions of kwh in weight displaced. That's the advantage of these power plants over traditional heat gathering plants, and why I say they will be the future along with lasers.
    The Canadian patent application is the same one that I have published at https://patentscope.wipo.int/search...IC/E02B-9/08) OR (IC/B63B-21/00) &maxRec=4092
    check out paragraph 27 in the description, that's the pre drilling.
     
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,798
    Thanks, very illuminating. I shall summarise for other readers.

    The main embodiment of this patent application, published in 2013, describes a process whereby an explosion creates a a big hole which is connected to the sea, so that hydroelectric power can be extracted as it fills. Once full, the hole is emptied by means of a subsequent explosion, and the process is repeated indefinitely, to provide a source of electricity from large explosions.

    It seems fairly mad, in that nothing is said about where the material displaced by the explosions comes down or what effects that might have on the surroundings. Presumably it would have to be done somewhere remote from populated areas. If the explosive is nuclear then it would of course be illegal under the nuclear testing treaties - and for good reason, in view of the radiation fallout there would be. If the explosion is of the conventional chemical type, then the obvious flaw is the low energy efficiency of the processes of producing explosive from starting materials (which would be fossil-fuel based), compared with the relatively efficient process by which fossil fuel is refined and burnt in thermal power stations.

    But then if your middle name is Japanese for ballocks, what do you expect?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  12. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,329
    If my local council allows such a "power station" to be built near me, I would write a very hard letter to my MP.
     
  13. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    251
    This is a most unfortunate part of the patent. I left out a huge safety feature thinking that someone else would scoop it up for there own upon examining the idea with scrutiny. One could catch the weight fired up into the air with a large loop structure built on the ground attached to the top of the cannon. the loop would effectively circulate all the excess blast energy and make the whole system enclosed. This would then allow for nuclear fuels. I honestly left that out believing that I was going to leave my bedroom with the first sketch of this idea and be praised worldwide for an invention that has incredible potential.

    The pre cutting idea only requires about ten bombs to be a billion dollar business. You wouldn't be sending up any fallout either as the blast energy is absorbed by the one huge piece of rock. You don't re blast the same spot either not that it matters.
     
  14. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,335
    I am sure you are safe - no one is going to scoop up this little gem.
    It is probably best that you left this magical part out of the application.
    This for some reason is not surprising to me at all.
     
  15. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,798
    Better buy a hard hat and a raincoat. And sell your car, since the salt water raining down would rust it in no time. And concrete over your garden for the same reason.....
     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,798
    But you have to repeat the process indefinitely, as it is repeated explosions that pump the water out, so that it continually refills, creating more hydroelectric power. Or, if as you now say, you blast a new hole each time, you have to rebuild your entire hydroelectric power recovery system at each new site. Not to mention disfiguring whole continents with giant holes full of seawater.

    I think you really are mad.
     
  17. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    251
    I still haven't heard anything that convinces me this doesn't work. My EXPERIMENTS proved that it does work. I don't why your calling me names and ganging up on me. Did I say I was planning to replace current systems coal and gas? no, I never said that. So where is a reasonable argument that this wouldn't work for a couple of uses? There has been over 2,000 nukes set off in the world before and I'm still safe to drive to the store. Just ten of those in my systems and you would have millions of dollars. Equity on a million dollar patent for sale!
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,163
    No, your experiments proved that firecrackers could push things out of the ground. That's far from proving that nuclear explosives can loft monolithic blocks high into the air, and that energy can be extracted from them on the way down.

    Now, if you did an experiment with (say) a fuel-air bomb, lofting a few tons 1000 feet in the air, then extracting energy from its descent, then you could plausibly claim that you have an experiment that SUGGESTS it will work.
    The fact that no one has ever lofted a monolithic block of anything with a nuclear (or any large) explosive.
    How many of those have lifted monolithic blocks of material intact out of the ground?
     
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,798
    I've just given you several reasons. I suggest you re-read what I wrote. But in summary, it would be an environmental catastrophe and would for that reason, quite rightly, never be permitted.
     
  20. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    251
    It's really only a s big as if you stood at the corner of two streets and looked down about 4/5 of a mile in either direction, then its just the square of those two distances in land that's used up. just one city block really. Do that in say the dessert where they already do this stuff and power a dessert town or city. That's a totally reasonable idea.
     
  21. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    251
    Anyone who causes an enviromental disaster with this idea has taken it a lot further then I ever wanted to, hey and you know what bullocks right back at you
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2016
  22. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    this video that i am submitting is exact to what you only have done and nothing more.
     
    trevor borocz johnson likes this.
  23. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,798
    Dessert is what you eat after the main course. You mean desert. But you have just said you would do this in a different location every time, right? So after a year or two, how many of these 0.64 sq. mile holes would you have? And what desert, where, would accept this? And what about nuclear fallout? And how are you going to rebuild, economically, the conduits and the hydroelectric power systems every time you blow a new hole in a different location?

    Lastly bullocks are castrated male calves. I meant ballocks, or "borocz" if you pronounce it like a Japanese.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page