Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: New Power Plant idea uses Fusion
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Here are two original ideas on how to create energy: 

The one on the right is a method involvoing pre-cutting the ground above an underground explosive. The Explosive then pops the piece of earth out from the ground and weight can be lowered back into the cavity against a turbine or the cavity can be used and shaped for any number of purposes. 

The drawing on the left is a power plant idea. An explosive is set off in the steel lining and the water in the cavity is shot up into the loop at the top. The water weight is then lowered back down into the cavity and spins a generator at the bottom.
(Aug 7, 2017 03:31 AM)trevorjohnson Wrote: [ -> ]Here are two original ideas on how to create energy: 

The one on the right is a method involvoing pre-cutting the ground above an underground explosive. The Explosive then pops the piece of earth out from the ground and weight can be lowered back into the cavity against a turbine or the cavity can be used and shaped for any number of purposes. 

The drawing on the left is a power plant idea. An explosive is set off in the steel lining and the water in the cavity is shot up into the loop at the top. The water weight is then lowered back down into the cavity and spins a generator at the bottom.

how is this different to a combustion engine(driving a steam turbine if you choose) in basic principal ?
[/quote]

how is this different to a combustion engine(driving a steam turbine if you choose) in basic principal ?
[/quote]

A combustion engine can take small amounts of an explosion at a time. You could slowly feed a stick of dynamite through a combustion engine. In these systems you're talking using explosives at any level. Water is a very good energy absorbent, example they use water to put out fires, The underwater explosion creates a lot of displaced weight which is the 'fuel' of the system.
how is this different to a combustion engine(driving a steam turbine if you choose) in basic principal ?
[/quote]

A combustion engine can take small amounts of an explosion at a time. You could slowly feed a stick of dynamite through a combustion engine. In these systems you're talking using explosives at any level. Water is a very good energy absorbent, example they use water to put out fires, The underwater explosion creates a lot of displaced weight which is the 'fuel' of the system.
[/quote]

I remember Trevor's alternate theory being presented on The Science Forum. As I recall it didn't survive and was relinquished to the trash. Can't remember the main sticking point, do you Trevor?
(Aug 7, 2017 09:56 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]I remember Trevor's alternate theory being presented on The Science Forum. As I recall it didn't survive and was relinquished to the trash. Can't remember the main sticking point, do you Trevor?

There was none, you bunch of cynnical armchair scientists couldn't come up with one and your way of dealing with it was to lock the thread and move it to pseudoscience.
Quote:RU
how is this different to a combustion engine(driving a steam turbine if you choose) in basic principal ?




Quote:trevorjohnson
A combustion engine can take small amounts of an explosion at a time. You could slowly feed a stick of dynamite through a combustion engine. In these systems you're talking using explosives at any level. Water is a very good energy absorbent, example they use water to put out fires, The underwater explosion creates a lot of displaced weight which is the 'fuel' of the system.



ok...
i am trying to consider if there is any benefit to using massive explosions vs small ones.

for example if radiation was no issue, we could use a nuclear explosion to create a massive displacement.
however, when we use conventional explosives, is there an energy saving in using either a big explosion vs lots of tiny explosions ?

ok... so im running some mental simulations....
generically speaking what modern science currently lacks is the flexible containment of massive force explosions.
material scientists would probably have a better idea of a time span toward materials that could contain massive explosive pressure.
carbon nano tube made from some type of spiders web like fabric interwoven with oxygen3 molcules might possibly manage to the speed and strength requirement..
however we probably need biological cloning along the lines of growing lumps of meat to produce the silk like material and then possibly micro-gravity like conditions to mix the types of super light materials like the nature of things like oxygen3(e.g not actually as it is probably too combustible).

entire empires and nations are built and run on such inventions so the territory is frought with issues.

example mixing a hagfish with a silk worm to produce a fabric that can be synthetically mixed with carbon nano tubes...
probably many decades away.

(looking at your drawing)[musing]
= convective wave harmonic explosive directional focus...
opening a massive space with sound waves....
hhmmm....
[quote="RainbowUnicorn" pid='13029' dateline='1502174619']
[quote]ok...
i am trying to consider if there is any benefit to using massive explosions vs small ones.

for example if radiation was no issue, we could use a nuclear explosion to create a massive displacement.
however, when we use conventional explosives, is there an energy saving in using either a big explosion vs lots of tiny explosions ?

[/quote]

You could use laser fusion which isn't dirty with uranium. But yes Uranium explosions in the open probably aren't good. That's why you catch the water and steam in the loop at the top of the system so there's no direct exposure to it. The sad reality is global warming has started a runaway melting and we can't stop that, It's time to start moving to The Great Lake region And building up around there.

"ok... so im running some mental simulations....
generically speaking what modern science currently lacks is the flexible containment of massive force explosions.
material scientists would probably have a better idea of a time span toward materials that could contain massive explosive pressure.
carbon nano tube made from some type of spiders web like fabric interwoven with oxygen3 molcules might possibly manage to the speed and strength requirement..
however we probably need biological cloning along the lines of growing lumps of meat to produce the silk like material and then possibly micro-gravity like conditions to mix the types of super light materials like the nature of things like oxygen3(e.g not actually as it is probably too combustible)."

are you talking about the walls of the cavity? If you are my experiments show rock or dirt don't work and a steel can does? Is that what you mean?
(Aug 8, 2017 07:21 PM)trevorjohnson Wrote: [ -> ]
(Aug 8, 2017 07:43 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:ok...
i am trying to consider if there is any benefit to using massive explosions vs small ones.

for example if radiation was no issue, we could use a nuclear explosion to create a massive displacement.
however, when we use conventional explosives, is there an energy saving in using either a big explosion vs lots of tiny explosions ?

You could use laser fusion which isn't dirty with uranium. But yes Uranium explosions in the open probably aren't good. That's why you catch the water and steam in the loop at the top of the system so there's no direct exposure to it. The sad reality is global warming has started a runaway melting and we can't stop that, It's time to start moving to The Great Lake region And building up around there.

"ok... so im running some mental simulations....
generically speaking what modern science currently lacks is the flexible containment of massive force explosions.
material scientists would probably have a better idea of a time span toward materials that could contain massive explosive pressure.
carbon nano tube made from some type of spiders web like fabric interwoven with oxygen3 molcules might possibly manage to the speed and strength requirement..
however we probably need biological cloning along the lines of growing lumps of meat to produce the silk like material and then possibly micro-gravity like conditions to mix the types of super light materials like the nature of things like oxygen3(e.g not actually as it is probably too combustible)."

are you talking about the walls of the cavity? If you are my experiments show rock or dirt don't work and a steel can does? Is that what you mean?
the steel would tend to bend from the pressure.
what type of thickness of steel ? im guessing we are talking atleast a couple of meters maybe more.
how deep/volume ?
why not just go for a slow burn and heat steam having massive steam turbine powered by low heat burning constantly ?
maybe even solar ?
(Aug 8, 2017 07:46 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]the steel would tend to bend from the pressure.
what type of thickness of steel ? im guessing we are talking atleast a couple of meters maybe more.
how deep/volume ?
why not just go for a slow burn and heat steam having massive steam turbine powered by low heat burning constantly ?
maybe even solar ?
In underwater explosions the water absorbs a lot of the energy, It puts out the explosion quickly.My experiments showed that if the explosive is sized properly to the size of the cavity it sits in, then the explosions can be done many times before wear and tear on a simple soup can caused a crack in the side. maybe like 50 times or more. So I suppose steel would be adequate. Steel has the best elastic properties as well to bounce the energy right back into the water.

Advantages over traditional nuclear power plants are in efficiency and the amount of available energy in the fuel that's converted into weight displacement then electricity. The use of fusion fuel is slowly burned in the tokomak so that's a competing industry.
The pre digging method eliminates fallout and earthquakes as well because the blast energy all goes into the weight displacement of the huge rock. Previously digging with explosives was hindered by these two things. In any event its a viable use of fusion and extends this planet's life of modern technology and energy consumption for billions of years. It just will take a long time to build enough systems to get everyone dependent on fusion fuel.