New Type Of Gravity Power Plant Could Be Landmark Use Of Fusion

[CraigD]

Well it takes .045 watts to lift one cubic foot of rock up one foot.

You’re using the wrong units, Trevor.

 

Watts are units of power (energy/time, ie dimension Mass Length Time^-3). What it takes to do mechanical work must have units of energy (M L T^-2), such as Joules. 1 W = 1 J/s.

 

Here’s how the calculation for the example you gave should be done:

 

Assume 100% mechanical efficiency.

 

For small changes in height, the equation

Energy = Force Distance

may be used. Since Force = Mass Acceleration,

E = M a D.

 

A 1 cubic foot (0.028316 m³) rock with a typical density of 2.3 time that of water has mass about M = 71 kg. The acceleration of gravity is about a = 9.8 m/s/s. Lifting it about 1 foot (D = 0.3 m) requires

E = 71 * 9.8 *0.3 = about 209 J.

 

Power determines the amount of time it takes to lift the body. For a power of 0.045 W, it would take

209 J / 0.045 W = about 4644 s. To lift it in 1 second requires 209 J / 1 s = 209 W.

 

I could see moving a 4000 ft cubic piece of rock at 125 lbs per cubic foot so that it would be displaced onto the surface of the earth.

I believe you’re describing lifting a 4000 x 4000 x 4000 ft cube of typical rock 4000 ft. You can calculate the energy requirement for that using the same equation and constants as above.

M = 4.5 x 10¹² kg

D = 1200 m

E = about 5.3 x 10¹⁶ J

 

Assuming a gun-like efficiency of about 35%, you’d need about 1.5 x 10¹⁷ J, which is equivalent to about 36 Mt (36,000,000 tons of TNT) , or about 110 B61 nuclear bombs, or 0.5% the world’s total nuclear arsenal is about 7 Gt. (source)

 

The largest bomb every made, the 50 Mt RDS-220 test exploded in 1961, would be big enough.

 

(Note: My original calculation overstated the energy required by a factor of 1000, so the following discussion is no longer relevant. I’ve left it because I think it’s interesting)

 

How large a nuclear explosion can be is an interesting question. Triggering many ordinary-sized fusion bombs near one another might be problematical for both technical reasons (eg “fratricide”), economic (it costs more to build many bombs than a single large one) and resources (Teller-Ulam bombs require fissile materials, which are a limited resource).

 

According to the blog article “In Search of a Bigger Boom”, Edward Teller was interested in making fusion bomb with more than 3 “stages” (present day bombs like the 330 Kt B61 is a 2 stage, while the largest bombs every made, RDS-220, were 3 stage) that would produce yields on the order of 10 Gt, but found no support from the only organizations that can make nuclear bombs, the governments of nuclear powers, which considered the order or 100 Kt bombs they had big enough.

 

 

, it costs about US$2,000,000 to refurbish a 100 kt W76 fusion warhead,

I bet the refurbishing is a can of pledge and a rag.

 

How much will you bet, Trevor? I’ll take the easy money. ;)

 

Seriously, I think the main thing that must be done to keep a fusion bomb read to trigger is recharging its tritium (³H), which has a half-life of only 12.3 years. ³H practically doesn’t occur naturally, and must be generated in nuclear reactors, which makes it expensive, about US$30,000 per gram.

 

Surprisingly, if like me prior to recently, you imagine a fusion bomb to contain its hydrogen fusion fuel (²H and ³H) from when it’s built ‘til when it’s detonate, the ³H in a fusion bomb isn’t in its fusion 2nd stage section, the ³H that needs to be recharged on a regular basis is the gas used to “boost” (what’s commonly termed a “fission-fusion-fission” process) the fission 1st stage. While the first fusion bombs, in 1952 used cryogenic liquid ²H + ³H, by 1954, they were using non-radioactive, stable ⁶Li²H. Neutrons from the 1st stage fission bomb are absorbed by the ²H in the ⁶Li²H to produce ³H, so the ²H + ³H exists only for an instant, when the bomb is detonated.

Edited November 23, 2015 by CraigD
Fixed factor of 1000 error

[trevorjohnson32]

Alright, to lift 125 lbs one foot you got 209 joules, about equal to .058 watt hours which is pretty close to the measurement I was using. I then multiply that fixed number by the number of cubic feet in a one foot tall layer of the cube of rock removed which I then multiplied by 4,000 for the number of feet the bottom layer has to be raised. Each layer up to the top becomes less and less work to remove so I add the kw energy to remove the top layer to the kw energy to remove the bottom layer, divide that number in half and multiply it by 4,000 which at .045 watt hours is 5.76 billion kwh. This is the potential energy of the cavity created which can be gathered by re filling it with the same mass, an estimated 5% of the power of the explosive. So a piece of rock that size would require an explosive  with (5.76 billion kwh/.05) 101.52 billion kwh, roughly converted to 100Mt explosive. The cube of rock absorbs more of the blast energy for each foot it travels above the earth surface as well as a sort of rolling motion along the surface of the earth. 

 

Again, tritium and deuterium and all the other costs don't mean anything, just if the system creates more energy then it requires  is all that matters, the rest is political b.s.

 

My main concerns are moving the experimental stage up to larger explosives through government authority, finding investors, and becoming a landmark use of billions of kwh of fusion fuel converted to kinetic energy in weight, converted to electricity by refilling the cavity created.

[pgrmdave]

Again, tritium and deuterium and all the other costs don't mean anything, just if the system creates more energy then it requires  is all that matters, the rest is political b.s.

It actually matters quite a bit. It's not political bs, it's economics. What matters isn't energy in vs. energy out but costs in vs. profits out. If it takes a billion dollars to build and produces only $100,000 a year in profits that's not good enough - that's a yield of less than 1%. It has to produce a minimum of 3% just to meet inflation.

[trevorjohnson32]

Well like you said before there has never been anyone to need a nuclear explosive for commercial prices, so it's uncertain how much the government would charge. They put billions of dollars into other fusion experiments each year, 

 

This invention actually tires me out. It was the first seven weeks of a work I did that lasted 3 and half more years. I have many other theories in physics and astronomy including explanations for gravity, dimensions, energy, and the subconscious including an invention to detect gravity waves and theories of telepathy. I also have several other inventions in spring mechanics and original ideas for a number of different devices, including a new perpetual motion machine based on weight. I m just waiting for someone with more credibility to give me a break, I ve never tried writing on forums before. haha!

[CraigD]

Reading you reply, Trevor, I caught a factor of 1000 conversion mistake in my previous post, which I’ve fixed.

... Each layer up to the top becomes less and less work to remove ... This is the potential energy of the cavity created which can be gathered by re filling it with the same mass...

I’m now confused about what the machine you’re proposing to build looks like.

 

I thought your idea was to elevate either a solid or liquid projectile – a cannonball, a blast of water, or a precut piece of the earth - into the air, catch it, and lower it back to the ground, using its weight and height to generate electricity.

 

Now I think you’re proposing is to excavate a cavity and refill it, generating electricity using the weight and height difference (from where it starts to the cavity) of the stuff used to refill the cavity.

 

The estimates we’ve been playing with so far are easy, because they assume a typical gun-like behavior of the cannonball/water/piece of earth shooting part of the machine. An excavating scheme, where the piece of earth doesn’t stay in one piece, is much more complicated.

 

Can you clarify? What happens to the 6.4 x 10¹⁰ cubic feet of earth getting removed? What is used to refill the hole?

[trevorjohnson32]

Once the pre cut block of earth is removed it lays on the earth near the cavity created. Any weight can be lowered back down including the piece blasted out, water from a nearby water source, or anything you can imagine. If you were lowering the pre-cut piece back down I suppose you would have to break apart the 6.4 x 10^10 cubic foot piece of earth into a workable load.

[billvon]

I also have several other inventions in spring mechanics and original ideas for a number of different devices, including a new perpetual motion machine based on weight. I m just waiting for someone with more credibility to give me a break . . .

It is unlikely that anyone with any scientific credibility will "give you a break" on a perpetual motion machine.

[NotBrad]

It is unlikely that anyone with any scientific credibility will "give you a break" on a perpetual motion machine.

There is no need for that man, cutting down his ideas which aren't even related to this discussion is kind of mean even if I do agree with you.

[billvon]

There is no need for that man, cutting down his ideas which aren't even related to this discussion is kind of mean even if I do agree with you.

I am not one to encourage someone else to waste their time on foolish ideas.  If he's trying to choose whether or not to pursue his "spring mechanics" or his perpetual motion machine, he will be better off (happier/more successful) if he pursues something that is physically possible.

[NotBrad]

Sure, but whether or not he actually tries these things that people with far more certification and background say are impossible will not be changed by our comments. The fact is that he has already decided that these individuals are wrong subconsciously by speaking about it. We will not change his mind when he is already determined to prove us wrong. And if he does, then he changes the world. Nobody ever accomplished anything by simply accepting that something wasn't possible. If he wants to try I will not pity him for having the creativity and the balls to challenge the way we see the world to change the institution.

Edited December 9, 2015 by NotBrad

[billvon]

Sure, but whether or not he actually tries these things that people with far more certification and background say are impossible will not be changed by our comments.

Then it doesn't matter what we say, and discouraging from pursuing perpetual motion machines is no different than encouraging him.

 

Still, other people read this forum, and we are all better off if people aim their energies at things that are possible.

[NotBrad]

Then it doesn't matter what we say, and discouraging from pursuing perpetual motion machines is no different than encouraging him.

 

Still, other people read this forum, and we are all better off if people aim their energies at things that are possible.

Sure, but I for one believe that it is better to learn from ones own mistakes rather than those made by others. It gives perspective and helps build character and determination.

Edited December 10, 2015 by NotBrad

[pgrmdave]

Sure, but I for one believe that it is better to learn from ones own mistakes rather than those made by others. It gives perspective and helps build character and determination.

It's much, much faster and better to learn from others mistakes.  Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that.  Perpetual motion isn't just "thought to be wrong" but "in violation of basic mathematics".  It's roughly as fruitless as trying to prove that 1 + 0 = 2. 

[billvon]

Sure, but I for one believe that it is better to learn from ones own mistakes rather than those made by others. It gives perspective and helps build character and determination.

It may indeed "build character" but is not a sane way to learn engineering or any of the sciences.