[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

So asking a question in regards to my patent which I'm about to let expire, it was granted in Canada. Anyhoo the idea was if you recall to bury a cannon 500 feet deep, shoot the balls up to the surface into a loop on the ground, take them out and lower them in an elevator. The cons of the system are converting hydrogen fuel, elevator's currently are 60 70% efficient, the pros are for the enviroment. 50% of the energy of an explosion iss converted into blast energy which is further divided into seismic, sound, and weight displacement. None of that hurts the atmosphere. The other 50% is heat that mostle stays deep in the ground. Some hotshot mentioned that the heat would eventually make its way to the surface and into the atmosphere.

So my question is how well known is it that vibrations of the atom is what causes heat? Is it just an effect of heat passing through a substance? Wouldn't some of the energy from the canon to the surface be lost, if not all of it, through mechanical vibrations of the atoms?

[The Spoon]

So asking a question in regards to my patent which I'm about to let expire, it was granted in Canada. Anyhoo the idea was if you recall to bury a cannon 500 feet deep, shoot the balls up to the surface into a loop on the ground, take them out and lower them in an elevator. The cons of the system are converting hydrogen fuel, elevator's currently are 60 70% efficient, the pros are for the enviroment. 50% of the energy of an explosion iss converted into blast energy which is further divided into seismic, sound, and weight displacement. None of that hurts the atmosphere. The other 50% is heat that mostle stays deep in the ground. Some hotshot mentioned that the heat would eventually make its way to the surface and into the atmosphere.

So my question is how well known is it that vibrations of the atom is what causes heat? Is it just an effect of heat passing through a substance? Wouldn't some of the energy from the canon to the surface be lost, if not all of it, through mechanical vibrations of the atoms?

What is the point of your 'patent'?

[Kryptid]

If the atoms are not in thermal equilibrium with their environment, then yes, their vibrations will cause them to lose energy over time.

[Bored chemist]

What do you mean by this?

50% of the energy of an explosion iss converted into blast energy which is further divided into seismic, sound, and weight displacement. None of that hurts the atmosphere.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

What do you mean by this?

50% of the energy of an explosion iss converted into blast energy which is further divided into seismic, sound, and weight displacement. None of that hurts the atmosphere.

Are you just heckling me over semantics again? I don't really care its explanation is easy enough. What are YOU asking me?

[Kryptid]

If I recall correctly, you were talking about using fusion to do this. A fusion powerplant isn't going to be hurting the atmosphere anyway.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

If I recall correctly, you were talking about using fusion to do this. A fusion powerplant isn't going to be hurting the atmosphere anyway.

Ah yes! I totally forgot about lasers.

[Bored chemist]

its explanation is easy enough.

Then explain it.

What are YOU asking me?

I'm asking what you mean by this

50% of the energy of an explosion iss converted into blast energy which is further divided into seismic, sound, and weight displacement. None of that hurts the atmosphere.

In what way can you "hurt" the atmosphere?

But I'd also echo The Spoon's question.

What is the point of your 'patent'?

[Bored chemist]

I totally forgot about lasers.

What lasers?

[Kryptid]

If I recall correctly, you were talking about using fusion to do this. A fusion powerplant isn't going to be hurting the atmosphere anyway.

Ah yes! I totally forgot about lasers.

Lasers? What are you talking about?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

It's my opinion that it doesn't matter so much the greenhouse gasses that are causing a warm up, but rather the way we burn fuels, pouring a could amount of heat straight into the air.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-fusion-60-minutes-2023-01-15/

[Kryptid]

It's my opinion that it doesn't matter so much the greenhouse gasses that are causing a warm up, but rather the way we burn fuels, pouring a could amount of heat straight into the air.

Do you have some math to support that?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

It's my opinion that it doesn't matter so much the greenhouse gasses that are causing a warm up, but rather the way we burn fuels, pouring a could amount of heat straight into the air.

Do you have some math to support that?

its just a theory of pfft....mine I guess that all the heat from 24 hour burning of fossil fuels straight into the atmosphere is causing at least some of the warming. If we absorbed more of the heat with water spray in smokestacks....I guess I'm ahead of evrybody 'gain tho.

[Kryptid]

If you don't have evidence to support it, that would just make it a hypothesis, not a theory.

Also, what would you do with the water in the smoke stacks once it absorbed the heat? Remember, heat can't be destroyed.

[Bored chemist]

It's my opinion that it doesn't matter so much the greenhouse gasses that are causing a warm up, but rather the way we burn fuels, pouring a could amount of heat straight into the air.

Your opinion has been shown to be wrong.

[Bored chemist]

I guess I'm ahead of evrybody 'gain tho.

In what sense have you ever been ahead of everybody?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

If you don't have evidence to support it, that would just make it a hypothesis, not a theory.

Also, what would you do with the water in the smoke stacks once it absorbed the heat? Remember, heat can't be destroyed.

This is why I asked if oscillations of the atom's in the hot water release energy. I guess the question is when you pour boiling water on the ground does 100% of the heat re-enter the atmosphere? or does it dissipate downwards? into the denser cooler earth?

[Bored chemist]

If you don't have evidence to support it, that would just make it a hypothesis, not a theory.

Also, what would you do with the water in the smoke stacks once it absorbed the heat? Remember, heat can't be destroyed.

This is why I asked if oscillations of the atom's in the hot water release energy. I guess the question is when you pour boiling water on the ground does 100% of the heat re-enter the atmosphere? or does it dissipate downwards? into the denser cooler earth?

Do you understand that the deep earth is very hot?
You can't expect heat to soak into it because heat is always coming up from it.
That's why geothermal energy is a thing.

And now, once again.

What do you mean by this?

50% of the energy of an explosion iss converted into blast energy which is further divided into seismic, sound, and weight displacement. None of that hurts the atmosphere.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Do you understand that the deep earth is very hot?
You can't expect heat to soak into it because heat is always coming up from it.
That's why geothermal energy is a thing.

That heat is caused by pressure, not a running tap of energy in the earth somewhere. It's trapped for the most part in the earth.

My explanation of the energy conversion from an explosive i feel is quite obvious. 50% of the energy released is in the form of blast energy. Blast energy is divided into seismic, sound, and weight dissplacement. None of those will hurt the atmosphere. I don't have anything else to add to that statement. Did it conjure up something?