4 ms·

I wondered if they could just use a high pressure water cutter, instead of a TBM machine. This would results in no actual contact with the rock, so no wearing

I wondered if they could just use a high pressure water cutter, instead of a TBM machine. This would results in no actual contact with the rock, so no wearing and tearing of the blades on the TBM. Then, they can build out a robotic arm that will maneuver the water cutter. Then, they can add Artificial Intelligence to the mix. The AI will sense where to cut the rock face at the correct angles, to allow for continuous collection. The rock pieces are carried away by a conveyor belt. And the water is recycled. The human operator just has to sit there and babysit the machine. And if it encounters an edge case, that the robot cannot handle, then he can manually maneuver the robotic arm himself. Something like video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmlUzUl-h5c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmlUzUl-h5c

CapitalistCartr 9y ago
Water jets cut rock with the garnet powder in the stream. [0] Which is not recycled. And they are maintenance intensive. They are great tools, but like most, they are far from pushbutton. [0] https://www.barton.com/waterjet-abrasives/ https://www.barton.com/waterjet-abrasives/
rorykoehler 9y ago
That's amazing tech. Would lasers not be better suited for underground cutting for tunnels?
- static_noise 9y ago
  Lasers would probably need a lot of energy to cut that much material. Can somebody do a quick analysis how much it would probably cost using conventional/water/lasers?
  - larkeith 9y ago
    Do we even have the capacity to create sustained lasers with sufficient energy output to cut through solid rock?
  - Faaak 9y ago
    Actually they would vaporise the material, not cut it. So yeah, a lot of energy needed !
    - louithethrid 9y ago
      In addition you need a lot of fast air exchange to prevent vapor from building up. So the prize of addtional infrastructure is on laser.
white-flame 9y ago
I don't think water jets have much effective range, maybe a few inches tops. Plus, the jet nozzles do take a lot of wear and tear and need replacement. I'd think a typical physical rock muncher would get you more distance bored per day.
anonymfus 9y ago
That would probably work only for hard rock TBMs. Soft rock TBM should support constant pressure to the excavation face.

CapitalistCartr 9y ago

Water jets cut rock with the garnet powder in the stream. [0] Which is not recycled. And they are maintenance intensive. They are great tools, but like most, they are far from pushbutton. [0] https://www.barton.com/waterjet-abrasives/ https://www.barton.com/waterjet-abrasives/

rorykoehler 9y ago

That's amazing tech. Would lasers not be better suited for underground cutting for tunnels?

static_noise 9y ago
Lasers would probably need a lot of energy to cut that much material. Can somebody do a quick analysis how much it would probably cost using conventional/water/lasers?
- larkeith 9y ago
  Do we even have the capacity to create sustained lasers with sufficient energy output to cut through solid rock?
- Faaak 9y ago
  Actually they would vaporise the material, not cut it. So yeah, a lot of energy needed !
  - louithethrid 9y ago
    In addition you need a lot of fast air exchange to prevent vapor from building up. So the prize of addtional infrastructure is on laser.

white-flame 9y ago

I don't think water jets have much effective range, maybe a few inches tops. Plus, the jet nozzles do take a lot of wear and tear and need replacement. I'd think a typical physical rock muncher would get you more distance bored per day.

anonymfus 9y ago

That would probably work only for hard rock TBMs. Soft rock TBM should support constant pressure to the excavation face.