What consequences could arise from relying on hydrogen power?

In summary, relying on hydrogen power as a primary energy source could have significant consequences. While hydrogen is a clean and renewable resource, its production and storage methods are still relatively expensive and inefficient. Additionally, the widespread adoption of hydrogen power would require significant infrastructure changes and could potentially lead to higher electricity costs for consumers. Furthermore, there are safety concerns surrounding the handling and transportation of hydrogen, as it is a highly flammable gas. Finally, relying too heavily on hydrogen power could also limit innovation and investment in other renewable energy sources. Overall, while hydrogen power has potential, careful consideration and planning are necessary to mitigate potential consequences.
  • #1
SailboatMD
The Dark Side of Hydrogen Power:

As with most solutions, Hydrogen Power made by splitting the elements of water H2O, also creates new problems. Currently there is barely enough fresh drinking water on Earth for our six billion people. Not only third world countries suffer this problem but even San Diego California now has a program called “From the sewer to the sink,” where they reclaim sewer water for drinking.

If all of the energy needs for six billion people are addressed via splitting hydrogen from water, we will have to desalinate the oceans as a means of providing enough fresh water to split. Even more will be desalinated for drinking and agriculture as it will only mean building more and larger desalination plants.

When the hydrogen is burnt and converted into energy you will not get more than a small amount of water vapor (its byproduct) back into the atmosphere and thus our oceans. You do not get one gallon of water back after the energy is sucked out from one gallon of water H2O split and used for the fuel. If our oceans decrease by only a few inches, they will become more salty unless the salt is set aside in world wide landfills. Even so, it is a sure bet that plant and other life in our oceans will die as a direct result of massive desalination for hydrogen based energy.

Drawn to its conclusion, our Earth may look more like the landscape of Mars with empty canals where mighty rivers and oceans once flourished. Far too little concern and therefore money and thus time is spent looking at the adverse consequences of future solutions to our critical energy problems of today.

Perhaps if those who developed oil as an energy source would have also viewed the consequences, they would have viewed other options much sooner. We are wiser now via our experiences with pollution etc yet we do not seem wise enough to view the consequences of our proposed solutions yet.

Any wise future solution will have to be in harmony with our Earth as a whole and thus (with the technology at hand today) would most probably incorporate a variety of natural sources of energy. To totally use anyone energy generation would most likely also have dire consequences.

If the people of the entire Earth used solar panels we would soon find that they would absorb heat that they convert to electricity and the Earth would cool. If we all used windmills we would find that the wind would be diminished and seeds would not be carried as far in the wind as they once were. Our weather and thus climate would change artificially.

If we all used geothermal energy by tapping our Earth's core we would find that our Earth's core would cool. Perhaps when we pump enough oil out we will find the Earth's rotation will begin to wobble if it has not already. It seems that our magnetic poles are even now shifting.

Some negative consequences can be predicted and then there are most always the unknown consequences that must be looked for to be spotted at their first sign of destruction and thus dealt with ASAP before they become critical. Out thinking must change before we poor all of our money and time into a popular solution of the day, that looks good today but will destroy our only Earth and thus us and our children tomorrow.

With our present technology and the lessons of our past mistakes, we should first spend more money looking for better solutions with manageable consequences as well as new technology. To meet our present day needs we can use a combination of sun, wind, and water energy that has almost zero pollution.

By far the most effective and immediate solution is for all of us to create our own energy whenever possible and to consume it wisely. If people as individuals are encouraged to be more self sufficient and conservative, then our world will become more self sufficient as a whole. This will at least buy us, our earth, more time to find the best solutions to our past critical problems.

I live on my sailboat with solar panels for electricity and a desalinator for drinking water while at sea. I ride my electric bike and charge its batteries with my solar panels Vs plugging into the grid. It is a simple and even fun and healthy lifestyle.

If we all shouldered our personal responsibilities to make this a better planet to pass on to our children Vs looking to any government to fix anything and or everything, we all might find that our world's problems and thus solutions start and end with each of us and thus is within our personal power to solve. We should and must demand that our governments press on, find the BEST solutions, and do the right thing but, we must ALL also do our part or we and our very own children will ALL continue to suffer the consequences of OUR bad choices and or selfish apathy.

What Say Ye?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think you have some valid concerns. I have also considered that putting food production in competition with energy, as in the production of fuel from crops, may be a bad idea. But as to your main point, there are many methods being explored for producing H2. Most any source rich in hydrocarbons can be used. Also, it may not be necessary to desalinate the water. For a discussion with many links and references please see this thread.

Note that most links are found on pages 1, 4, 5, and 6:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4127
 
  • #3
You wrote:

"I think you have some valid concerns. I have also considered that putting food production in competition with energy, as in the production of fuel from crops, may be a bad idea. But as to your main point, there are many methods being explored for producing H2. Most any source rich in hydrocarbons can be used. Also, it may not be necessary to desalinate the water."

I agree with your assesment of not using farmland (and the water needed etc) to produce fuel crops but I feel you missed my main point ie: Work the solution backwards. Most solutions create new problems. Let's seek and factor in the negative consequences of any solution first. Solve the problems that the primary solution creates and we can choose the best solution.

PS: Your Pro website here ---CIA,,, thing did not work. No Page...
 
  • #4
Originally posted by SailboatMD
As with most solutions, Hydrogen Power made by splitting the elements of water H2O, also creates new problems.
No one's really proposing that we do this, at least not in the near term.
If all of the energy needs for six billion people are addressed via splitting hydrogen from water
Splitting water does not generate energy. It requires energy. The separated hydrogen and oxygen are then a sort of chemical battery, and, when recombined, liberate the same quantity of energy.
we will have to desalinate the oceans as a means of providing enough fresh water to split.
You don't have to desalinate water to make it easier to electrolyze. In fact, you need some ions in the water anyway for electrolysis.
When the hydrogen is burnt and converted into energy you will not get more than a small amount of water vapor (its byproduct) back into the atmosphere and thus our oceans. You do not get one gallon of water back after the energy is sucked out from one gallon of water H2O split and used for the fuel.
This is just patently and stupidly incorrect. If you electrolyze a pound of water and then burn the resulting hydrogen with oxygen, you get exactly one pound of water back. This is called the conservation of mass.
If our oceans decrease by only a few inches
As I said, this won't happen.
If the people of the entire Earth used solar panels we would soon find that they would absorb heat that they convert to electricity and the Earth would cool.
I see you don't understand the conservation of energy any better than you understand the conservation of mass. The flux received from the Sun is constant. No matter how we use it, the Earth, as a closed system, will always receive the same flux.
Perhaps when we pump enough oil out we will find the Earth's rotation will begin to wobble if it has not already. It seems that our magnetic poles are even now shifting.
Sounds like abject blue-sky speculation to me. I wonder why you crackpots always seem to think trivial things are going to make the planet wobble? This defies all physical understanding. The pole shifts are a normal and continual process that existed long before mankind.
By far the most effective and immediate solution is for all of us to create our own energy whenever possible and to consume it wisely.
As mankind has learned from hundreds of years of industrialization, this is exactly the wrong way to limit pollution and land destruction. Centralization of industrial resources is critical to conservation.
I live on my sailboat with solar panels for electricity and a desalinator for drinking water while at sea.
You need to understand that residential use is TINY compared to corporate use. The people who built your sailboat and made you desalinator are far bigger problems for the environment than you, the end user. The solution to environmental problems is NOT to hound the consumers, whose usage is tiny in the first place.

- Warren
 
  • #5
Warren said:

"This is just patently and stupidly incorrect."

Now, now, now... Again, as I stated above, I am addressing the "solutions create new problems that need new solutions,etc" that should be considered to find the best solutions Vs simply making a comment about Hydrogen. Hydrogen or rather the energy problem is simply what I used to explain that.

Perhaps I should have picked something more simple such as hydroelectric surf cones.

I can not blindly accept as fact that you can split 1 gal of H20, burn it and get 1 gal of H20 back. And if you are only getting the equal energy back out that it took to split it,,, then why bother unless you are only creating a battery / storage unit etc...? I probably have that wrong also. I t happens:-)
 
  • #6
Methinks ye have partaken too much of ye olde tetrahydrocannabinol on your sailboat-home, matey.

When the hydrogen is burnt and converted into energy you will not get more than a small amount of water vapor (its byproduct) back into the atmosphere and thus our oceans. You do not get one gallon of water back after the energy is sucked out from one gallon of water H2O split and used for the fuel.
On the contrary, one molecule of H2O yields two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. When burned, two hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen atom to form one hydrogen molecule. NONE of the hydrogen is converted to energy. Burning simply releases the chemical potential energy that was stored when the water molecule was split. A bigger problem is finding a source of energy with which to release the hydrogen in the first place.

Oh, and I'm not worried that the use of solar panels to generate electricity will cool the earth, either. When the electricity that they generate is used to provide light, or power to run machines, etc., that energy is converted back to heat -- the same heat that the sunlight would have been converted to, had it been allowed to simply strike the Earth to begin with.
 
  • #7
Originally posted by SailboatMD
I can not blindly accept as fact that you can split 1 gal of H20, burn it and get 1 gal of H20 back. And if you are only getting the equal energy back out that it took to split it,,, then why bother unless you are only creating a battery / storage unit etc...? I probably have that wrong also. I t happens:-)
You don't have to blindly accept it. Do an experiment. Let the universe show you.

As far as "why bother?" that's exactly my point. If you electrolyze water from the ocean, only to burn the hydrogen somewhere else in your car or home, then you're really just using the hydrogen (which you store in a tank) and oxygen (which you release the atmosphere) as a battery. You are NOT releasing any kind of energy. It took energy to electrolyze the water, and you get it back when you burn it. No more, no less. What you've described is a BATTERY, not a GENERATOR.

The hydrogen economy helps alleviate several problems:

1) Pollution. Hydrogen combustion produces only water, so having our cars run on it means no more pollution. Cars are by far the largest slice of the pollution pie. As I said, centralization is the key to protecting the environment. Even if we evolve hydrogen from fossil fuels -- which will be the near-term solution -- we can build plants that don't pollute. The economy of scale allows us to amortize the cost of pollution-control equipment for a plant over the millions of consumers that depend on the plant. On the other hand, distributed pollution control is not economical -- we can't afford to put good pollution-control equipment on every car on the road.

2) Efficiency. Hydrogen-based system, including fuel-cells and internal combustion engines, are much more efficient than the gasoline engines we now use. The is better efficiency means less wasted energy.

- Warren
 
  • #8
GNOME, Thanks. Now I get it.

So we get 1 gal of water in the form of vapor everywhere = a new problem... (The H2O came from somewhere to begin with)... and now is all over the Earth in water vapor... Hummm will that create rain forests where there once was hot sand?

As for heat being released when motors run? It is not sunlight and does not have the purifying effects of sunlight etc... See what I mean? It is the question that the solution creates that must be looked into and answered before a nother bad solution is forced upon us...

I am not saying it is a bad solution but it WILL have consequences and I hear nothing from anyone here about that... Hummm.
 
  • #9
Originally posted by SailboatMD
(The H2O came from somewhere to begin with)... and now is all over the Earth in water vapor
OH NOOOOOO! CLOOOOOUDS!

Do the calculations. The amount of water evaporating from the surface of the ocean is WAY WAY WAY larger than the amount of water vapor released by all of mankind's energy consumption in the form of hydrogen combustion.
It is not sunlight and does not have the purifying effects of sunlight etc...
You specifically said the world would get colder. This is false. Now you're talking about 'purifying effects?' What's a 'purifying effect?'
I am not saying it is a bad solution but it WILL have consequences and I hear nothing from anyone here about that... Hummm.
The Earth is much more robust than you give it credit. You are simply an alarmist lacking basic physical understanding.

- Warren
 
  • #10
2) Efficiency. Hydrogen-based system, including fuel-cells and internal combustion engines, are much more efficient than the gasoline engines we now use. The is better efficiency means less wasted energy.

- Warren

Warren,

I agree that we must get away from gas / oil based fuel but consider this. What fuel will we get the hydrogen from? We can make it from LP gas but why expend the energy when we can directly run cars on LP now and they burn cleaner?

I would like to see capacitor batteries perfected and thus 1 amp created = 1 amp stored Vs 2 amps for 1 in current batteries. I would like to see the sun, wind, and hydroelectric sources used to create electricity (the amps)...

What do you think?
 
  • #11
The Earth is much more robust than you give it credit. You are simply an alarmist lacking basic physical understanding.

- Warren

You give me too much credit... Are you kidding? Look at my pic. I am only a chimp but willing to see how you would explain (answer simple questions) to others (students, govt non science types that hold the dollars you want, the general public in a news conferance, etc...)

Life is an experiment but sometimes how we light the fire is as important as the fact that we lit the fire (sometimes more important)...
 
  • #12
Originally posted by SailboatMD
We can make it from LP gas but why expend the energy when we can directly run cars on LP now and they burn cleaner?
Nothing burns cleaner than hydrogen.
I would like to see capacitor batteries perfected
A hydrogen fuel-cell is essentially just such a perfect battery.
I would like to see the sun, wind, and hydroelectric sources used to create electricity (the amps)...
There simply isn't enough energy in these resources. Besides, hydroelectric plants are some of the most environmentally costly projects the world has ever seen.

- Warren
 
  • #13
Hummm will that create rain forests where there once was hot sand?
That might not be such a bad thing, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it, either. Overall, we would expect an increase in rainfall to establish the appropriate equilibrium level of humidity. Locally, in areas where large amounts of hydrogen fuel is being burned, we might expect an increase in humidity. Well, given a choice of carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide vs. humidity, I'll take humidity, thank you.

Oh, and the purifying effects of sunlight? Exactly which purifying effects are lost when the sunlight strikes a photoelectric panel, instead of striking the Earth ten feet below the panel?
 
  • #14
Oh please... I am only a chimp not a GS...

The main point was: Let's fully explore the consequenses (new problems that any such solution will create) and pick the best solution or combination thereof.

Still unanswered: What will be used to make hydrogen? How much and what kind of energy (fuel also and polution thereof) will be used to extract the hydrogen?

Remember, chimps have feelings also... Perhaps not very good brains but some chimps have a lot of money LOL:-}
 
  • #15
Warren said:

"OH NOOOOOO! CLOOOOOUDS!

Do the calculations. The amount of water evaporating from the surface of the ocean is WAY WAY WAY larger than the amount of water vapor released by all of mankind's energy consumption in the form of hydrogen combustion."

OK. Let's see... 10,000,000 people in the LA Ca. area producing say,,, one gallon of water a day released into the air (and that is not much driving per person since hydrogen gets far less distance per gal than gas does... = larger fuel tanks unless we use say "Bucky tubes") = = = 10,000,000 gallons of water vapor (steam, clouds) into the LA air every day... Hummmm...

Acording to you, this is not worth even thinking about and I am way out there...
 
  • #16
Originally posted by SailboatMD
The main point was: Let's fully explore the consequenses (new problems that any such solution will create) and pick the best solution or combination thereof.
Let me get this straight. You think that out of the hundreds of thousands of people employed as power engineers and city planners worldwide, you're the only person who ever had the bright idea to:

FULLY EXPLORE THE CONSEQUENCES AND PICK THE BEST SOLUTION?

- Warren
 
  • #17
Originally posted by SailboatMD
say,,, one gallon of water a day released into the air .
Where did you get this "one gallon a day" figure? Do you have any clue how wrong it is?

- Warren
 
  • #18
GNOME said:

Locally, in areas where large amounts of hydrogen fuel is being burned, we might expect an increase in humidity.

Hummm... 10,000,000 people in LA X 10 gal of water vapor a week = 100,000,000 gals of ?clouds = a lot of rain somewhere, no sun in LA ever again, and pollution sticking to and sitting under the permanate cloud where LA once was.
 
  • #19
Where did you get this "one gallon a day" figure? Do you have any clue how wrong it is?

- Warren

I got it from CHROOT and you people... read the second post here. Also,,, If you do not take Hydrogen from water and return it as water (an equal amount according to CHROOT so I thought) then what resource on Earth will it come from? How much energy will be used = pollution created, and mostly,,, what new problems will arise?

Not one person here can find one thing on the down side of hydrogen... Hummm is everyone employed via the new federal funds for this?
 
  • #20
Originally posted by SailboatMD
I got it from CHROOT and you people... read the second post here.
Well, you certainly need to brush up on those reading skills, because I never said anything about gallons in this thread, ever. Futhermore, the second post in this thread was by Ivan, and had nothing to do with the rate of consumption of a person driving a car.
Hummm is everyone employed via the new federal funds for this?
Yes, we are all members of a giant international hydrogen conspiracy.

- Warren
 
  • #21
originally posted by SailboatMD:
I am way out there...
Well, we can't say you're wrong about everything.


On the other hand, here's another minor error in your thesis:
hydrogen gets far less distance per gal than gas does
Actually, "hydrogen has the highest energy content per unit of weight of any known fuel—52,000 British Thermal Units (Btu) per pound (LHV)" (source: US Dept. of Energy) compared to less than 20,000 Btu per pound of gasoline.

It's not really meaningful to speak of miles per gallon of hydrogen, miles per pound makes more sense. And no, Bucky tubes would probably not be the preferred storage medium. But how about pressurized tanks? I know, now you're going to raise the specter of widespread hydrogen explosions. (Gasoline is just as explosive -- maybe more so, since in normal handling gasoline vapor is more frequently released into the air than hydrogen would be.)
 
  • #22
So let's do the math, shall we Sailboat? Before shooting our mouths off?

An average passenger car can get by on about 10 horsepower while under way at normal highway speeds. This is 7,460 watts, or about 7,460 joules of energy expended per second.

In a normal commute, say 15 minutes each way, the driver will use about 7,460 J/s * 60 s/min * 30 min = 13.4 million joules of energy.

The heat of combustion of hydrogen and oxygen is 0.1419372 billion joules per kilogram at 60 degrees Farenheit. This means it takes about a tenth of a kilogram of hydrogen to fuel the person's daily commute.

Basic stoichiometry says that it takes 16 times this mass in oxygen, so the total mass of water liberated as vapor for the commute is 17 times this, or about 1.7 kilograms per day of water released to the atmosphere.

By contrast, looking at NOAA figures, approximately 425 trillion cubic meters of water evaporate from the oceans every year. A cubic meter of water weighs a thousand kilograms. This means that 425 x 10^15 (425 million billion) kilograms of water evaporate from the ocean every year.

If 10,000,000 Los Angeles residents do their commute 365 days a year, they will be contributing about 6.2 billion kilograms of water vapor annually.

Thus the LA residents contribute approximately 0.0000046% as much water vapor to the atmosphere as does our good ol' friend the ocean.

So stop whining.

- Warren
 
  • #23
Warren,

You are funny:-) OK... Someone said something like - if you split a gal of water and burn it you get a gal of water back,,, ... Whatever... So, how many gallons of water, vapor or whatever will 10,000,000 people create per day if only their cars use hydrogen?

More importantly, what will the effects most likely be as a direct and indirect result of doing this? Everyone here is 100% pro Hydrogen but no one answers the real questions beyound touting hydrogen as the greatest thing since bread and butter...
 
  • #24
Originally posted by SailboatMD
More importantly, what will the effects most likely be as a direct and indirect result of doing this? Everyone here is 100% pro Hydrogen but no one answers the real questions beyound touting hydrogen as the greatest thing since bread and butter...
What real questions? In the near term hydrogen will just be used as a storage medium. Energy generation will be largely the same as before, but you'll be filling up with hydrogen instead of gasoline. What will the environment effects be? Cleaner air, cleaner soil, and cleaner water. There is no downside environmentally. There is no disadvantage. There may well be disadvantages economically, but such disadvantages are expected when adopting a new medium for energy transport, and can largely be mitigated with proper legislation.

- Warren
 
  • #25
Warren said:

What real questions? In the near term hydrogen will just be used as a storage medium.

Are we so far away from using H that nobody knows how it will be produced? How much pollution said production will produce? It may be more than the pollution it replaces. Also, no one has any idea (or comments) about any possible negative effects if everyone on Earth is using H and exhusting massive amounts of water vapor into the air. Most importantly, no one has offer other solutions much less any negative effects that other solutions may cause to be used to compair them with H and or any combination thereof...

You all have posted great stuff but it is totally void of the cause and effect part of your solution. = Those questions...and thanks for asking as I really am interested in your answers. Please address those questions if possible. Offer your insight please.
 
  • #26
PS: I was locked off the board so I had to re register under my other screen name and had no problem getting back in Hummm...
 
  • #27
Originally posted by SailingMD
Are we so far away from using H that nobody knows how it will be produced?
In the near term, it'll be reformed from fossil fuels. It'll come from the same plants that currently make gasoline.
How much pollution said production will produce?
Less than is produced now. Due to higher end-user efficiencies, fewer original resources (fossil fuels, for example) will be required. In addition, please realize that the VAST majority of pollution comes out of automotive tailpipes, not factories. Hydrogen-powered vehicles will thus drive the overall pollution figures down. I have explained all this to you now several times. Are you just too stupid to understand it? I also should comment on the epidemic of rotting and leaking underground storage tanks. Gasoline and other petrochemicals leak into the groundwater from filling stations all over the country, leading to immense environmental damage to the groundwater and soil. Many cities are plagued with such problems. Spilled hydrogen gas, on the other hand, rather quickly escapes the planet.
Also, no one has any idea (or comments) about any possible negative effects if everyone on Earth is using H and exhusting massive amounts of water vapor into the air.
I just posted a thorough analysis of exactly how much difference this would make, in comparison to evaporation from the oceans. Are you just too stupid to understand the post?
Most importantly, no one has offer other solutions much less any negative effects that other solutions may cause to be used to compair them with H and or any combination thereof...
Hydrogen is not an energy generation mechanism. It's an energy storage mechanism. It's much more efficient and much cleaner than gasoline and other fuels. It is better in every way. There is no downside to using it. I've answered these questions already. Are you just too stupid to understand those answers?

- Warren
 
  • #28
Warren wrote:

Thus the LA residents contribute approximately 0.0000046% as much water vapor to the atmosphere as does our good ol' friend the ocean.

So stop whining.

- Warren

Thanks! Now I understand totally. I guess it was just the language barrier LOL. Well, that answers the all wet question. Storage is a problem because it takes more staorge room to get the same bang as with gas (so I have been told)...

I am still sold on developing better solar cells and capacitor batteries for storage but using what is there now. I want to incorporate solar into the hull of a sailboat with an electric motor (thus it can be operated totally by remote with ease [wear a waterproof watch type remote) even if you fall overboard).

I think that capacator batteries can be made whereas 1 CB = 10 Leadacid batteries in size, wieght, and amp hours and they will charge up 95% faster with almost zero loss. I may have a LP gas generator as a back up (hybread) for emergencies as well as a kicker engine... Can't have too many back ups out in the ocean...

The information you have given me is very usefull and I thank you greatly for it. I still know that there are negative consequences to almost everything and that is what we must look for when solving problems for the next 50 or 100 years.
 
  • #29
Are you just too stupid to understand those answers?

- Warren

Boy, Warren, lighten up. I was too busy thanking you for your time and explaining this to me in my last post when your last post fired onto the board...

Yes I get it totally... Thank you again... In the mid 1970s I designed ECMs (enviromental control modules = better and self contained housing, biosphere type stuff etc... they even filter the air = you breath clean air and exhust clean air) and other stuff with the technology back then (quite the same as we have today)...

The media covered it but here we still are today... Still looking for and working on the answers. I like being self supporting ( electric and water etc) and feel it does help.

To answer your question Warren, yes, we are all stupid when it comes to the things we do not YET understand but very smart in the things we do understand (if we are talking to someone of lesser understanding). That is why this board is so great... Even young kids can put their ideas and questions here and be addressed with understanding and care...

All of us are born stupid and then we learn some small thing by standing upon the shoulders of others and then we become very smart... so some would say...
 
  • #30
Damn, how did I miss this thread?

Sorry I didn't read all of it, but SailingMD, you're pretty much completely wrong in everything scientific I saw you post. And ask Ivan Seeking - I'm not all that pro-hydrogen. It isn't a solution to our power needs, you're just completely wrong on the why.

Also, you're new so you haven't seen Warren before - that's just the way he is. He has a low tolerance for people who are wrong and won't listen to correct information. He's crass but he's usually right. He's right in this case.
 
  • #31
Originally posted by SailingMD
All of us are born stupid and then we learn some small thing by standing upon the shoulders of others and then we become very smart... so some would say...
There is an important difference between ignorance (not knowing) and stupidity (not being able to accommodate new information).
 
  • #32
Zoo wrote:

There is an important difference between ignorance (not knowing) and stupidity (not being able to accommodate new information).

Some people ask 5 questions and some ask 10 or more. Some ask none but none are stupid (perhaps) but those that think they know everything or know something about something, or everything about something yet lack the people skills to make any reasonable human being care what they do or do not know.

If they invent something we reward them with a fist full of dollars and a piece of paper and or a pin or medal but we never give them respect if they are seen as being full of self and if they do not treat others like they want to be treated. On the other hand, we can tolorate the stupid that were born that way Vs one who chooses to treat others as being benieth them.

To each their own but I admit I am very good at some things and very bad at others... I guess I am only human too...

Lighten up and chuckle. Remember, every word everyone writes on the new might follow them forever,,, even when you are famous and or rich... You may be Pres someday...:-)
 
  • #33
Originally posted by SailboatMD Some ask none but none are stupid (perhaps) but those that think they know everything or know something about something, or everything about something yet lack the people skills to make any reasonable human being care what they do or do not know.
I wouldn't call these people stupid. In this politically correct age we might best refer to them as "Socially Challenged".

So, what, you charge batteries up with the solar panels during the day and run your computor off an inverter at night? Wireless laptop?
 
  • #34
Zoo wrote:

"So, what, you charge batteries up with the solar panels during the day"

Zoo,

I am only a chimp but your negative and non productive has boored even me (very hard to do too)... You have no point and worst, nothing positive or constructive to add to anything of concern to me ,,, a mear chimp so thus I will simply take a nap and remember when the MK board had so much more to offer (like a year or so ago)...

Although I found the information great here when I posted this and my querries I also sadly found the aditude very lacking and thus the intent of this board may have been lost for now. That is very sad considering the limited bandwith here at present.

MK is a real cool guy and I love hearing him speak as well as on the radio but I do wish he could come up with a better defination of gravity LOL:-) Then others could create devices to offset the effects of said force.

Ta ta Zoo... and all other abrasive posters. I wish all of you well in the future and I hope you all learn something other than how great "I AM" ( that means YOU ARE). Without proper communication you can never sell the greatest invention to the stupidest person on Earth and if by chance you do,,, they will never respect you and thus will never give you your due for you have not grown into a human being yet.

Please learn and grow or you and the children of the world ( your own children) will surlly suffer even unto death...

Think please think. bye
 
  • #35
Originally posted by SailboatMD
remember when the MK board had so much more to offer (like a year or so ago)...
Oh, so THAT's why you're here, you're one of the Michio Kookoos. You remember when the Kaku forum didn't actually have so much reality and science mixed in.
Then others could create devices to offset the effects of said force [gravity].
Um. Right. Anti-gravity machines. I should have seen this coming with this thread...
Without proper communication you can never sell the greatest invention to the stupidest person on earth
Actually, all historical evidence is that the greatest inventions (electricity and automobiles, for examples) sell themselves quite well. Consumers continue to use the inventions even when the sellers (utility companies and car salesmen) generally piss everyone off.
and if by chance you do,,, they will never respect you and thus will never give you your due for you have not grown into a human being yet.
Humm.. and I always thought businesses were out to make money. I'm sure Bill Gates lies awake at night in his $10,000 sheets worrying about how many people respect him.

- Warren
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
860
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • Quantum Physics
4
Replies
115
Views
6K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Earth Sciences
2
Replies
64
Views
6K
Back
Top