Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Bill

so if a human uses a gasoline engine then his human body is producing more GW gasses and fumes than before he used the gasoline engine , the gasoline engine does not produce as much
GW gasses and fumes as the human body that is using the gasoline engine.

is that what your saying?

so we should kill 75% of the people because they use too many gasoline engines?

what if we just kill 75% of the gasoline engines?

would that be more intelligent , more humane , more smarter?

you wouldnt just happen to be a republican would you?







3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
What is wrong with wood* heaters?--- While it is true that solar heaters are becoming cheaper and easier to acquire I remember a form of wood heater in my grandparents' home. The stove (solid fuel or wood), used by my grandma, along with the coal fires in the rest of the living rooms heated a water tank which pumped hot water for the bathroom and kitchen. Some people took it a step further and sent the hot water through radiators and so enjoyed a form of central heating. Sort of like the ancient romans really. I have no idea how the plumbing worked, but there was always hot water (and very simple tech paul).

Personally I think we will be worrying more about getting the clean potable water that we will need if the overcrowding that is forecast happens. There may not be enough available to heat after all!

*PS. In Australia we are convinced that wood burning is not detrimental to the environment. Something to do with captured carbon. I cannot wholly agree!

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Ellis

Quote:
PS. In Australia we are convinced that wood burning is not detrimental to the environment. Something to do with captured carbon. I cannot wholly agree!


there is nothing wrong with burning wood , it is a great way to
heat your home and your water and turn a steam powered generator to produce electricity if you have a boiler.

its true that burning wood releases CO2 but if allowed to rot
then the wood will release methane.

methane is 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas.

http://www.epa.gov/methane/

we have a lot of landfills that capture methane from the rotting debri in the landfill , and the methane is burned in engines to produce electricity , this type of burning is safe and better for reversing the total of GW gasses in the atmosphere.

burning gasoline and oil on the other hand only adds CO2 to the atmosphere.


P.S.

about the wood heater your grandparents had , that is the type
of thing that you remember , I remember my mother telling me about how she would have to get up and go outside in the middle of the night during the winter to get another log for the pot belly stove they had.

I bet it really felt good laying down in a warm room as you went to sleep.

she said the cold would wake her up.

some people these days are using solar collectors to pre heat water that is fed into a steam powered generator boiler.

the sun raises the water temperature to apx 180 degrees then the boiler raises the water to boiling temperature.

much less wood is needed durring a sunny day.














3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Well, there have been a number of comments since I looked in last night. So:

Ellis: About wood heaters. That is a good idea in some ways, but there are drawbacks.

Originally Posted By: Oklahoma State University
Oklahoma’s forests can provide a sustainable harvest of firewood. Assuming that a homeowner is burning wood as a primary source of heat, about three and a half cords per year will be needed. Considering annual growth and annual consumption, homeowners who rely on wood as a primary source of heat will require about ten and a half acres to sustain their needs.


This is from a paper on the OSU web site. This seems to indicate that we would need over 10 acres of woodland to support one families heating needs. And that is in Eastern Oklahoma. In Western Oklahoma there are not nearly as many trees, you are getting into the plains out there. And of course that only applies to heating, not to cooling and other energy needs. And by the way there is also the problem of cutting all that wood. There is a lot of work involved in wood heating. My brother used to heat with wood. He burned the scraps from his wood shop, so he had a ready source of wood.

Of course wood is a renewable resource. In fact most of the paper we use that people decry so much is grown on tree farms. That means that we keep growing trees to replace the ones that are cut down. So the paper industry is kind of green. The down side is the amount of energy needed to turn trees into paper, and the horrible smell involved. Paper mills stink.

Paul: The use of a gasoline engine produces more pollutants than the person running it. But if the person wasn't there to run it the gasoline engine wouldn't produce any pollutants. And as far as cutting the population is concerned, I said that it is a long term project.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Getting back to my original thought when I started this thread.

We aren't really all that dumb. I don't see any way for us to have gotten where we are by being dumb.

Let's take a little look at the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution precipitated the growth in population that is a large part of the problems we are now having. So I want to take a quick look at that start.

A number of different technologies are credited with kicking off the industrial revolution, but it seems to me that the major enabling technology was the start of the modern iron and steel industry. Without large quantities of iron and steel the infrastructure that supported the other industries could not have been developed in nearly as large a way. Iron and steel enabled the building of the machines that led the way into the modern age.

The modern production of iron began in the late 18th century. One of the things that made it possible was the use of coal to run the furnaces required to refine the metal and make large quantities of good quality iron, and then steel.

I say that when this process first started the engineers and scientists had no way to understand just how much their work would wind up affecting the climate of the world. What they did was to observe how things worked and apply that knowledge to making iron and steel. Without that initial kick we would not be able to even start to think about how to replace coal and other fossil fuels with more sustainable energy sources.

So, no we aren't that dumb. When the industrial revolution started we didn't even know what kind of questions to ask about what the result of a dependence on fossil fuels would be.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
The use of a gasoline engine produces more pollutants than the person running it. But if the person wasn't there to run it the gasoline engine wouldn't produce any pollutants. And as far as cutting the population is concerned, I said that it is a long term project.


allow me to re-word the above you posted.

The use of a gasoline engine produces more pollutants than the person running it. But if the person wasn't there to run it the gasoline engine wouldn't produce any pollutants.
therefore in order to allow the person to reduce the amounts of pollutants he is producing by running a gasoline engine he could instead install a solar power system with a power equivalent to that of the gasoline engine to prevent him from causing pollutants.
this way he could be there and produce the equivalent power
of the gasoline engine without worrying about being euthanized.

And as far as cutting the population is concerned there would be no need to reduce the population , I said that it is a long term project but when you consider the amount of energy put into the production of a gasoline engine and the energy required to constantly provide the engine with gasoline fuel and oil from countries located thousands of miles away from the engine.
vs
the amounts of energy put into the production of an
solar powered system that has a power output equivalent to that of the gasoline engine that requires no further energy consumption through the transportation of energy sources such as gasoline from thousands of miles away to allow the solar power system to function because the solar power system gets its energy source from the sun , which is millions of miles away but is delivered freely by the sun.

its pretty clear that the overall amounts of resource consumption of the gasoline engine is severly higher than the overall amount of resource consumption of the solar power system that has the same power output.

therefore since both of these systems are currently available today any intentional population decreases are not necessary.

as people and industry can switch to solar power systems with ease.

if they could afford it.

when I look at a gasoline engine and compare it to a solar panel I cant see how the solar panel could possibly cost more than the gasoline engine.

so YES WE REALLY ARE THAT DUMB

I can actually provide proof that we really are that dumb.

ie...

for 3 trillion dollars every citizen (est at 300 million)in the United States could get a 10,000.00 solar power system for their home.

this would produce the following economical effects.

1) our economy would increase dramatically.
2) solar power businesses would pop up all over the U.S.
3) every citizen would have the money that they were paying out in electric bills to spend on products and produce and services.
4) all of this spending would cure the governments delima over paying their bills.

this would produce the following effects environmentally

1) citizens of the united states that drive cars or buy products sold in the U.S. produce 45% of the worlds CO2 emissions and with the extra money they have they could buy electric cars to plug into their solar power system this would dramatically reduce that amount of CO2 they produce by driving gasoline cars.

2) the heat and air conditioning systems in their homes would not produce any CO2 emmissions.

then they would not only have the extra money from their electric bill they would also have the money they spend on gasoline each week to fill up their cars and trucks.

which causes them to buy even more products in stores from american manufactures.

its a domino effect.

heres the proof...

we have altready given away 3 trillion dollars to failing buisnesses and as economic incentives but that only increased our debt.

it really did not solve any of our problems.

YES
WE
REALLY
ARE
THAT
DUMB









3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
we put men on the moon.

that means that some of us did things that were pretty smart.

from what I can tell about our smartness is like we are in a boat in the middle of the pacific ocean , we have a set of oars and a plug that is currently plugging up a hole in the bottom of the boat.

our captain of the boat sees another boat that is sinking.
and orders the plug to be given to the other boat so that their boat can remain floating.

we can row to shore if we row fast enough he says to the people of the now sinking USS U.S.A.

we can row this boat really fast and according to the smart people I have hired as advisors we can make it.

a sailor ask him why he didnt just give the other boat an oar or even both oars so that they could row to shore instead of giving them the only thing that is keeping them afloat.

a sinking boat requires more energy to propel it forward as it gains mass in the form of water which is causing it to sink.

stroke , stroke , stroke ... yells the captain the sharks are following us.

this stands true for all nations who have decided to help other nations by employing their citizens as slaves.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Ok Paul, you are right, we are that dumb. After all look at James Watt. He invented a steam engine but didn't stop to think that it would lead to an enormous increase in the use of fossil fuels, and that the increase would lead to global warming. He should of course have thought out all the consequences and gone to work on alternative energy sources instead.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Bill

hero invented the first steam engine that was a reaction turbine.

Quote:
The history of the steam engine stretches back as far as the first century AD; the first recorded rudimentary steam engine being the aeolipile described by Greek mathematician Hero of Alexandria.




Im glad to see that you agree that we really are that dumb
and we really are that dumb.

we prove it every day we exist.

steam engines have been around apx 2000 years.
think of the advances that could have been seen if the steam engine would have been made solar powered , there were attempts at providing engines that do not need fuels to operate but these ideas were rugged due to the fact that they did not require any fuels to operate.

just like a modern steam turbine could easily run off of solar power using mirrors to reflect and concentrate the sunlight onto a heat exchanger to turn water into steam.

the stupid intelligent smart people always use the lame excuse that the sun does not always shine.

but they always seem to forget that while the sun is shining the steam power could store energy in some form for the times that the sun is not shinning.

so that if you require 1 meagwatt a day for your plant.
and the sun shines only 6 hours.
you would need to store 18 hours of energy.

if 1 unit will produce .25 megawatts in 6 hours of the 1 megawatt you require during a 24 hour period its obvious that you would need 4 units.

if the sun doesnt shine enough then you can use the electric companies electricity or install more units to provide backup energy when the sun does not shine.

or your grid could be connected to units in areas where the sun is shining and producing energy.

or you could just install a solar power system that will
produce 3 megawatts in 6 hours for instance.

the stupid intelligent smart people can always find some lame reason why they dont think solar power would work , but they
always seem to exclude ways around the times when the sun is not shining.

but we keep building more and more coal fired and gas turbines to power our amazing technology knowing full well that we are ruining the planet and our ability to survive.


therefore

YES WE REALLY ARE THAT DUMB.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
hero invented the first steam engine that was a reaction turbine.


I believe that I said "James Watt invented a steam engine", not "the steam engine". I think if you compare the advances accomplished with Hero's engine and the advances accomplished with Watt's engine that you will find that Hero's engine was a great novelty, but not very practical. Watt's engine drove the industrial revolution. That's a big difference. And the technology that enabled Watt's engine was not available to Hero. The ancient Greeks did not have the ability to make large quantities of the metals needed for such large projects as a railroad. The development of these technologies was vital to the industrial revolution.

Of course the inventors who developed these technologies just weren't thinking or they wouldn't have done it. They would have waited till there was a way to use renewable energy sources which were not available at that time. Of course I'm not sure how they would have developed the renewable energy sources without the technologies they did develop. Making all the devices you describe requires large quantities of materials that are just not available without the technologies that they did develop.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Since I am being nostalgic about my own family's experience with alternate energy I will point out that my auntie had gas lighting in her house well into the late 50s. (About the time the Beatle's emerged.) And when I came to Australia about 2/3 of Sydney was, to my horror, without sewerage! The so-called nightsoil was collected by the night man who accessed it by going down the little lanes at the back of the houses. I must stress this doesn't happen still!!!!

I think that we are not dumb so much as greedy. We have come so far in 50 years-- what will we have achieved in another 50 if we are encouraged to explore our planet and further.

The dumb thing we do now though is to disregard the need for scientific discovery/research that is not tied to a funded project. We are then discouraging the accidental discoveries, or the results of experiments like Hero's, completed for the delight of it and the pleasure of success. Here in Oz our science faculties are starved of funds and students, while the Law and Commerce depts are overflowing.

This IS dumb!

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Ellis - A lot of our problem is something I mentioned in my first post.

We were not evolved to handle the world we are living in. It is amazing to me that we are handling it as well as we are. We evolved basically as hunter gatherers, such as the aborigines of Australia. This lifestyle calls for a large helping of conservatism. If you have a working hunter/gatherer lifestyle making changes just for the heck of it can wind up killing you. There is however an occasional need for innovation to take care of unexpected problems, so the ability to innovate hasn't been weeded out by evolution. The result is that we are slow to accept changes, even when they are needed. Eventually changes are adopted when it becomes obvious that they are necessary, and when the most conservative people have been replaced.

So in my opinion conservatism and a wait and see attitude have strong evolutionary value, but we need the innovators who will be ready to come up with new ideas to take care of new problems. This is what will get us through our current problems.

Evolution doesn't have an goals and aspirations, but I must say that luck really came out on our side when we evolved to be able to develop so far beyond the basic hunter/gatherer lifestyle that we inherited from our ancestors. After all when we were evolving there was absolutely no reason for us to be able to drive a car, but the abilities that did evolve wound up being just what we need to do it.

Of course innovation doesn't just come up when we are facing problems. Sometimes it is just there because somebody found a different way to do something. It may not be a better way, just different. And all the old folks will say that whoever came up with it should be ashamed of themselves, because the old way worked just fine.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Bill

Quote:
So in my opinion conservatism and a wait and see attitude have strong evolutionary value, but we need the innovators who will be ready to come up with new ideas to take care of new problems. This is what will get us through our current problems.


we already have the cure for our problems , we dont have to
wait.

we just have to implement the cure.

for instance using coal as a energy source.
coal can produce hydrogen...(steam passing/cracking)

burning coal produces GW gasses.
steam cracking coal produces hydrogen.
burning hydrogen does not produce any harmful gasses.

steam can be produced using solar collectors.

1) the economic situation does not change : theres still money to be made from selling coal.

2) coal is a energy storage mechanism.

its things like this that can affect our situation positively
that we already have the capability of doing.

as I have said before in this forum , its not the energy that we use but the way we use that energy.

you say it takes time for us to "evolve" into using new technology , I say it is the profit margin that dictates our
"evolution" to new technology.

not time , reason , intelligence , etc...


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
for instance using coal as a energy source.
coal can produce hydrogen...(steam passing/cracking)

Paul, do you have a quick guesstimate of the costs and timeline to do this on a significant scale? That would include the engineering development, test system, and final large scale construction?

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Originally Posted By: Bill


Evolution doesn't have an goals and aspirations, but I must say that luck really came out on our side when we evolved to be able to develop so far beyond the basic hunter/gatherer lifestyle that we inherited from our ancestors. After all when we were evolving there was absolutely no reason for us to be able to drive a car, but the abilities that did evolve wound up being just what we need to do it.

Bill Gill


I think you have the cart before the horse. It is much more likely that the ability to drive a car is because the machine evolved around humans' natural innate abilities. Evolution makes us what we are; we design our machines to suit our abilities. We do not evolve our abilities to suit our machines.


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II
I think you have the cart before the horse. It is much more likely that the ability to drive a car is because the machine evolved around humans' natural innate abilities. Evolution makes us what we are; we design our machines to suit our abilities. We do not evolve our abilities to suit our machines.


I think that was what I was trying to say. We evolved capabilities that enabled us to develop things that we can use that have no equivalent in the 'natural' world. There is no precedent for this in any lifeforms other than our own. We evolved capabilities that enabled us to live more successfully than many other animals. Then it turned out that the adaptation to survive in the natural world enabled us to change the world so that we could survive even better.

The start of this of course came about 2.5 million years ago when one of our ancestors realized that he/she could make a sharp edge on a stone by chipping it just right. That was the first step toward driving a car, and there was absolutely nothing at the time that could have predicted a car.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Bill

Quote:
quick guesstimate of the costs and timeline to do this on a significant scale? That would include the engineering development, test system, and final large scale construction?


cost : connected to timeline
engineering development : use current coal plants
test system : already tested process
final large scale construction : use current coal plants

there are alot of retired coal plants that could be refitted
and there are many scheduled retirements.

netl
http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf

it would be a refitting of existing proven equipment on a large scale to current coal plants.

heres a summary of the manufacturing / cracking process and the by products produced.

http://www.sbioinformatics.com/design_thesis/Hydrogen/Hydrogen_Methods-2520of-2520Production..pdf

note: the temperatures needed for the processing of the feed material is really high!

this temperature is the major long term cost involved.
normally burning coal is how this temperature is reached.

but heat alone can release the gasses from the feed material.

natural gas , coal, etc...

this heat can come from solar collectors.

there would be no long term cost to provide the heat to raise the temperature of the feed material in the gasification process.

long term cost can easily out weigh initial cost when you use
coal as a feed material to produce the heat needed for the gassification process.

a average 250 MW coal fired power plant produces 1.7 million tons of CO2 per year.

with a new Coal fired power plant comming online every week in china that number is ever increasing , and according to the remainder of chinas citizens still not using electricity there is no forseeable reduction in new power plants in china.

china doesnt build 250 MW plants they build GW plants

take a good close look at the image below.
and think about the 1.7 Million Tons of CO2 produced by
only 250 MW coal fired power plants
165 GW is about right here in the chart below >>>>>>>>>>>______<<<<<<<<

and the chart only shows the U.S. and China


http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.or...al-plants-dead/

we cant say that the money isnt there and we cant say the technology or ability isnt there , we can only say that the
coal is there , so why not use the coal in a way that would not produce pollutions?





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Ah, Paul, can you give me some numbers on that? I am having a problem trying to figure out how an existing coal fired plant could be easily retrofitted to produce hydrogen. Right now they are designed to burn coal to produce steam to turn turbines. It seems to be that there would have to be a massive reconfiguration to use one to produce hydrogen. In fact I doubt you could do it without completely rebuilding the plant. And then you want to build a solar energy gathering system on top of it. I think you are talking about a massive increase in the size of the plant, since it would take many acres of land to hold the solar concentrators.

Please do a cost study of this and get the numbers back to me. Remember, you are trying to sell a concept. To get it across you are going to have to provide a full package showing the design concepts with construction costs and long term maintenance.

Bill Gill


Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Bill

honestly bill , I dont have time to do all of that!

heres a web site that can put you in contact with an contracting engineer or consulting firm who
can answer the specific needs you requested.

http://www.thinkenergygroup.com/think.ns...l%20engineering

I can offer this for now however , the steam boilers that I have seen are over 300 ft tall at the top of the boiler.

when I say the steam boiler , I mean the building that houses the fire box at the bottom and the steam tubes located at the top of the boiler.

a boiler building can be seen in the below image , it is the
tall rectangular shaped building.



I cant see any problem in just simply routing the water from the inlet side of the boiler tubes up to the top of the boiler building where a solar concentrator / furnace could be placed.

the remainder of the buildings and infrastructure of the coal power facility could have the mirrors placed on top of them that direct sunlight to the solar furnace plates.

the below image is of a solar power plant that uses sunlight
to heat and boil water that turns a steam turbine.



its easy to tell the difference between the two types of power plants , one does not have any toxic fumes rising off of it
and the other does.

the amount of land that the coal plant occupies is very large
compared to the amount of land that the solar power plant occupies , but I dont know the wattage of the two plants the solar power plant may be only a few MW.

still the acreage that the pictured coal plant occupies would easily lend itself to solar furnace application.

I really like the way the sun beams reflect onto the solar furnace in the below image.


and the way the delicate particles of toxicity dangle in the skies above the coal plant in the below image.



the two images softly yet boldly telling us that we really are that dumb.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
But Paul, you are the one trying to sell the idea. I'm the one you are trying to sell it to. A salesman doesn't get very far if he tells the customer to go out and figure out how whatever he is selling is going to work. The salesman has to provide all the information that the customer needs.

Obviously you are better at coming up with off-the-wall ideas than at checking to see if they would really work.

So if anybody wants to discuss parts of my original post I will be happy to discuss those. I'm not interested in Paul's improbable suggestions.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5